Question for camera people - Pics in post #40

[jennielynn1970]

I asked my mom if I could borrow the expensive camera she had bought for my dad. Turns out she bought it back in 1988. Dad has also been keeping it in the basement, without any cover. Ugh.

I asked her what kind it was, also what lens she bought with it. She's annoyed my father has treated it so badly. I want to try to get some better pictures around here, and thought I'd try her/his camera.

Here's the info she sent me on it:
camera is ricoh AF-5 XR-M multi-program tri-metering system

special lens is sigma zoom-K III that K is actually a symbol, i think, and i have no idea if it can be found on a keyboard 75 ~210mm multi-coated


Is this still an ok camera?? Should I see if they will trade it in for something newer (is it even worth anything???). I don't know if lenses get antiquated, but I'm guessing the base camera could. I dunno. I'm guessing it needs to be serviced/cleaned up, as it's been gathering dust and dirt uncovered in the basement for lord knows how many years.


Any thoughts or suggestions??

[Husky_mom]

there´s this forum... photoforum... and another... I can´t remember will have to check at home:rolleyes::p... that has many pros there.. I can ask.. or you can ask.. some even buy "collectionables"...aka old cameras... some might find it quite interesting...and might give you better info about it....

[Moesha]

I think I have 2 of those cameras. (Well not exactly sure about the AF-5 part.) I don't know much about them though, but I do have tons of accessories for them! LOL I do know that some of the Ricoh lenses will work on the newer Pentax DSLR cameras. It has to do with it having a K mount or not. (That's just what I read somewhere when I was trying to decide if I should go with a DSLR that would work with lenses I might already have.) I went with Nikon because I wasn't sure what I was doing. LOL

[Catlady711]

I'm not actually familiar with that particular name brand however...

I did a search on ebay and what few are listed aren't selling even as low as $40. I only found one real reference to it from an online camera store called 'old tyme cameras' or something of that nature suggesting the camera is considered an antique to all but possible collectors.

I'm not familiar with specifics on anything other than Canon for the last 20 years so I don't know if the lens is compatible with anything else or not.

Personally if the camera has been kept in those conditions and is that age it's probably not worth more than say $20 if you can find a buyer for it that is, I'd trash it or garage sale it for $5 myself. It would probably cost you as much or more to service that one as to buy a new digital camera. That would be assuming you could find a photo place that is capable of servicing that type of older camera.

Better bet would be to save and upgrade to a point & shoot digital camera. The newer ones do a pretty darn good job. If you are really wanting something you can change lenses on then save for a DSLR. Either way stick with either Nikon or Canon as they have the best reputation, the most compatibility for lenses, and have more varieties to select from.

[jennielynn1970]

Yeah, I kind of figured it wouldn't be worth much. My mom said I could just have it and take it to the camera shop and see if they would even recommend cleaning it and all that, or what they would suggest.

I have a point and shoot digital, I think it's 5.1MP, and I would love a better one that I can actually get decent pictures with (zoom lens and all that), so maybe saving up for a DSLR would be the better idea. Although right now, saving is the last thing I can afford to do on half pay. It's trying to make it through the month unscathed from the pay cut. I was w/out pay for almost 2 months, and it finally just kicked in, as I was about to drown, lol, so I'm thankful for that. My credit cards may not be, but at least I don't have any with limits over $400 at this point (I keep telling them I don't want a higher limit.. it's just too tempting a thought right now).

I did start one of those "Orange Savings Accounts" from ING Direct. I'm putting in $15 a pay period so that will be saving up for any cat problems. Granted it will take a whil to build up, but I can always add to it once I'm back at school full time. It was nice that if you made a deposit when you opened you got $25. So, for my $5 initial deposit, I got $25!

[Catlady711]

That's great that despite your financial hardships you are doing a savings plan! That's how it's done, just one step at a time. Kudos to you.

Don't make the mistake that many people do in believing many photography myths out there.

Camera manufacturers and retailers would LOVE everyone to believe it's the CAMERA that makes great pictures. Nope, it's the person BEHIND the camera that makes great pictures! The camera is simply a TOOL to achieve that in the same way that a painter uses a brush. This doesn't mean that if we all go buy an expensive brush we'll paint better. Photography is a vision and an art.

There is a whole race out there that so many people get caught up in called the megapixel race. Megapixels only really mean how large you can print your pictures. Camera manufacturers would have you believe you have to have mega megapixels to make decent pictures and that's simply not true. Anything over 5-8 megapixels is overkill for people who don't print their pictures or very few.

For reference to both here's a link to a photographer who has a TON of info including myth busting, on his site, as well as a TERRIFIC photo gallery of his work. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Unless a fancier (read more expensive) camera has some feature that you absolutely have to have, or need, you can quite easily make very good pictures with a simple point and shoot. Yes there are some quality differences between them because of sensor size, but in most cases with proper shooting/exposure techniques the differences will be minimal or may not even be noticable by many people.

