On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Lawrence LeMay wrote: I'd put a nice white cloth as a background, draped from the floor to the ceiling (or high enough to stretch beyond the frame). Also, put a white cloth on the floor. Use this for darker pieces. For lighter pieces I'd use a darker cloth for contrast. Of course I'm not a real photographer so I'm just drawing from common sense. If I were you I'd invest in a good digital camera though. I use an Olympus D-220L and its fab. The pictures it takes are excellent. Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Always being hassled by the man. Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0 See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details! [Last web site update: 01/15/99]

At 10:07 PM 1/28/99 -0600, you wrote: Well... from my perspective: Medium speed film if you have the light, altho I'll admit that I use ASA400 a lot when I'm shooting equipment so I have more latitude on depth of field. A couple of halogen work lights are adaquate for lighting most sessions, unless you have something like a NeXT cube. (all black!) Backgrounds to taste, as long as you don't use reflective lighting. Those familiar with my web pages may note that I'm somewhat fond of blue for backgrounds. Putting things in the flat-bed scanner does not work well... (for me at least) The shadows created as the carriage scans, along with the short focus most scanners have tends to cause odd artifacts in the images. Better to shoot to print or slide and go from there. I've also tried video captures on occasion... I'll leave it as an exercise for the viewer to figure out which images came from that source. B^} -jim --- jimw(a)agora.rdrop.com The Computer Garage - http://www.rdrop.com/~jimw Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174

I have variable (mostly good) luck with ASA 400 Kodak (Fuji too green) in a Minolta X700 in manual mode, with a 28 - 210 variable lens. I find, unless the subject is brightly sun-lit, that a tripod is indeed one's friend. The 'timer' feature is good in low light situations with the tripod... you can compose and trip the shutter with no vibration whatsoever. I sometimes shoot down an f-stop or two to get good depth-of-field in low light. I use several (4-8) 100W spots and floods made for track lighting, in cheap scissors-clamp-type reflector fixtures. If possible, I use the docs and maybe a large printset for the backround... or as Sam suggested... a colored towell or sheet, contrasting the device, does fine. Towels are nice because of the texture. I have them developed commercially and scan the prints, then I can massage them as necessary. Undistorted close-ups of boxy, angular subjects is problematic without having a camera with an adjustable back, swings, and tilts. (A large portrait camera). I have used the macro settings of my lens at times to get a real close-up. I am circling around buying a digital still camera... but none of them under USD$3000 really crank my tractor yet. If I had to buy tomorrow, for me it would be the Kodak DC260. YMMV. This is, to me, a very on-topic topic. There are many systems now, I am sure, whose legacy is reduced to photos and descriptions. I take pix of *everything*, even the 'common' or 'less-desirable' stuff. I have a roll due back tomorrow with the new shots of the Prime 2550 and the resulting re-laying out of my own little pile of stuff... as it slowly conquers the rest of the livingroom and heads for what used to be the garage. Cheerz John PS: SoCal TRW Swapmeet vintage collectors meeting: Sat the 30th!