Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LCD in sunlight

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 11:04:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In desperation today I grabbed a kitchen roll to view the LCD screen on
my Coolpix 995, and was surprised at how effective it was. Just the
right length, nice and soft at both ends, and I could wander about with
it pressed against my eye quite comfortably with both hands free.
Fortunately, no one saw this spectacle:-)

As a newcomer to all this I'm sure others have devised better
solutions, which I hope they will now reveal to me......

More about : lcd sunlight

Anonymous
June 13, 2005 11:56:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 13 Jun 2005 07:04:32 -0700, stuart_noble@ntlworld.com wrote:

>
>In desperation today I grabbed a kitchen roll to view the LCD screen on
>my Coolpix 995, and was surprised at how effective it was. Just the
>right length, nice and soft at both ends, and I could wander about with
>it pressed against my eye quite comfortably with both hands free.
>Fortunately, no one saw this spectacle:-)
>
>As a newcomer to all this I'm sure others have devised better
>solutions, which I hope they will now reveal to me......

A light weight solution can be made from one
of those larger Vitamin Pill containers.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 2:50:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If I "wandered about" with anything pressed against my eye, I'd be sure
to force said object into my eye when I found a tree, ple, or wall. ;-(

Austin
Related resources
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 3:17:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What about using the optical viewfinder?

<stuart_noble@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1118671472.709568.40780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> In desperation today I grabbed a kitchen roll to view the LCD screen on
> my Coolpix 995, and was surprised at how effective it was. Just the
> right length, nice and soft at both ends, and I could wander about with
> it pressed against my eye quite comfortably with both hands free.
> Fortunately, no one saw this spectacle:-)
>
> As a newcomer to all this I'm sure others have devised better
> solutions, which I hope they will now reveal to me......
>
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 6:07:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

AustinMN wrote:
> If I "wandered about" with anything pressed against my eye, I'd be
> sure to force said object into my eye when I found a tree, ple, or
> wall. ;-(
>

If yu find anther ple, make a pht and shw us?
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 11:28:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

How about drilling a hole in one of them old-fashioned black plastic
film canisters and using that? Shorter, and not quite as big around, I
know....
June 14, 2005 3:33:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<stuart_noble@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1118671472.709568.40780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> In desperation today I grabbed a kitchen roll to view the LCD screen on
> my Coolpix 995, and was surprised at how effective it was. Just the
> right length, nice and soft at both ends, and I could wander about with
> it pressed against my eye quite comfortably with both hands free.
> Fortunately, no one saw this spectacle:-)
>
> As a newcomer to all this I'm sure others have devised better
> solutions, which I hope they will now reveal to me......
>

Hi there.

I much prefer a camera with a view finder.

On Sunday, I was asked by a foreign tourist if I could take a photo of him
and his wife on while travelling back from Ireland. I agreed, and he handed
me a camera which only had an LCD, no viewfinder.

This was on the only bit of outside deck, and it has white walls on 3 sides,
and vast amounts of light being reflected into it from the huge wash being
created by the "jet" propulsion system. I could see absolutely nothing in
the LCD, neither could my wife, and another by-stander.

We took the picture because he insisted, but it was entirely guess work as
to what was included. I think we would have had to resort to using a "View
Camera" type Black Cloth to enable the LCD to be visible.

Progress, I don't think so.

Roy G
June 14, 2005 7:05:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This must be a recent posting hurry up and make another post saying
that you don't have viewfinder wether you have one or not, that way
you will only be lambasted for buying the camera without a viewfinder
which is better than getting lambasted about not using your
viewfinder. What is a kitchen roll by the way I don't have a good
mental image of what you were doing? I speak from
experience........lol

Brad

LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A
WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT,
SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!"
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 7:05:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brad wrote:
>
> This must be a recent posting hurry up and make another post saying
> that you don't have viewfinder wether you have one or not, that way
> you will only be lambasted for buying the camera without a viewfinder
> which is better than getting lambasted about not using your
> viewfinder. What is a kitchen roll by the way I don't have a good
> mental image of what you were doing? I speak from
> experience........lol
>
> Brad
>

It seems that many people have the mistaken impression that LCD displays
are intended for use when taking pictures. This seems to be furthered
by the cameras which don't even include an optical viewfinder.
Unfortunately, using the LCD is less than the optimal solution for the
purpose. Losing the stability of the head for holding a camera still
often results in pictures with considerable shake. Worse, it seems from
my observations that people who insist on taking digital pictures with
the camera held out in front of them using the LCD are the ones who
think that they have to 'stab' the shutter button like a 'one-finger'
karate black belt.
Sigh.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 11:43:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brad wrote:
>
> This must be a recent posting hurry up and make another post saying
> that you don't have viewfinder wether you have one or not, that way
> you will only be lambasted for buying the camera without a viewfinder
> which is better than getting lambasted about not using your
> viewfinder.
The Coolpix 995 does have a viewfinder but with macro shots it seems
*nothing* in the viewfinder appears in the shot, so it really isn't an
option.