Here's some downsized pix from my first digital camera I got in 2002. It's a Canon A40 point and shoot with a measly TWO megapixels. I still use it occasionally for it's portability, and ease of use, even though I do own a DSLR.

I don't think it takes half bad pix myself, do you?

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/Catlady711/116-1645_IMG.jpg

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/Catlady711/161-6103_IMG.jpg

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/Catlady711/123-2350_IMG.jpg


Don't dissmiss your own digital camera on the basis of it ONLY has 5 megapixels and it's a point and shoot. It's a tool, use it to it's fullest capacity, stretch your imagination. It will open up a whole new world until you have the money for the fancy (read expensive) DSLR's and all the money sucking (trust me I KNOW this from experience) accessories. LOL

[shepgirl]

Those pictures look pretty good to me. I have a digi camera, Canon, forget how many pixels but it does take some pretty good shots if I keep remembering to change the batteries, stop moving and zoom in...lol

[Catlady711]

Those pictures look pretty good to me. I have a digi camera, Canon, forget how many pixels but it does take some pretty good shots if I keep remembering to change the batteries, stop moving and zoom in...lol


Yeah, batteries are important. lol Keeping still is what makes the sharpest pictures regardless of how expensive the camera is. A tripod is your best friend in most cases.

[Catlady711]

As a comparison of megapixels I found another pix for you guys to compare.

I'm kina a photo buff (very expensive hobby) and I'm fortunate that my hubby can get phenomenal discounts on used cameras. lol

Here's one I took with my Canon S1 point and shoot, with a measly 3.2 megapixel. This was only a step up of just over ONE megapixel.


http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/Catlady711/100-0037_IMGMedium.jpg

[Catlady711]

Now, here's a quiz for you....

Which pix was taken with the 2 megapixel A40, the 3.2 megapixel S1, the 6 megapixel S3 point and shoots, or the 10.1 megapixel XTi DSLR???

Can you guess???


Bug catagory

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/Catlady711/IMG_0160.jpg

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/Catlady711/158-5824_IMG.jpg

[Catlady711]

How about guessing which megapixel camera on these?? (no there are no trick questions, I took each pix in each set with a different camera)



Fireworks catagory

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/Catlady711/112-1229_IMGMedium.jpg

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/Catlady711/fireworks2.jpg

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/Catlady711/151-5162_IMG.jpg


Sunset catagory (yes same location, slightly different view, different year)

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/Catlady711/IMG_0441Medium.jpg

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/Catlady711/IMG_2553Medium.jpg

[Catlady711]

Ok, how about these??


Beach catagory (yes same beach, different crop, different year & weather)

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/Catlady711/STA_1674Medium.jpg

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/Catlady711/124-2404_IMGMedium.jpg

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l17/Catlady711/160-6060_IMG.jpg



I'll give you guys a couple days to make some guesses, then I'll give you the answers to which megapixel camera took which in each set. I think the answers may be eye opening.

My point is all 4 of my cameras produce equally good pictures regardless of how expensive or how many megapixels.

[Catlady711]

Oh, and for reference, I do NOT own Adobe Photoshop.

My processing program is an off brand name, and about equivilent of maybe Photoshop Elements I think, it only cost $100. I don't know how to use half of the things it does. My photo editing is minimal and consists of mostly basic stuff with mostly the auto settings in the program.

[jennielynn1970]

Wow... I never knew that the mega pixel size had to do with printing out. I thought it had to do with resolution that you saw?? I mean, if you want it to get really really up close, is that something different?

Your pics look fantastic. I would never have guessed that a lower mega pixel camera took them.

I still want to see what my mom and dad's old sucker will do. I know it's a 35mm camera, it's not digital at all. She said the lens itself was over $400 and that was in 1988, so geez, that was really expensive for back then.

If they say it's going to take a few hundred to refurb it, just for the dust and dirt, I may just choose to not do that and return it to my mom and dad. I just don't have the cash to do that, and on a fixed income it would be silly to throw money at a camera for me to just see what it does. If the circumstances were different, well, then I'd probably choose to refurb it.


As for the savings, I'm trying to do what I can. I did stop my 403b just for while I'm out of work on sabbatical. That was $75 a pay, but too much for me to absorb for these 3 1/2 months. As soon as I'm back at work full time, the 403b will go back on as a deduction. For those not familiar with retirement accounts, the 403b is a tax-sheltered annuity. Some places have 401k packages, but from what I understand with our school, because we're in education it's a 403b. I could be wrong through, cause I'm not really that up on what their differences are. I know it's taken out before taxes, and that unless I want to make an early withdrawl, which has to be for hardship, I am not taxed on the money that it's earning, investment wise. My financial planner is actually a woman who does rescue work herself, lol. I met her through Jen Luckenbach, and when Kathi started working for Lincoln Financial, I switched to her. She knows what she's doing, and keeps in contact about everything, so I feel really confident in her (unlike the last guy I had who only ever sent me a Christmas card once a year). Hopefully by the time I want to retire, I'll actually be able to afford it.

