A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Point & Shoot Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Newbie questions about camera settings



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 5th 06, 10:03 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
Little Sir Echo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Newbie questions about camera settings


On 5-Sep-2006, "Mr. T" wrote:

Your experience says more about the print image scaling process than
the camera. Shooting at higher resolution is beneficial when
enlarging a cropped image.


Sorry, when I said "prints", I mean getting the photos developed from
a camera store, not printed on a home printer.

Agreed that a high resolution is best for cropping, but for those of
us who only want 4x6 photos, 1600x1200 seems to be ok.


For the same reason that a high-end gaming machine is not needed for
word processing.

However, I have noted that there are a lot of 'experts' who fail to
realize this and look down their noses at digital cameras without
mega-megapixel ratings.

You don't need a $1000 9 megapixel SLR to take photos of your kids so
you can email them to grandma.
  #12  
Old September 5th 06, 10:50 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
George E. Cawthon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Newbie questions about camera settings

Mr. T wrote:
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...
Always shoot at the highest resolution (2262 x 1704), you can always
decrease the resolution later with software, but you can't increase it.


When I tried my first digital camera, a Canon A520, I tried several test
shots of the same subject at 2272x1074, 1600x1200, 1024x768 and 640x480.
I printed them all on 4x6 prints. To my surprise, the sharpest print was the
shot at taken at 1600x1200. I was expecting the sharpest shot to be at
2272x1074, but it wasn't.
The difference between the 2 was very minimal and you really had to look
close to see any difference.
To this day I only use 1600x1200.

Just my experience...




Several questions.
Did you use a tripod? evaluate several pictures
at each resolution setting? note the shutter speed
and f-stop? Your comparison should have been of
at least three different subjects and 3 different
distances, and should have used a tripod. The
comparison should have been only among shots using
the same f-stop and shutter speed. You could have
eliminated some factors by comparing flash shots.
And there is no way you could compare sharpness
using 4x6 prints since that is such a moderate
enlargement. And indeed one would not expect a
person with average eyesight to see any difference
in a 4x6 once the resolution was greater than 1600
x1200.

One problem is the concept of sharpness. The
point of having a high resolution is so that you
have more information, so that you can enlarge
just a portion of a shot. More information often
translates into a smoother picture (more gradual
gradient) and that can be perceived as less sharp
compared to less information where the edges may
have more contrast.

But whatever floats your boat. If you ever want
to print one of those shots as an 8 x10, you will
probably be very disappointed.
  #13  
Old September 6th 06, 01:48 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default Newbie questions about camera settings


"Mr. T" wrote in message
news:3slLg.13044$rd7.2316@edtnps89...

Did you say 2272 by "1074"????

That can't be correct. your next-lower resolution is 1600 x "1200"

Are you certain that it isn't 2272 x 1674?

Sorry, it was 2272x1704
I'm a newbie too...



OKAY--That's a better number.

So, here is the math:

2272 x 1704 = 3.8 MP.

1200 x 1600 = 2 MP

1024 x 768 = .78 MP

640 x 480 = .3 MP

As you can see, when you shoot at 1200 x 1600, your camera is operating as
though it were a 2 MP camera. You are foregoing almost HALF of the
resolution you paid for.

Now, let's look at the math for a 4 x 6 print. It is generally admitted
that it takes 300 ppi for a photo quality print on small prints, where the
print is viewed close to the eye (larger prints, which are often viewed from
a greater distance, can get by on less than 300 ppi, depending upon how much
tolerance you have for a somewhat softer print).

6 x 300 = 1800
4 x 300 = 1200

1200 x 1800 = 2.16 MP

So, using 300 ppi as your standard, you can produce an excellent-quality
(resolution, that it) print of 4 x 6 using a 2.2 MP camera.

But let's see what it takes to produce an 8 x 10 print at 300 ppi. This
will probably stun you:

8 x 300 = 2400
10 x 300 = 3000

2400 x 3000 = 7.2 M!

