Take a look at the Canon A630 - although it has a shorter zoom range (4x vs. 12x), you don't need that for web pictures of jewelery. It has a 1cm macro focus, and is smaller & lighter than the S2. Besides, the closest focus only works at the wide end. You should be able to find the A630 for under $200. You didn't mention this, but hopefully you're considering fixed external light sources and not counting on the built-in flash.



Mark..

Website pictures are usually 1024 x 768 for speed and that's a large sized one. So I can't help thinking of 8 mp is overkill: you'll get nice pictures out of it for the wall but re-sizing will waste a lot of pixels. So I'd say that purely for a website the camera is far too big. OTOH, it will be great the rest of the time..

A lot of very elderly 2 mp (and far smaller) cameras are still in use turning out great website pictures..

Regards, David..

Also, you can speed up the load time of the images by resizing the dpi. If the intent is to only view on a computer monitor, you can resize down to nearly 75 dpi and it will look sharp on screen. If you try and print the same file, it will look awful, but by resampling the pixels, the image will load faster and look just the same at it's intended viewing size. For example, I usually use photos from my Canon 10D and by the time I have resized them to maybe 900x600 pixels and dropped dpi to 75, the total file size is around 100k. Much faster load time but looks just fine.Lyle Collins.

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/lyleuga..

LyleUGA wrote:.

Also, you can speed up the load time of the images by resizing thedpi. If the intent is to only view on a computer monitor, you canresize down to nearly 75 dpi and it will look sharp on screen. Ifyou try and print the same file, it will look awful, but byresampling the pixels, the image will load faster and look just thesame at it's intended viewing size. For example, I usually usephotos from my Canon 10D and by the time I have resized them tomaybe 900x600 pixels and dropped dpi to 75, the total file size isaround 100k. Much faster load time but looks just fine.Lyle Collins.

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/lyleuga.

Resizing to 75dpi is absolutely meaningless for web display:.

Http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html.

To the previous reply, I mentioned the A630 because it's still available, relatively inexpensive, and by all accounts has pretty good image quaity. Of course 8mp is too much for web display, but the camera can be set for lower mp settings...

Actually web site pictures should be less than half that size for speed. I recommend no larger than 500 pixels long dimension or scrolling will be required. I assume that the jewelry is for sale and you want to keep it as simple as possible..

What you should look for in a camera is macro range, preferrably at the long end of the zoom. And the ability to tweak the exposure and white balance manually..

I have reviews of a few products that can help you with lighting:http://www.bermangraphics.com/.../digital-jury-resources/digital-lighting.htm.

Especially useful for jewelry is the Cloud Dome. If you decide to order it, make sure to specify what kind of camera you'll be using it with because they have brackets for DSLRs or point and shoot type cameras..

If color is important, your files need to be in the sRGB color space in the web..

If you have any additional questions, you can contact me off list. I work with artists helping them get accurate color of their artwork or products for submission to art shows and state arts grants..

David Hughes wrote:.

Website pictures are usually 1024 x 768 for speed.

Larry Bermanhttp://BermanGraphics.com..

Each of the posters gave you good suggestions. To summarize and add a few tidbits:.

1. Buy an old camera with good macro ability, 2-4 MP, &. custom white ballance (WB)..

[a big sensor is MUCH more inportant then MP. A good lens is VERY important.].

2. Use external lighting, not the camera flash. Use a diffuser to make the light "soft".3. Then downsize these pix to something like 400-600 pixels..

4. Save them as JPEG files of moderate quality, usually about 50%..

5. Ignore the DPI setting as it controls nothing..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1CATS #25PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htmHomePage: http://www.1derful.info'I brake for pixels...'..

Hey, thanks for the correction to my DPI. I learn something new everyday. I had been told to lower the dpi to reduce file size, but I was totally mistaken. I went through a frustration period at one time when I couldn't understand why I was getting bad prints off my personal photo printer, then finally realized that Photoshop was resizing to 75 dpi. That was at the beginning of my photoshop days, but I sure was frustrated trying to figure out why I was getting blurry prints..

So, thanks for correcting me in that the dpi doesn't affect the file size or anything for web use, but it is very important for printing purposes.Lyle Collins.

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/lyleuga..

LyleUGA wrote:.

Hey, thanks for the correction to my DPI..

You are welcome. I mostly didn't want a "beginner" to go away believing that DPI did something..

So, thanks for correcting me in that the dpi doesn't affect thefile size or anything for web use, but it is very important forprinting purposes..

Yes and no. When you print locally, to a printer attached to your PC, DPI is ignored. When you send your file out to SOME commercial printers, they may use DPI and vary the printed size..

Digital cameras insert some default DPI data in EXIF areas of JPEG files. This data seems to vary from 72 to 300. Those pix will print identically with every PC application I have seen..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1CATS #25PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htmHomePage: http://www.1derful.info'I brake for pixels...'..