[Catlady711]

I've never been very good at figuring out financial stuff like 401k, annuities (not actually sure what it means to be honest), IRA's etc. The only thing I do with my money is CD's at my bank and savings accounts. I figure I'm better off sticking with something I understand. lol

Thank you for the compliments on my pix. :D

Actually most digital cameras have a 'resolution' and 'compression' setting. You should ALWAYS set your camera on the highest resolution (usually expressed in numbers like 1600x1200, 640x480, or Large, Med, Small, Best, Good etc) and the lowest compression setting you have (usually marked as something like extra fine or best). That way you are always shooting at the full capability of your camera. Yes it takes up more room on your memory cards, BUT you never know when you might take that once in a lifetime special pix you want to print as an enlargement. The time it would take to switch your settings and the shot or moment may be gone forever. Plus why spend money on a camera to only shoot it at 1/4 of it's potential? To me that's kinda like buying Ferrari but only driving it at 55mph on the way to work.

As for 'getting in close' I'm assuming you mean either a Macro function (getting close to a subject that is tiny like my grasshopper pix) or Telephoto (getting a far away subject to appear close up, like a deer standing way out in a field).

In the case of Macro that would be either built into the lens of a point and shoot or require a special lens (usually rather expensive) for a DSLR/SLR. The reason being is that any camera or lens has a set minimum distance it can focus at. Your eyes work the same way, try reading a newspaper at about 24 inches away, then try reading the same paper with your nose touching it, you can't. Your eyes have exceeded the minimum focusing distance. To read close you'd need a magnifying glass, same thing for a camera lens.

In the case of Telephoto again it's in the lens whether built into a point and shoot or a special (expensive) separate lens for a DSLR/SLR. Basically it works as binoculars do for our own eyes. Only caution I'll add here is that the DIGITAL zoom setting on ANY point and shoot camera is worthless. Only compare those type of cameras by their OPTICAL zoom. The Digital zoom basically just magnifies and crops the image, same thing you could do in a computer after the fact, but it causes loss of sharpness in your images no matter which way you do it. I always keep my Digital zoom turned off on my point and shoot cameras.

Sharpness in any camera can be drastically improved by having good light, low ISO setting (100, 50, 25 if the camera goes that low) and a tripod. This is assuming you're not shooting an active two year old running around in the rain on a dark, dreary, overcast day, in which case the tripod isn't going to be enough, you'll need flash to freeze that kinda motion.


As far as the relationship between megapixels and resolution... Here are some links to read a bit more detail about them. I copied and pasted some relevant parts for a quick summary.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

In 1999 when digital cameras were only 1.2 or 2 MP, each megapixel mattered if you were making bigger prints.

Image clarity is more dependant on how you shot the photo than on the number of megapixels. A clean shot from a 3MP camera is much better than a slightly out-of focus shot from a $5,000 12 MP camera.

A clear image can be printed any size from any modern digital camera. Sure, if you print mural size and look at it from inches away you won't have the sharpness you'd get from 4 x 5" film, but if you shot it properly, it will be sharp enough to look great when viewed from a distance appropriate to the size of the print.

So long as you have 100 to 150 DPI (dots or pixels per inch), you have plenty for a sharp print viewed at arm's length. This means a 6 MP camera can make prints 30" (75cm) wide and still look great. When was the last time you printed that big?

Today, even the cheapest cameras have at least 5 or 6 MP, which enough for any size print. How? Simple: when you print three-feet (1m) wide, you stand further back. Print a billboard, and you stand 100 feet back. 6MP is plenty.


http://digital-cameras.toptenreviews.com/professional-dslr/what-is-the-megapixel-myth-.htm

While the math says that more megapixels are better, the actual results tell a different story. Pictures taken with 3 and 5 megapixel digital cameras are usually indistinguishable from pictures taken with 8 or even 13 megapixel cameras. The New York Times published an article in February 2007 about this very concept. People were unable to distinguish between photos taken at these resolutions, even when the pictures were blown up to 16 by 24 inches. An article in the November 2002 Consumer Reports issue reported that several digital cameras actually took higher quality pictures than cameras with more megapixels.


http://www.opticsplanet.net/memory-card-digital-pictures-capacity.html
Picture Resolution Maximum Photo print size

less than 640 x 480 only wallet-size prints recommended

640 x 480 or 0.3 megapixel Minimum resolution for 4x6 (results will vary)

1024 x 768 or 1.2-megapixel Minimum recommended resolution for 4x6

1600 x 1200 or 2.1-megapixel Minimum recommended resolution for 8x10 or larger

2,048 x 1,536 or 3.3-megapixel Recommended resolution for 13x19 or larger


The bigger difference between DSLR's and point and shoots is the sensor size!

http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20081107-99077.html

What is more important, for good picture quality in a compact camera, is the size of the sensor. The bigger the sensor, the better the photo. Bigger sensors capture more light. More light captured means better colours and contrast.