>What is a kitchen roll by the way I don't have a good
> mental image of what you were doing? I speak from
> experience........lol
In UK a kitchen roll refers to 9" wide paper kitchen towel where the
inner cardboard bit is 2" in diameter. Tell me I don't have to take a
picture of this :-)
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 11:46:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:
> Silicon Sam wrote:
>
>> How about drilling a hole in one of them old-fashioned black plastic
>> film canisters and using that? Shorter, and not quite as big around,
>> I know....
>
>
> I removed the opaque screen from the square end of a $2.95 slide viewer.
> That end just about covers the screen, and you get enough magnification
> to count the picture elements.
>
I'll give that a try. Did you velcro it to the camera? Very little space
to do that on the 995.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 11:46:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stuart Noble wrote:
> Frank ess wrote:
>> Silicon Sam wrote:
>>
>>> How about drilling a hole in one of them old-fashioned black
>>> plastic
>>> film canisters and using that? Shorter, and not quite as big
>>> around, I know....
>>
>>
>> I removed the opaque screen from the square end of a $2.95 slide
>> viewer. That end just about covers the screen, and you get enough
>> magnification to count the picture elements.
>>
> I'll give that a try. Did you velcro it to the camera? Very little
> space to do that on the 995.

I didn't even try to attach it; shirt-pocket and hand-held was awkward
but useful. A cord around your neck might work, too. I've seen some
special-built appliances with wide bases that use rubber bands for
quick attachment and removal.

I would get out the whole kit and try again to puzzle out a lash-up
that pivots into and out of place, but the bag has hidden itself from
me, 995, convertors, 285H flash and all!

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 11:53:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:27:27 -0700, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

>Stuart Noble wrote:
>> Frank ess wrote:
>>> Silicon Sam wrote:
>>>
>>>> How about drilling a hole in one of them old-fashioned black
>>>> plastic
>>>> film canisters and using that? Shorter, and not quite as big
>>>> around, I know....
>>>
>>>
>>> I removed the opaque screen from the square end of a $2.95 slide
>>> viewer. That end just about covers the screen, and you get enough
>>> magnification to count the picture elements.
>>>
>> I'll give that a try. Did you velcro it to the camera? Very little
>> space to do that on the 995.
>
>I didn't even try to attach it; shirt-pocket and hand-held was awkward
>but useful. A cord around your neck might work, too. I've seen some
>special-built appliances with wide bases that use rubber bands for
>quick attachment and removal.
>
>I would get out the whole kit and try again to puzzle out a lash-up
>that pivots into and out of place, but the bag has hidden itself from
>me, 995, convertors, 285H flash and all!

The Hoodman has rubber bands to attach to the camera, but I have found in
practice that it can be held in place by just using the
pressure from the eyepiece. Works better where the pixels of the
LCD are small in size.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 10:39:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:
> Stuart Noble wrote:
>
>> Frank ess wrote:
>>
>>> Silicon Sam wrote:
>>>
>>>> How about drilling a hole in one of them old-fashioned black plastic
>>>> film canisters and using that? Shorter, and not quite as big
>>>> around, I know....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I removed the opaque screen from the square end of a $2.95 slide
>>> viewer. That end just about covers the screen, and you get enough
>>> magnification to count the picture elements.
>>>
>> I'll give that a try. Did you velcro it to the camera? Very little
>> space to do that on the 995.
>
>
> I didn't even try to attach it; shirt-pocket and hand-held was awkward
> but useful. A cord around your neck might work, too. I've seen some
> special-built appliances with wide bases that use rubber bands for quick
> attachment and removal.
>
> I would get out the whole kit and try again to puzzle out a lash-up that
> pivots into and out of place, but the bag has hidden itself from me,
> 995, convertors, 285H flash and all!
>
Thanks for the advice. I am surprised at the lack of commercial
solutions to this problem, which to me is the biggest drawback with
digital. Anyway, I prefer lash-ups :-)
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 10:39:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:39:14 GMT, Stuart Noble <stuart_nobleNOSPAM@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>Frank ess wrote:
>> Stuart Noble wrote:
>>
>>> Frank ess wrote:
>>>
>>>> Silicon Sam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How about drilling a hole in one of them old-fashioned black plastic
>>>>> film canisters and using that? Shorter, and not quite as big
>>>>> around, I know....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I removed the opaque screen from the square end of a $2.95 slide
>>>> viewer. That end just about covers the screen, and you get enough
>>>> magnification to count the picture elements.
>>>>
>>> I'll give that a try. Did you velcro it to the camera? Very little
>>> space to do that on the 995.
>>
>>
>> I didn't even try to attach it; shirt-pocket and hand-held was awkward
>> but useful. A cord around your neck might work, too. I've seen some
>> special-built appliances with wide bases that use rubber bands for quick
>> attachment and removal.
>>
>> I would get out the whole kit and try again to puzzle out a lash-up that
>> pivots into and out of place, but the bag has hidden itself from me,
>> 995, convertors, 285H flash and all!
>>
>Thanks for the advice. I am surprised at the lack of commercial
>solutions to this problem, which to me is the biggest drawback with
>digital. Anyway, I prefer lash-ups :-)
HoodmanUSA offers anti-glare Screens and Glare Reduction Hoods
You own a digital camera or camcorder… You can’t see your LCD screen outside. A
hood from Hoodman can help. Glare fighting hoods for digital camera LCD ...
www.hoodmanusa.com/ - 18k - Jun 12, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 3:42:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stuart Noble wrote:
> ...a kitchen roll to view the LCD screen on my Coolpix 995...
> I'm sure others have devised better solutions, which I hope they
> will now reveal to me......



