Where are the BEST Point and Shoot Photos ?

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:59:38 -0600, Doug McDonald
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:20:40 -0800 (PST), wrote in
:

Ok, i have seen some incredible dSLR photos on the
web.

I have yet to see a mind-blowing point and shoot photo
gallery. Does anyone have a great link?

Mind you, i have pretty much decided to order the Canon 40d
tomorrow.

But if i wake up tomorrow, and find something incredible that
was done with a P&S, you can bet that i will re-consider.....

I'll pass -- no offense intended, but this looks too much like a
waste-of-time troll to me.

It's not ... I'd also like to see such a thing. That is,
a whole gallery of great P&S photos. Note: these must be full
camera resolution, not just 768x1024 for computer screen.

I've posted one of my photos, why don't you post a link
to a P&S gallery of great shots. It should not be difficult
(that's not a joke ... as all the P&S people say, what matters
is teh image, and that's true.)

Because nothing will be accomplished -- this is just a back and forth,
not a constructive discussion.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:09:29 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in
:

Doug McDonald wrote:

I've posted one of my photos, why don't you post a link
to a P&S gallery of great shots. It should not be difficult
(that's not a joke ... as all the P&S people say, what matters
is teh image, and that's true.)

Alas a posted image is very different than a printed image.

You don't have a printer either?

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:26:04 -0600, Doug McDonald
wrote in :

.... Still, at least somebody had the decency to
actually post a link to a gallery of photos of quality made with
a P&S.

I've posted a number of such images here -- see "Farmers Market" for the
latest.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

wrote:
Ok, i have seen some incredible dSLR photos on the
web.

I have yet to see a mind-blowing point and shoot photo
gallery. Does anyone have a great link?

Mind you, i have pretty much decided to order the Canon 40d
tomorrow.

But if i wake up tomorrow, and find something incredible that
was done with a P&S, you can bet that i will re-consider.....


DT

The National Art Gallery in Washington, DC currently has an
exhibit of snapshots, from ca. 1910 to recent years. The
most recent include digital photos. I saw nothing
"incredible" there, but it was interesting.

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:34:14 -0800 (PST), wrote in
:

On Nov 17, 2:54?am, "Dennis Pogson"
wrote:

... My
powershot G3 isn't exactly a looker! But for
pics smaller than 8.5x11, it takes great photos.

Properly printed, a G3 should be able to do excellent 8x10, and pretty
good 11x14. In the latter case, you might want to try resizing first to
300 DPI (or even 600 DPI, depending on the printer) with Lanczos
resampling.


Even at 8.5x11, you start to see pixelation with the RAW
photos on the G3. 11x17 would be too much, even with resampling.

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:14:51 -0800 (PST), wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:34:14 -0800 (PST), wrote in
:

On Nov 17, 2:54?am, "Dennis Pogson"
wrote:

... My
powershot G3 isn't exactly a looker! But for
pics smaller than 8.5x11, it takes great photos.

Properly printed, a G3 should be able to do excellent 8x10, and pretty
good 11x14. In the latter case, you might want to try resizing first to
300 DPI (or even 600 DPI, depending on the printer) with Lanczos
resampling.

Even at 8.5x11, you start to see pixelation with the RAW
photos on the G3. 11x17 would be too much, even with resampling.

Only if you're dot peeping the print. Print quality is subject to
viewing conditions and viewing distance. An 8x12 print under normal
viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156
PPI for excellent results, which is only 3 MP. See
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Nov 22, 4:43 am, John Navas wrote:

An 8x12 print under normal
viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156
PPI for excellent results, which is only 3 MP. See
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_wh...

Well not to disagree here on something that is surely subjective, but
I suggest that someone reading this should print a 3mp image at A4
size and look at it before forming an opinion as to the validity of
the above statement.

On Nov 21, 4:07 pm, acl wrote:
On Nov 22, 4:43 am, John Navas wrote:

An 8x12 print under normal
viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156
PPI for excellent results, which is only 3 MP. See
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_wh...

Well not to disagree here on something that is surely subjective, but
I suggest that someone reading this should print a 3mp image at A4
size and look at it before forming an opinion as to the validity of
the above statement.

And it is important to start get the 3MP image either from a 3MP
camera or cropping from a larger image. Down sizing a larger image to
3MP will give an image that is far sharper then what a 3MP camera
could ever produce.

But even if you do dowm sample, a 3MP A4 print next to a 8 MP one will
look pretty bad, at least to me it does.

Scott

Scott

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:07:29 -0800 (PST), acl
wrote in
:

On Nov 22, 4:43 am, John Navas wrote:

An 8x12 print under normal
viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156
PPI for excellent results, which is only 3 MP. See
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_wh...

Well not to disagree here on something that is surely subjective, but
I suggest that someone reading this should print a 3mp image at A4
size and look at it before forming an opinion as to the validity of
the above statement.

Actually science and the limits of human perception, as you would know
if you'd paid much attention to the article.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:15:38 -0800 (PST), Scott W
wrote in
:

On Nov 21, 4:07 pm, acl wrote:
On Nov 22, 4:43 am, John Navas wrote:

An 8x12 print under normal
viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156
PPI for excellent results, which is only 3 MP. See
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_wh...

Well not to disagree here on something that is surely subjective, but
I suggest that someone reading this should print a 3mp image at A4
size and look at it before forming an opinion as to the validity of
the above statement.

And it is important to start get the 3MP image either from a 3MP
camera or cropping from a larger image. Down sizing a larger image to
3MP will give an image that is far sharper then what a 3MP camera
could ever produce.

Not true.

But even if you do dowm sample, a 3MP A4 print next to a 8 MP one will
look pretty bad, at least to me it does.

Not unless you're Superman. Under normal viewing conditions and at
normal viewing distance -- any difference is beyond the limits of human
perception.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)