With bigger sensors, photos taken indoors without flash or when the light is failing, have less picture noise - that is the fuzziness and strange bits of colours that weren't there when you took the photo.

Sadly, compact cameras cannot have huge sensors because they need to stay, well, compact.

The sensor in a compact can be smaller than the nail of your pinky.

That is why compacts are bad in shooting in low light conditions without a flash.

In comparison, the sensor of a professional DSLR is 30 times that of a compact, which explains why DSLRs are so much bigger.

Ironically, the solution to improving photo quality in a compact is to reduce the megapixel- count.

All things being equal, having less megapixels means that each pixel in the sensor can now have more light, which in turn improves picture quality.

So now that we know that we do not need anything more than 8 megapixels for a compact, will camera makers give up the megapixel race?

Not a chance.

A film camera actually takes sharper pictures with a wider range of tones from dark to light than a digital camera can (assuming the lens is somewhat decent), although with newer technology the differences are shrinking. The advantage of a digital obviously being immediate viewing of your pix, and ease of sending them by email or online which film lacks.

As I'm quickly finding out, digital is not necessarily 'cheaper' than film. Yes I just buy a few memory cards and don't have to worry about how many pix I'm shooting, or wait for film developing. But the downside is it requires a large and fast computer if you take as many pix as I do and at a very high resolution setting from a DSLR. Then you get into the processing program which can be anywhere from $100 to photoshop's like $600 program. No digital pix ever looks it's best 'straight out of camera' as they tend to need a bit of sharpening, and sometimes a bit of contrast or saturation added even if everything else is perfect.

Then if you get into shooting like I have you end up buying a laptop for shooting 'tethered' and viewing your pix accuarately rather than the misleading LCD and histogram on the back of the camera, and a monitor calibrator so you can process your pix to industry standards so when you send it out to print the colors look right, but that's a discussion for another time. ROFL

Anyways I hope that helped with some of your questions. I'm about as into photography as I am animals (particularly cats) so I LOVE talking about either. ROFL I'm certainly no expert on either, and I don't often use alot of high tech big words, but most people seem to understand what I mean anyways. lol

[jennielynn1970]

I'll have to look at my digital camera and see what those settings are. I think the digital zoom is the one that got closer cropped view, but it was blurry as all get out. The screen looked like it was shrinking around the hawk when I was taking it, and it was blurry and hard to see clearly.

I know the manual is around here somewhere. I think anyway. I bought it 2nd hand, have all of my cameras cause I am not a pro and didn't want to spend a ton on a new one when I'm just a novice, and don't have the funds to procure a new one either. Would love to buy a really schnazzy one though, lol!

[Catlady711]

Yeah, a point and shoot camera taking a great pix of a far away hawk, probably moving to boot, is gonna be a real challenge if not darn near impossible. That's one area a SLR/DSLR with a telephoto lens makes the difference.

What kind of camera is it you have if you don't mind me asking? Sometimes I can find manuals online for some cameras depending on what it is.

I'm not a pro either....yet, just a serious hobbyist for the moment, with a serious love for photography and cameras (and I buy some of my cameras used also).

I still remember when I got my first SLR back in the early '90's, at the time all I could afford was a Canon Rebel II (yup, that started my love for Canon lol). At the time it cost $400, and I drooled over the Elan cameras, WAY more than I could afford. Funny thing is they couldn't do much that my Rebel couldn't do either, and now both sell on ebay for pocket change, IF they even sell at all.

Cost of camera doesn't actually mean much. The price I paid for my SLR incidentally was the same price I paid years later for the first and second digital cameras. Both of which don't resell for squat, but from the pictures I posted you can tell they still do a more than adaquate job which is why I have kept them.

While I myself often spend more money than I need to, or even should at times on cameras and gear. The fact is it always angers me when people get talked into spending huge dollars on fancy equipment that doesn't suit their needs or is even necessary for what they want to do. When many times just a few tips would help them use what they have better and be much more satisfied with the pix, and have more money in the wallet. I've been known to tick off a few sales people at camera stores when I hear them upselling someone on something that obviously isn't going to benefit them for what they want to shoot or how they use it.

[jennielynn1970]

What I have now is an HP Photosmart R817. It's 5x optical zoom, and 8x digital zoom.