To produce a 4 x 6 print at 300 ppi requires only 2.2 MP, but to produce a
300 ppi print in the 8 x 10 size requires 7.2 MP--over 3 times as many
pixels.

That is one reason why you should ALWAYS shoot at your camera's maximum
resolution and minimum compression. You might not be able to tell the
difference at 4 x 6 print size, but if you ever enlarge one of those prints
to 8 x 10, the quality difference should be quite noticeable.

If you absolutely KNOW that you will NEVER want to print a given image at
more than 4 x 6, then it is okay to use the smaller resolution. But how can
you always know what your future print requirements will be? There is an
element of risk in presuming that you'll never want to print at a larger
size in the future.

In principle, you paid for a 4 MP camera, so why would you use it at a 2 MP
resolution? To my mind, it is analogous to buying a new car, but never
shifting beyond the second gear.

I know of only one reason why you might consider shooting at reduced
resolution: if you are running low on memory in your card, and you
absolutely must fit in a few more shots, even if they will be at reduced
quality. With memory cards being so cheap these days, you really should
carry a couple of extras, making it unnecessary to compromise.


  #14  
Old September 6th 06, 01:59 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default Newbie questions about camera settings


"Little Sir Echo" wrote in message
news:SClLg.1890$m36.1502@trnddc02...

You don't need a $1000 9 megapixel SLR to take photos of your kids so
you can email them to grandma.



You are right, but you could sometimes be wrong.

If all one shoots are prints for web use or emailing, then virtually any
cheapo digital camera will suffice. But that implies that the camera will
be used only for mundane types of shots.

What many shooters overlook is the historical value of their everyday
mundane family shots. Before they know it, the kids in the photos have
grown, and have children of their own. The family pets have passed from the
scene. The older folks have been taken from us. The homes we once lived in
have been sold and we move into assisted housing. Our automobiles have been
replaced several times over. The furniture has been at least partially
replaced. And our memories have faded. Things that we used to see every
day have become clouded and fuzzy. Try and remember your first car. How
much detail can your mind conjure up? Or, go and try to write down
precisely what is inscribed on your family headstone at the cemetery. Or,
make a list of all the telephone numbers, landline and cell, that you have
had over the past 25 years.

See what I'm getting at?

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.

You see, a camera is more than just an optical instrument, it is a time
machine, a memory maker. And, if you one day regret having cut corners, you
can't go back and re-shoot. Time waits for no man.

So, I would suggest that if at all possible, one should buy the best he can
afford. The price is soon forgotten. The memories will be appreciated many
years into the future.


  #15  
Old September 6th 06, 02:02 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
Paul Rubin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 883
Default Newbie questions about camera settings

"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.
  #16  
Old September 6th 06, 02:39 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
Little Sir Echo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Newbie questions about camera settings

On 5-Sep-2006, "jeremy" wrote:
---clipped---
If you absolutely KNOW that you will NEVER want to print a given image
at more than 4 x 6, then it is okay to use the smaller resolution.
But how can you always know what your future print requirements will
be? There is an element of risk in presuming that you'll never want
to print at a larger size in the future.


---clipped---

I am in agreement with most of what jeremy wrote, BUT--

1. In nearly four years with my 3.2 megapixel camera (average, I think,
at the time I bought it), I have never cropped or enlarged a photo, and
I suspect there are thousands,no millions, like me. Not the final word,
but something not to be overlooked.

2. My pictures look great as 4x6 prints and also on my 19" crt monitor.
My wife likes the prints for viewing and I prefer the monitor. And yes I
am aware of the limited number of DPI or PPI on monitors. That's the
point. For on-screen viewing one does not need a lot of pixels.

3. It seems no one ever discusses lens quality any more. It can make all
the difference in the world in a film camera; doesn't it matter to
anyone in digital photography? Or are we keeping up with the Joneses in
a pixel race now?

