Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

Camera resolution for photobucket

QUITCRABQUITCRAB Posts: 1,017 ✭✭✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum
I am thinking about photographing my cards and uploading them to photobucket so I can share my collection with others.

At what resolution or camera setting should I use so the cards look good but not overkill?
JPEG or RAW?
Also how many images can I host on photbucket?

I have about 220 items to photograph and I have about 50 cards on photobucket now...The cards that are on photobucket now I scannned in over the last couple years...I dont want to scan because it is slow..I have a SLR nikon camera that is fast and easy to use..I am going to set up a tripod/lighting/ect....

Thanks for any help or suggestions

Comments

  • leathtechleathtech Posts: 3,191 ✭
    take the pictures on the lowest setting... there is no reason to shoot the cards in RAW unless you want to spend a few hours in photoshop! The larger the file size the less pictures you'll be able to upload to a free photobucket account.

    I really think scans are your best bet - I know it's slow going but do it in chunks when you have a free hour here and there.
    image
  • Adenhart34Adenhart34 Posts: 90
    If your scanner has the option to change the size of the scan, set it to one of the lowest and then look at the quality. My scanner will scan photos and give me a huge file if I want it to, which would defeat the purpose of using the scanner if I kept it like that. No matter how you do it, make sure you are OK with the quality if the settings are on low.


    Rick
    Buying or trading for Cubs, Angels autos and anything related to Nick Adenhart! ****RIP NA 34****
  • TabeTabe Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Even with an excellent camera, the results you get from using photos vs using a scan will not be close. Scans are far superior for the task you're asking about.

    I would recommend scanning multiple cards at once and then using photo-editing software to divide up the resulting image into individual cards. Some scanners will even do that automatically - they can sense multiple objects and scan each individually.

    Tabe
  • MeteoriteGuyMeteoriteGuy Posts: 7,140 ✭✭
    I imagine everyone is different. I typically use a medium to high camera setting, so that it makes about a 2 mb photo and use photo software to edit the image edges and then I optimize the photos down to whatever number it hits under 100 kb...so usally like 97 kb. The size depends on the item, a PSA card, I usually go 600 high. Depending on the item I may adjust these numbers.

    5-7 years ago, I used 50 kb and would pretty much never go beyond 600.

    So I guess what I am saying is your photo software is more key then your camera resolution. You should almost never post unedited photos on the net.
    Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards.
    Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
  • MeteoriteGuyMeteoriteGuy Posts: 7,140 ✭✭


    << <i>Even with an excellent camera, the results you get from using photos vs using a scan will not be close. Scans are far superior for the task you're asking about.

    I would recommend scanning multiple cards at once and then using photo-editing software to divide up the resulting image into individual cards. Some scanners will even do that automatically - they can sense multiple objects and scan each individually.

    Tabe >>



    A scanner is by far the easiest with cards and will get the best results for 98%. however, if you have a good camera and some camera skills you can take a much more detailed photo....this can be good and bad as some photos will seem to highlight flaws that a scanner will hide.
    Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards.
    Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Sign In or Register to comment.