It has all kinds of stuff under the menus, but I have no clue what a lot of it means.

I wanted something to take good, clear pictures that would also be easy to email.

I'm not a fan of the HP, and I actually miss my Nikon Coolpix cause the one I have now is NOT as user friendly as that one was. The Nikon was only 2mega pixels, but took some good shots.

This HP has the longest shutter tiime I'm ever seen. I can't get a moving shot to save my life on it. Or if I'm taking a pic of one of the cat, you know he's gonna change his pose by the time the shutter actually goes off. It's a pain in my butt. I want something that is easy to use, and has a faster shutter speed.

I did buy it used on ebay, about 2 years ago, and it was about 150.00 with shipping included.

[Catlady711]

Here's the review for your camera from my fav site for looking up cameras.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/hp_r817.html

I like that site because it does a good job with showing pix of the menus, and once showed me a trick for one of my cameras that was NOT in my manual!

From what I'm reading there your camera is something cross between my A40 & S3 with more features built in for novice photographers that email pix alot. Not quite as user friendly for menu access as my Canon's but not the worst I've seen by far.

The 'shutter time' you're refering to is called 'shutter lag', it's a common thing with any point and shoot digital camera, some are better than others, but they all have it. DSLR/SLR do not have shutter lag (one of the other perks of a very high price tag).

The trick to dealing with shutter lag (and my A40 has a horrendous one) is to use the pre-focus (shutter button pushed halfway and hold it), wait for the action, then push the shutter button gently all the way down just BEFORE when you want to stop the action, taking alot of shots also helps. After awhile you'll get better at timing the shots to catch the moment you want. According to the site for yoru camra "Shutter lag (time from pressing the shutter release to actually capturing the image) was less than 1/10 of a second when pre-focused" That's not too bad for a P&S camera really.

Pushing your menu button (big round button on the back) will let you scroll through the different settings your camera has available. This will let you change your ISO speed, white balance, set your image quality etc.

Your camera also has a built in Macro mode focusing down to 4.7 inches. That is great for shooting close ups of flowers, bugs etc. Just be sure you're not blocking your own light, I've done that too many times myself. lol

Overall your camera isn't a bad one, it just depends on what you want to do with it whether it suits your needs or not. Best I can tell from reading the detailed review is your camera is more than capable of taking excellent pictures that you could even enlarge past 8x10 size.

[jennielynn1970]

Hrm... basically that means I just don't know how to use it properly. Bad librarian, not reading the manuals!!

Guess I'll have time to do that now, being on sabbatical now, lol.

I'll have to check out that site and read up on abbreviations and such (ISO? I thought that was In Search Of... :p).

I just picked up my mom and dad's camera. Oh my goodness. It's a mess!!! Talk about dirty!! My dad should be ashamed for the state it's in. I'm going to go to the one camera shop down here and see what they say about cleaning and refurbing it. My mom said if they'll take it in trade for something else, I can do whatever I want to. Wow.

[Catlady711]

I can't be sure what ISO stands for anymore without googling it, (been using the abbreviation too many years) but basically it would refer to the sensitivity of film (or in this case digital sensor) and the amount of grain (or noise as it's called in digital).

Here's a quick breakdown; Low ISO numbers mean less grain (noise), but low sensitivity to light. Higher ISO numbers mean more grain (noise), but high sensitivity to light.

Quick examples: (all hand holding, no tripod)

Bright sunlight, moving subject - ISO 50-100

Cloudy day, moving subject - ISO 100-200

Setting sun, moving subject - ISO 400-800

Indoors, moving subject - ISO 400-1600

If you have a tripod and a NON moving subject you can usually get away with lower ISO numbers just use a longer shutter speed.


This may sound a bit weird but I've had many people do this before and they've said it was helpful.... Post a couple pix you took that you think turned out bad, I should be able to kinda give you a rough idea what caused the problems, or what you can do in the future to prevent them if possible. If you have any details about the lighting, or settings (you can find those under properties or info when you right click your pictures usually), those might help narrow it down a bit more. I have a couple friends I help out by email and that's the only way I've figured out to do it since I'm not there when they take the pix. Up to you if you want to or not.

[Cinder & Smoke]

I can't be sure what ISO stands for anymore without googling it ...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -

ISO film speed scales

International Standard ISO 5800:1987 from the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization) defines both an arithmetic scale
and a logarithmic scale for measuring color-negative film speed. Related standards
ISO 6:1993 and ISO 2240:2003 define scales for speeds
of black-and-white negative film and color reversal film.

