Question for camera people - Pics in post #40

[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.

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...ixel-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-c...-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/Featu...107-99077.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_...s/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]

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?