I always shoot at maximum megapixels available on my camera which means
that my shots may be better than those taken by someone who shoots less
than max on a camera with more megapixels than mine.
  #17  
Old September 6th 06, 05:10 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
Mr. T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Newbie questions about camera settings


"jeremy" wrote in message
news:yVoLg.4063$%k5.2034@trnddc08...


But let's see what it takes to produce an 8 x 10 print at 300 ppi. This
will probably stun you:

8 x 300 = 2400
10 x 300 = 3000


Thanks for the lesson.

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...


  #18  
Old September 6th 06, 05:55 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default Newbie questions about camera settings

"Mr. T" wrote in message
news:eTrLg.13106$rd7.1434@edtnps89...

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...



Well, I'm not so sure that my particular circumstances would make for a good
model for anyone else, so take this advice with a grain of salt:

1: I have shot with only two digital cameras: a 1999 Ricoh RDC-5000 and its
replacement, the RDC-5300, which was introduced in 2000. Both of those
cameras are 2.3 MP! They have excellent 9-element all-glass lenses and they
are quite convenient. I do not have a color printer. I have Kodak Gallery
(formerly OFOTO) handle all of my digital prints, and they have produced
very pleasing results up to 8 x 10.

2: I have accumulated a very large film setup over the past 30+ years--all
Pentax M42. I have 9 Pentax SLRs and 18 SMC Takumar prime lenses, and I am
not about to abandon my film setup for digital. I scan my negatives and I
figure that my film bodies and lenses yield the equivalent of 20+MP digital.

3: I use my Ricohs for trivial work, home inventory documentary photos,
snapshots, web use, etc. They are all the digital cameras I need and I have
no plans to "upgrade."

4: My more intuitive, more serious work is done by my film SLRs. I enjoy
working with those legacy lenses. Since I am an amateur, with no need to
meet photo deadlines for an editor, I don't mind the 48-hour turnaround for
film processing. I am a relatively low-volume shooter--a roll per week.
The cost of film and processing is minimal. I usually buy my film at my
warehouse club for a dollar a roll, and processing and proofing through
Qualex costs me $5.00 per roll. So my annual film costs are under $600
annually. It would cost me a fortune to replicate anything near my current
setup in digital, and I am turned off by plastic lenses and autofocus. I
really like those Pentax manual-focus lenses, with their smooth bokeh and
excellent descriptive characteristics.

That having been said, I think that the megapixel race is all but over. My
present 2.3MP cameras make excellent 4 x 6 prints, and I do not believe that
there would be any improvement in resolution by switching to a higher
megapixel camera. I rarely enlarge digital images beyond 4 x 6.

My film gear gives me results that equal or exceed the best digital cameras
out there. Admittedly, I do not get the advantages of immediate access to
my images, and I can't shoot hundreds of shots on a single memory card, but
as I've pointed out, I am not that kind of photographer. In my particular
case, the disadvantages of film ore not relevant to my shooting style.

My film scanner has, essentially, turned ALL of my cameras into digital
cameras.

If I were just getting into it now, I'd probably buy a Nikon DSLR. And, in
a year, it would be pretty-much "yesterday's technology." I am an
economical person, with a bent for efficiency, and that would bother me.
But I was fortunate in that I acquired my equipment at very low prices, and
amortized my collection over three decades. I could not do that today. For
one thing, the cameras and lenses that I use are not being produced anymore,
unless one wants to buy the Leica R system. Contax RTS recently went out of
production, as have virtually all Nikon film cameras and lenses. By
contrast, digital gear is plentiful, even if it is "plasticky."

Clearly, if you want to capture better images with digital cameras you
cannot rely upon a 2MP or 4MP camera. The only reason that I can get away
with it is because I have the film option as my safety net. If ever you
want to try out film, you can get an excellent camera/lens combination for
around $100.00 and you can pick up a good film scanner with Digital ICE3 for
under $400. IF you can live with having to buy and process film, you're
looking at a system that will yield top-notch images for about $500.00. And
lenses are dirt cheap these days, because everyone is "upgrading" to
digital.