In the ISO arithmetic scale, which corresponds to the older ASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standards_Association) scale, doubling
the speed of a film (that is, halving the amount of light that is necessary to expose the film)
implies doubling the numeric value that designates the film speed. In the ISO logarithmic scale,
which corresponds to the older DIN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIN) scale, doubling the speed of a film implies
adding 3° to the numeric value that designates the film speed.
For example, a film rated ISO 200/24° is twice as sensitive as a film rated ISO 100/21°.

To continue with a really *serious* technical discussion - go to >>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed

/s/ Phred

[Catlady711]

Thanks Cinder, I had totally forgotten what it stood for. I was thinking International Standard something but couldn't remember what the O stood for. Although the way it's written technically it should have been IOS. LOL:p

Yeah, that whole ASA thing used to throw me off in the beginning until I got it figured out that it was the same as ISO.

OMGosh that site is 'serious', WOW. Talk about high tech wording and mathmatics!:eek:

Since many people I talk to about photography only know digital I found I have to simplify things. Actually ALOT of people I talk to about photography stuff are just people who just want to get good pictures but don't know why their pix don't come out good. I usually simplify it down so I don't confuse them with too many technical things they don't understand or aren't interested in anyways.

I've gotten into the habit of simplifying my 'tech speak' so much that when I'm around very serious photographers I'm sure they think I don't know which end to point at the subject and which end to look through. LOL:p

[jennielynn1970]

Phred's post had me wondering what it would have said in English, lol! Talk about more confused!

I'll do some reading of manual, I hope I can find them, this weekend. The weather is crappy today, all rainy and yucky, so I'm staying indoors. I'll go to the camera shop when it's not so icky outside. I hate traveling in this weather, especially when people drive like idiots (what is it about people being so darn in a hurry and not caring about how they drive any more???).

[Catlady711]

Phred's post had me wondering what it would have said in English, lol! Talk about more confused!

Yeah, the mathmatics involved in photography frequently confuse the heck out of me too, and once you add the science tech stuff I'm completely lost. But then again math is not my strong suit. I figure you don't have to know the why's of how something works, just so you know how to use it.



(what is it about people being so darn in a hurry and not caring about how they drive any more???).

That's called they're selfish and usually on the cell phone. :p

[jennielynn1970]

Examples, huh? Well, normally I trash the relaly bad pics, but some I haven't gotten to.

I seem to have the hardest time with close ups. They get blurry as heck. If there is a "macro" on the camera, then I have no idea how to use it or access it.

Here are 3 examples of cats up close. Badly. One is of Calloway sleeping, the other two are of Honey when he was missing fur on his leg and I couldn't get a good shot of the bare spot.

[Husky_mom]

I think it was to do with how close is the camera to the subject... as you can see in pic #3 the background is perfectly clear... so maybe you want to be too close to the subject it becomes blurry...

not sure with your camera but I think you have to be at least certain cms (10 I think) away to get in focus closeups...(camera wise, and you can always zoom in from there)... other cameras allow you to be 0mm away from subject but thats super macro and only in certain models

[Catlady711]

Husky Mom is right. The problem with your pictures is not your camera lacking in anything or not being 'good enough'. You are too close for it to focus on the normal setting. Remember the trying to read a newspaper touching your nose analogy I used earlier? Same thing here.

Your camera has Macro AND Super Macro according to the website I had linked to earlier. I'm trying to find your manual online so I can tell you how to access that. I'll post back when I find that info.

BTW, your pix are going to be dark doing Macro or Super Macro if you're using your on camera flash for your light source. If you look in the last two pictures you posted you can see the 'hot spot', or brightest part of the picture is on your hand not the thing you were trying to photograph. That's like wearing a miners cap but trying to see something close up to your face, the light is just not going to hit where you're looking. For problems like that you can try having a lamp or flashlight off to one side a bit for light, or use bright window light.

[Moesha]

I had thought that I'd have my laptop today so that I could see the pictures on a clearer screen. But since it doesn't look like that will be happening because of the snow, I'll take my guesses with this subpar monitor.

Bug catagory:

1. 3.2 mp
2. 6 mp

Fireworks:
1. 6 mp
2. 10.1 mp
3. 2 mp

Sunset
1. 3.2 mp
2. 6 mp

Beach
1. 2 mp
2. 3.2 mp
3. 6 mp

Did I get any correct?

[Catlady711]

Ok here's something for you.

http://www.fixya.com/support/p328328-hp_photosmart_r817_digital_camera/manual-13498/page-29

that one tells you how to get to the menu to change image quality, ISO, picture modes etc.


http://www.fixya.com/support/p328328-hp_photosmart_r817_digital_camera/manual-13498/page-38

If the subject is too close (less than 500 mm or 20 in), move farther away from the subject or use the Macro or Super Macro focus range (see page 42).

http://www.fixya.com/support/p328328-hp_photosmart_r817_digital_camera/manual-13498/page-39

Macro (120 mm to 1 m or 4.7 to 39.4 in) or Super Macro (30 to 200 mm or 1.2 to 7.9 in) range,


http://www.fixya.com/support/p328328-hp_photosmart_r817_digital_camera/manual-13498/page-42

To select a focus range setting, press MF (picture of a flower goes here- that's the middle button on the back of your camera under the LCD screen) , use the (right left arrow icons go here) buttons to highlight the desired focus range, then press ('menu/ok button)).