I must disagree, the DPI was completely messing up my prints off of my personal computer going to my personal printer. This was happening 3 years ago off of Photoshop CS going to my Canon S520. I didn't realize that PS was resampling it to 72dpi and I kept getting blurry prints from my printer. Finally, when I realized it, set the dpi to 300 and the printer was back to printing as it had been off of my brother's computer during college.Lyle Collins.

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/lyleuga..

As a buddy of mine just mentioned,.

Try it. Create a 300x300 pixel image. Set the DPI to 300 (making sure the dimensions stay at 300x300). Print it, and you'll get a 1" square. Chage the resolution to 100 dpi (keeping 300x300 pixels) and you'll get a 3" square.Lyle Collins.

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/lyleuga..

LyleUGA wrote:.

As a buddy of mine just mentioned,Try it. Create a 300x300 pixel image. Set the DPI to 300 (makingsure the dimensions stay at 300x300). Print it, and you'll get a1" square. Chage the resolution to 100 dpi (keeping 300x300pixels) and you'll get a 3" square..

I think we're both right...sorta..

Your problem is that you are not paying attention to what PS is doing. It ALLOWS you to control the process associated with changing the DPI. Adobe is not sure what you want the results to be, so they give you control of the process. For example, there is a button labeled "Resample Image" and an associated list of resampling algorithms. If you don't want to change the actual image, you should un-check this control!.

Also, when you are printing from PS, there are controls to allow you to print at virtually any size. You have control of the size!.

My point was that changing ONLY the DPI setting in the EXIF does NOTHING. Go back and notice that the original context was re different CAMERAS having different default choices for DPI! I didn't say that if you changed it WITH Photoshop and failed to tell PS not to mess with the picture, that nothing would change..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1CATS #25PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htmHomePage: http://www.1derful.info'I brake for pixels...'..

Julie,.

My first consideration for purchasing a camera would be are you planning on using it for anything other than web pictures of jewelry? Would you take this same camera on vacation, use it at a party or family event, etc.? If so, then you will not want to limit yourself with an inexpensive web-only resolution camera, and might want to choose something that with the appropriate combination of features that will allow you to use it for an all-in-one camear. The Canon S2, S3, or S5 is definitely one such camera..

When taking close-up (macro) pictures of things like jewelry, you may want to consider that with the right camera you will not need to be close to the object you're photographing. There are cameras available with very good macro features, but those cameras typically will not have a long zoom range so they won't be much good for anything but wideangle and/or macro photography (ie, they'd be relatively useless at a soccer game). With a camera like the Canon S2/S3/S5, you could be 3-4 feet away from your jewelry subject and then simply zoom in to take the picture. Using this method, you could also use the onboard flash because you would not be so close to the subject as you would using a camera in macro mode..

I am a pretty active eBay seller (nothing like a business, but I do frequently resell a lot of my own stuff there), and I know that my customers appreciate a larger image that allows them to zoom in and really get a good idea of what they're purchasing. I imagine it would be even more of a requirement for jewelry. Don't skimp on your photo resolution. 640x480 isn't going to cut it anymore when there are plenty of online stores out there with better quality images and nice zoom features. I would use 1024x768 as an absolute minimum image size, and then I would find a good zooming applet or script to display the image on your website (or auction), allowing the customer to easily zoom in and out to inspect the item in high resolution. The image may be small on your original website display, but it needs to be high resolution to allow for zooming and still maintaining quality..

I think the Canon S2 would be a good choice for you. If you can find one still (since the S3 has been out for a while), it will likely be significantly reduced in price..

Chris.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Effzeeone wrote:.

Julie,.

My first consideration for purchasing a camera would be are youplanning on using it for anything other than web pictures ofjewelry? Would you take this same camera on vacation, use it at aparty or family event, etc.? If so, then you will not want tolimit yourself with an inexpensive web-only resolution camera, andmight want to choose something that with the appropriatecombination of features that will allow you to use it for anall-in-one camear. The Canon S2, S3, or S5 is definitely one suchcamera..

When taking close-up (macro) pictures of things like jewelry, youmay want to consider that with the right camera you will not needto be close to the object you're photographing. There are camerasavailable with very good macro features, but those camerastypically will not have a long zoom range so they won't be muchgood for anything but wideangle and/or macro photography (ie,they'd be relatively useless at a soccer game). With a camera likethe Canon S2/S3/S5, you could be 3-4 feet away from your jewelrysubject and then simply zoom in to take the picture. Using thismethod, you could also use the onboard flash because you would notbe so close to the subject as you would using a camera in macromode..

Keep in mind, the closest focus range is going to be at the widest angle on the S2/S3. This may not be so good if the jewelery being photographed is very small. Having the S2 myself, I can tell you first hand the close focus is not great at anything other than the widest angle..

Mark..