Nothing for 995 but you can always send them an e-mail (address at bottom
right) and inquire about a suitable substitute.
http://www.rowa.com.tw/LCD%20HOOD-NIKON.htm

Also, take a look at a home-made LCD hood here. Quite by coincidence, the
author first used that on a Coolpix 950! Click on the thumbnail for an
enlarged view.
http://www.photoprojects.net/fujif700.html

--
Lin Chung
[Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 11:41:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Lin Chung wrote:
> Stuart Noble wrote:
>
>>...a kitchen roll to view the LCD screen on my Coolpix 995...
>>I'm sure others have devised better solutions, which I hope they
>>will now reveal to me......
>
>
>
>
> Nothing for 995 but you can always send them an e-mail (address at bottom
> right) and inquire about a suitable substitute.
> http://www.rowa.com.tw/LCD%20HOOD-NIKON.htm
>
> Also, take a look at a home-made LCD hood here. Quite by coincidence, the
> author first used that on a Coolpix 950! Click on the thumbnail for an
> enlarged view.
> http://www.photoprojects.net/fujif700.html
>
Thanks for the info
June 18, 2005 11:03:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:43:04 GMT, Stuart Noble
<stuart_nobleNOSPAM@ntlworld.com> wrote:

. Tell me I don't have to take a
>picture of this :-)


Well if you happen to find some time on your hands.........lol.....I
think its what we call paper towel .......thanks for the
clarification......

Brad

LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A
WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT,
SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!"
June 18, 2005 11:08:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 02:44:34 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Brad wrote:
>>
>> This must be a recent posting hurry up and make another post saying
>> that you don't have viewfinder wether you have one or not, that way
>> you will only be lambasted for buying the camera without a viewfinder
>> which is better than getting lambasted about not using your
>> viewfinder. What is a kitchen roll by the way I don't have a good
>> mental image of what you were doing? I speak from
>> experience........lol
>>
>> Brad
>>
>
>It seems that many people have the mistaken impression that LCD displays
>are intended for use when taking pictures. This seems to be furthered
>by the cameras which don't even include an optical viewfinder.
>Unfortunately, using the LCD is less than the optimal solution for the
>purpose. Losing the stability of the head for holding a camera still
>often results in pictures with considerable shake. Worse, it seems from
>my observations that people who insist on taking digital pictures with
>the camera held out in front of them using the LCD are the ones who
>think that they have to 'stab' the shutter button like a 'one-finger'
>karate black belt.
>Sigh.

Someone explained that to me when I was still looking to buy a camera
and I commented that of all the tips and tricks I read and the manual
from end to end it never explained that, he said that a book on how to
shoot pictures would probably explain to use the viewfinder.

Anyway a friend just got back from Yosemite with his brand new Digital
Camera and took a couple of hundred pictures and I asked him if he
used the screen or the viewfinder. He said well the screen of course
isn't that what its there for, I explained to him what was told to me
and handed him my camera and he put the viewfinder to his eye and was
amazed and said that it just felt right and he was feeling awkward all
the while he was taking pictures on his vacation.

Its one of those things that you slap your head about after you think
about it for a moment.

Brad

LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A
WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT,
SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!"
!