Setting Description

Normal Focus Use when taking pictures of subjects greater than 500 mm (20 in) away. Normal Focus is limited to a range of 500 mm (20 in) to infinity. This is the default focus setting.

Macro Use when taking close-up pictures of subjects between 120 mm to 1 m (4.7 to 39.4 in) away. You can use optical zoom with Macro. With this setting, the camera will not take a picture if it cannot find focus (see page 39).

Super Macro Use when taking close-up pictures of subjects between 30 and 200 mm (1.2 to 7.9 in). Zoom is not available in Super Macro. With this setting, the camera will not take a picture if it cannot find focus (see page 39). Infinity Use when taking pictures of distant objects and landscapes. Focus is limited to a small region near infinity.

Manual Focus Allows you to step manually through the full focus range. Use the buttons to adjust the focus. You can determine the focus by observing the image in the Live View screen (see page 43).

[Catlady711]

Oh, and here's the main link to the online version of your user manual. The link goes right to the index, page numbers in the book DO line up with the web page numbers.

http://www.fixya.com/support/p328328-hp_photosmart_r817_digital_camera/manual-13498/page-5

[jennielynn1970]

Holy cow! I have never ever used those buttons!!! I just took some pics of cat whiskers, lol. I'm amazed! I'll have to do some other things, see how they look, and then post them.


Pet Talk.. so much more than pets, lol!

[Catlady711]

Great!!!:D:D

And THAT'S why I get so ticked at camera sales people and marketing hype making people believe the camera is somehow sub-standard and you need a 'better' camera to take good pix.

NOPE not really true. Just a good understanding of the camera you have, good photo techniques, and a good eye for composition/lighting/exposure and basically even a polaroid (and I mean a real polaroid that spits out pix you have to wait for them to develope) can take good pictures.

Isn't it a great feeling to find out what you thought wasn't good enough turns out to do more than you thought? :)

Like I said before, I love photography probably as much as pets. lol

[Catlady711]

BTW I'll be looking for you to be posting those pix soon!

[jennielynn1970]

Well, they're nothing like what you or Kirsten post, or Kay for that matter (bows to Kirsten, you and Kay for your awesome pics), but I was amazed that I could take close ups, and that my camera had those settings. This is what I get for NOT reading the manuals. :o

I still want to take my mom and dad's camera to the shop and see what they say. Maybe it's a lost cause and I can get something else to play with as well (like a cam corder or something), or get something better and donate what I have. OOORRRR... maybe it's not worth anything at all, and it will just be a nostalgia piece, lol.

I have nostalgia pieces for different things around here. Anyone collect old toasters, like the ones where the sides flipped down, and you had to turn your toast to get it colored on both sides??? It's an OLDIE!! I'll take some pics of that too, lol!!

[Catlady711]

Thank you very much for the compliments. *blushes*

NEVER EVER think your photography is 'bad' just because it isn't as good as someone else's!!!!!

You have to remember even the people who you admire their shots the most, have people who they also look up to as having 'better' shots and yet even those people have people who they look up to......etc etc.

We all started somewhere, no one is just born with all the knowledge to make perfect pictures, it's a learning process that requires practice, and with that LOTS and LOTS of 'bad' shots.

If you think some of the stuff I post are 'great' pix, you should have seen some of the stuff I shot a few months ago while learning off camera lighting (still learning but getting better), or even the stuff I shot back in the early 90's when I got my first SLR. Some of those are so bad I had to circle the subject in some shots write a caption in the photo albums so people would know what I took pix of!:rolleyes: No joke!

About the only time I ever get riled up about 'bad' shots is when the person is billing themselves as a 'professional' or an 'expert' in a certain area and from the pix they certainly have ALOT to learn. Not so great shots from someone learning is one thing, but not so great shots from a paid wedding/portrait photographer is quite another.

Nope never seen a toaster like that. I've spent years as a packrat and am now trying to declutter from under all that 'stuff' so I'm downsizing my stuff.

Let us know what the camera shop says about that old camera. I'd be curious as I don't know anything to speak of about that brand.

If you sell that old camera for any amount of money, maybe you'd want one of these?
http://www.lumiquest.com/products/softscreen.htm
I have one I keep in my camera bag for quick shots when I don't have time/energy to drag out the big flashes.

