Good luck, Bob!

--
| Extending Knowledge, Daily
| [url]http://www.communityMX.com/[/url]

| Jim Babbage
| Creative Partner
| Newmedia Services
| * Web Design * Photography * Training * Consulting *
| [url]http://www.nms123.ca[/url]
| [email]jbabbage@nms123.ca[/email]
"Bob Boisvert" <webdad@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bdpc6s$f64$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Well guys,
>
> I'm using a simple Kodak DC200 digital camera and I think your right, it
is
> not the camera to do the job being a 1 mega pixel camera with virtually no
> focus.
>
> As far as the client hiring a pro, he already has about a thousand bucks
> worth of camera and lighting he said I could use anytime so I think I
might
> have to do that. He's got a small budget and I've been able to stay within
> that with the designs.
>
> Thanks for the help,
>
> Bob
>
>
> "Bob Boisvert" <webdad@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:bdktvn$304$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm doing numerous product sites for a client and his product line. I'm
> > taking the pictures and basically getting rid of the background which is
a
> > white/gray because of the lighting and flash (what do you want, I'm not
a
> > photo studio.)
> >
> > Anyway, the client wants me to try and get a better quality picture.
What
> > I've been doing isn't to bad but I guess could be better.
> >
> > My question is what can I do to the image to preserve the way it
actually
> > looks after I have removed the background? Would using a higher
> resolution
> > help, better lighting. This maybe hard to grasp without an image to see
> what
> > I mean but I didn't want to post it for fear of my message getting
> confused
> > for promotion. I will gladly furnish a sample of the images before and
> > after.
> >
> > One thing I need to mention also is the image is optimized and
> dimensionally
> > reduced after the background is removed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bob
> >
> >
>
>