Can any digital camera take shots that don't need post shot processing?

[Deleted User]

Hehe, this link? http://picasaweb.google.com/kirwilliam/LastDayOfSummerInLondon

I doubt any of those photos would have the impact I wanted without some post-processing. Not a giant amount, but enough to give them some punch.

Try using a remote controller infront of a webcam

edit: apparently, you can use a visible-light filter and an external flash-gun to make a homemade IR flashgun! I might try that this weekend I've tried a 1970s Olypus flashgun on my camera and it worked.. bet i can buy a cheap one from somewhere

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Z92UjOE93SIC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=infrared+flash+gun&source=web&ots=fejBzzhSXt&sig=Gt1KzuiomgLNacvQhvUlIuF4V7M&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA128,M1

superscaper

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Try using a remote controller infront of a webcam

I guess pretty much any device with a CCD picks up infra red. Although I wonder if photos would actually improve by putting an infra red filter over the lens. As it must affect existing photos (even if a small amount) if it's picking it up and making it visible.

[Deleted User]

Maybe.. i have a UV filter on my camera already as it's supposed to reduce damage to the lens

Found some interesting links on this:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Infrared-photography-using-a-digital-camera
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/infraredwebcam.htm

edit2: just found out that the Hoya 67mm IR filter costs 34 quid - boo! http://www.purelygadgets.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=3255&wysiwyg=10

superscaper

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Maybe.. i have a UV filter on my camera already as it's supposed to reduce damage to the lens

At the end of the day a camera is NOT a human eye so I suppose we shouldn't necessarily put too much effort into trying to make it one.

The human eye by the way can see UV as well but the cornea filters it out. People with replacement artificial corneas in the early days could actually SEE UV light. How cool is that!

[Deleted User]

Damn these SLRs.. this is going to be an expensive hobby

superscaper

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Damn these SLRs.. this is going to be an expensive hobby

That's one reason I've deliberately not gone into "photography" hobbywise. It's bad enough trying to save up to upgrade my PC.

[Deleted User]

I only got into because I bought a bargain SLR - Panasonic L10 for £300. It normally costs a lot more than that

superscaper

ringo_24601 wrote: »

I only got into because I bought a bargain SLR - Panasonic L10 for £300. It normally costs a lot more than that

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I think you've proven my point (£300 for a bargain).

:beer:

I'm happy with my compact Panasonic DMC FX50 for the time being.

chickmug

ringo_24601 wrote: »

It would be funny to find out that your monitor is calibrated incorrectly

No it is calibrated. Even used my pro photgrapher friends hardware device.

[Deleted User]

Well.. ok, my wife bought it me on honeymoon. Compared to what I spent on her, it's a bargain

My PC only cost £280 It's all about priorities