[Husky_mom]

looking forward for thosepics too!! :D

one more input about the camera you asked before...

quoted from another friend on a photography forum

"Ricoh made two model of this camera XR-M and XR-X with the XR-X being the european model. This was the height of Ricoh;s technical achievement with 35mm cameras and usually came with a Rikenon f/2.0 50mm lens, this model did have the option of a Sigma zoom lens.

I used to own the model prior to this the XR-7 with a f/1.7 50mm lens and it produced superb results - as for value Adorama are pushing a body only for $54 so there is a little value in it still. As for the lens it was a K mount which I don't think would work on any D-SLR.

Your friends decision is if she needs the money then sell else she may want to delve into the world of film - in that case keep it."

[jennielynn1970]

Well, I went to the camera shop today. Let's just say I received some very disapproving looks for the state that the camera is in! I can't help it my father decided to let it in a box, open in the basement. I tried to explain, but they all looked at me like it was me making excuses, lol. Oh well.

So, from what they said, as they tsk-tsk'd at the camera and the one pro came over to look at it, was that it's basically shot. There are pieces breaking off on the camera itself. Not sure what or why, but there are little thingies that are coming off. Then the mirror on the camera (mirror??) is scratched all to heck. The lens is next to destroyed as well. Scratches on the outside, crap on the inside. He doesn't know how the stuff got in there, but it's pretty much destroyed.

They can TRY to repair it, but we'd be looking at over $500 to do that, if they can. So... I guess it can sit on a shelf to be looked at for another few decades. They don't take trade ins normally, and especially not in the shape that it's in.

Oh well.

At least I found out things about my own camera that I didn't know on here, lol. I'll have to dig out the downloading stuff and do that with the pics tonight. Right now I'm beat from running around the city all afternoon and dealing with traffic and mobs of people (went to the mall to have my cell checked out... what a mistake!).

[Catlady711]

It's a bummer they can't even take it as a trade in for a couple bucks.

The mirror is what you would basically look at when shooting the pix, when you take the pix it flips up out of the way to expose the film. Mirrors are kinda expensive to replace and a pain in the rear to look at if they're scratched. If the camera was in the basement then it probably has some mold or something inside the camera, which is expensive and darn near impossible to completely remove. Yup sounds like a souvenier to me.

Don't be surprised that cameras decrease alot in value. They're kinda like computers as far as resale value goes, only goes down.

Yesterday I was at my camera store and in the used dept. they had the first SLR camera body I ever bought. I originally bought it for $400, they were selling it for $149! Right next to it was the Elan, the one I drooled over that I couldn't afford when I got mine. It was only selling for a measly $20 more, and I know at the time I got mine the price difference was more like $8-900. That's why you always buy the best you can afford that will do basically what you need it to do, and just enjoy it as long as you want to, regardless of how much/little it cost or what it's resale value is/was.

[jennielynn1970]

Ok, so let's see how I did with this Macro and Super Macro thing.

Sophie
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/jenn_librarian/sophiecloseup.jpg

Sophie being sleepy
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/jenn_librarian/sophieface.jpg

Sophie full face up close
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/jenn_librarian/sophiefullface.jpg


Pictures of paws and whiskers

Calloway's panda paw
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/jenn_librarian/callowaypandapaw.jpg

Zach's big paw
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/jenn_librarian/zachpawonbed.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/jenn_librarian/zachbigpaw.jpg

Zach's whiskers
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/jenn_librarian/zachwhiskersupclose.jpg


They came out better than I ever hoped close ups would with this camera... now that I know what buttons to push, lol. Lighting still isn't my strong suit with indoor objects. Some of the pics were way too bright (white in cats).

[Taz_Zoee]

Wow, Jennie, those are great pictures!! I guess I need to learn the tricks with my camera too.
I just :love: Calloways paw, that is too cute!!! :D :D

[Moesha]

You did a great job!!!

[krazyaboutkatz]

Jenn, these pictures are great.:) I still haven't learned how to use my super macro setting yet and I was also having problems with the clarity of some of my macro settings. I wish that the handbooks would just be written in plain English so that any one would be able to understand them. I have a Canon Powershot S3IS.

[jennielynn1970]

bump for catlady711

[Husky_mom]

you see.... you got great pics!!... and you saved a few bucks...

I love the Panda Paw... sooooooooo cute!!!!.... I wanna steal him.. ;).. (obviously the whole cat :p)

[Catlady711]

Great job on the pix!!! Isn't the world of macro rather interesting?

For the lighting, since I don't have time at the moment to look up your camera specs, try tenting a piece of thin, very white paper over the pop up flash. On mine I use cheap very white computer paper about 4 inches in front of the flash. That should help with some of your lighting for the moment on macro/indoor shots.

Glad you posted some pix, and that I finally got a bit of time to get to see them! BTW cute kitties!;)