If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie questions about camera settings
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 04:10:50 +0000, Mr. T wrote:
Another newbie question: What would you consider more important in a point and shoot camera? High mp, high iso or a high quality lens? It seems that everyone advertises their high mp cameras but say little about the lens... This is just my personal opinion. The most important ingredient is the photographer, then the lens followed almost equally by high megapixels and high iso. -- Neil Delete l to reply |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie questions about camera settings
"Bill" wrote in message
news And none of them look any better than 200ppi, which is all you really need: Have your eyes checked. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie questions about camera settings
Paul Rubin wrote:
"jeremy" writes: And then, one day, we realize that the ONLY THINGS left to remind us of the activities and milestones in our lives are those thin pieces of paper upon which are printed the photos we took, or the CDs that contain the image files. And that is when we look back and wish that we had bought the better camera, with the better lens, and had made bigger prints, rather than those drug store discounted ones. What I've seen in those situations is that a low res print of Grandma makes the viewer every bit as happy as a high res one does, as long as the subject is identifiable. That's my experience as well. I don't think that the difference between a two megapixel image and a six megapixel image is going to make any real difference in the sentimental value of the image. What _will_ matter is if you have any images at all - please *back* *up* your photos, folks... preferably with at least one copy offsite. Although I do have to say that I think Jeremy would make an _excellent_ camera salesman. :-) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie questions about camera settings
James Glidewell wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote: "jeremy" writes: And then, one day, we realize that the ONLY THINGS left to remind us of the activities and milestones in our lives are those thin pieces of paper upon which are printed the photos we took, or the CDs that contain the image files. And that is when we look back and wish that we had bought the better camera, with the better lens, and had made bigger prints, rather than those drug store discounted ones. What I've seen in those situations is that a low res print of Grandma makes the viewer every bit as happy as a high res one does, as long as the subject is identifiable. That's my experience as well. I don't think that the difference between a two megapixel image and a six megapixel image is going to make any real difference in the sentimental value of the image. What _will_ matter is if you have any images at all - please *back* *up* your photos, folks... preferably with at least one copy offsite. Yes, that too. Here's a little metaphor: the first photo is the whole thing, shot in about 1938 on 116 film in a Kodak "Autographic"; next two are crops. http://www.fototime.com/5E21E09C4043371/orig.jpg http://www.fototime.com/4E0721419FCB4A2/orig.jpg http://www.fototime.com/EAD91185898D0A3/orig.jpg The print from which the scan was made is a contact print, the original somewhat smaller than the whole-thing as it shows up on my 1024x768 lcd monitor. Can you imagine getting such nice, independent images from an Instamatic print? not likely. Because the original was of a nature to allow maintenance of detail and tone, it was relatively easy to extract something of sentimental value, and a little more, I think. As a comparison, here's one from an Instamatic print. http://www.fototime.com/2C71B7806D3648B/orig.jpg So it is with digital: always get as much information as you can; somewhere down the line someone may benefit in ways you couldn't imagine. -- Frank ess |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie questions about camera settings
Frank ess wrote:
That's my experience as well. I don't think that the difference between a two megapixel image and a six megapixel image is going to make any real difference in the sentimental value of the image. What _will_ matter is if you have any images at all - please *back* *up* your photos, folks... preferably with at least one copy offsite. Yes, that too. Here's a little metaphor: the first photo is the whole thing, shot in about 1938 on 116 film in a Kodak "Autographic"; next two are crops. http://www.fototime.com/5E21E09C4043371/orig.jpg http://www.fototime.com/4E0721419FCB4A2/orig.jpg http://www.fototime.com/EAD91185898D0A3/orig.jpg The print from which the scan was made is a contact print, the original somewhat smaller than the whole-thing as it shows up on my 1024x768 lcd monitor. ACK! 1280x1024. Sheesh. Can you imagine getting such nice, independent images from an Instamatic print? not likely. Because the original was of a nature to allow maintenance of detail and tone, it was relatively easy to extract something of sentimental value, and a little more, I think. As a comparison, here's one from an Instamatic print. http://www.fototime.com/2C71B7806D3648B/orig.jpg So it is with digital: always get as much information as you can; somewhere down the line someone may benefit in ways you couldn't imagine. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie questions about camera settings
jeremy wrote: That is why I say, if you own a camera, don't let it gather dust on a shelf. Use it. Don't worry if the exposure is not spot on, or if you weren't paying attention and didn't hold the camera exactly level. Just shoot photos. Lots of them. And distribute them. Some photos that I take with my point-and-shoot that I consider sub-par, my friends think are really cool or interesting. The best camera in the world is no subsitute for subject and composition. If it gives someone else pleasure, then: mission accomplished. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Newbie questions about camera settings
In rec.photo.digital The PhAnToM wrote:
: jeremy wrote: : : That is why I say, if you own a camera, don't let it gather dust on a : shelf. Use it. Don't worry if the exposure is not spot on, or if you : weren't paying attention and didn't hold the camera exactly level. : Just shoot photos. Lots of them. And distribute them. : Some photos that I take with my point-and-shoot that I consider : sub-par, my friends think are really cool or interesting. The best : camera in the world is no subsitute for subject and composition. If it : gives someone else pleasure, then: mission accomplished. I agree. You always notice the tiny "faults" that your friends will rarely ever even see. But I also agree that the camera should not sit on the shelf and hope that when you want to take a picture it will magically be perfect. Play with the camera. Turn every dial, and reset every setting. What happens when you set this setting (whichever setting you are currently looking at) to the extreme. True most of the resulting images will be impossible, but you not only learn what is not possible but what did work when you hadn't expected it. Some unexpected results need to be filed away in your memory (or even written down) for future use. When you find yourself in an odd situation, some of these "failures" from the past may give you the idea that allows you turn an impossible shot into accolades. The same goes for your editing software. Exploring can sometimes open whole new realms of exploration. For example. Why would anyone want to set their camera to take a 30 second exposure outdoors on a sunny day? But when you do this, anything that does not move (like a building) will be clean and clear, but anything that moves (like pedestrians) will blur. If the blur is enough, the blurred object may entirely disappear. So by exploring the limits and beyond you may find something that you can use in the future. Randy ========== Randy Berbaum Champaign, IL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MACRO SHOTS QUESTION | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 46 | July 10th 06 02:44 PM |
The f/ratio myth and camera size | Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) | Digital Photography | 55 | February 9th 06 03:04 AM |
How to Buy a Digital Camera | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 6 | January 18th 05 10:01 PM |
How to Buy a Digital Camera | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | January 18th 05 03:39 PM |
olympus stylus 300/400 basic operation questions on digital camera | inetquestion | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 1 | September 4th 03 12:54 AM |