I do have what I see as a major advantage: if in the future we get better
scanning equipment (a virtual certainty) I can re-scan my film and get even
more information in my images. Digital does not do that--whatever your
digital camera produces today cannot be improved upon in the future.

Bottom line: there is no right choice. You need to determine what your
objectives are, decide on a budget, and then put together a system that
works for YOU. Well-meaning people will be all to quick to criticize your
choices, because they cannot conceive of the idea that what might be right
for THEM is not also right for anyone else. My advice is to ignore them.
The one person in the Universe that knows what is best for you is YOU.

And, if you intend to print at no higher than 4 x 6, your present camera may
be just fine for that purpose. Instead of spending money on a continuous
upgrade path, get some books on photography and go out and shoot pictures.
Your present camera may not offer all the bells and whistles of more
expensive models, but it does have a range of competence where it can
produce excellent results. You should exploit that range. If you
subsequently feel the need to broaden your horizons you can upgrade at that
time. The world will not stop turning if you do not use a 16MP DSLR.


  #19  
Old September 6th 06, 06:10 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default Newbie questions about camera settings


"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"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.


Yep!

I'll tell you a quick story.

My maternal grandfather died in 1947--5 years before I was born. So I never
knew him, although my family often spoke about him. I never even saw his
photo.

A few years ago, an elderly aunt went into a nursing home, and a "cleanout
service" was brought in to inventory and dispose of her home furnishings in
anticipation of selling her condo, as she was not able to return there.

My brother happened to be walking past the dumpster at her complex, and he
caught sight of two large, old photo albums at the top of the heap of trash.
He picked them up and they turned out to contain hundreds of OUR family
photos, from the 40s, 50s and early 60s. The cleanout service had deemed
them to be of no value, and had chucked them into the trash. My brother and
I did not even know that those albums even existed.

There were photos of the grandfather that I had never seen, along with shots
of my own father, taken in Paris during WWII. Also tons of shots of my
mother, aunts and uncles. For me, a real treasure trove!

Most were taken on inexpensive box cameras of that time, and the photos were
amateurish, but they remain precious.

I have scanned them, burned them to CD, made new prints and have distributed
copies of the CDs throughout the family. They will not be lost again.

The incident drove home a point to me: the most important photos to amateurs
like me are not the ones of "interesting shapes and colors," but the photos
of the PEOPLE and PLACES and EVENTS of our lives. In the case of my
grandfather's photos, who could have thought that those pictures would be
cherished 60 years later, by someone that had not even been born at the time
the shots were taken?

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. Gone are the days when only a
single print could exist, stored away in an album that not many others knew
existed.

Most of the people that appeared in those two photo albums are now gone, and
I cannot find words to express how grateful I am that my brother happened to
walk past that dumpster and take a look at what was on top of the pile.


  #20  
Old September 6th 06, 06:17 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default Newbie questions about camera settings

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 04:10:50 GMT, 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...


I'd say that high mp does not indicate that a camera will be any
good. There are some really terrible ones that have high resolution
sensors. Some aren't even really high resolution but fake it by
using a low resolution sensor and "interpolating" to produce a bogus
high resolution image.

Cameras that have good, clean, high ISO ability or a very good
lens can generally be trusted to be good cameras, but it's up to
*you* to decide which is more important. You can't determine which
is "better" unless you know which type of pictures are more
important for you. There are a few advanced P&S cameras that have a
very good combination of relatively high ISO sensor and a high
quality lens. To get the very best combination you'd have to get a
DSLR with possibly one really good non-kit lens, but that might cost
several hundred percent more than one of the advanced P&S cameras.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:04 AM
How to Buy a Digital Camera [email protected] Digital Photography 6 January 18th 05 11:01 PM
How to Buy a Digital Camera [email protected] Digital Photography 0 January 18th 05 04:39 PM
olympus stylus 300/400 basic operation questions on digital camera inetquestion Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 1 September 4th 03 12:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.