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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |