posted on April 27, 2002 09:59:11 AM new
It's not so much a matter of the right equipment. A digital camera photo stores only so much information. You've got 640 tiny pixels which print out at a little over two inches. If you want to print that image at eight inches, you'll use some kind of software interpolation routine to enlarge the image. But there is simply no way to add extra detail to those pixels.
Here's a small image, and then the same image enlarged 4X. This is what happens when you try to print a VGA photo at 8x10. (I used Adobe Photoshop 6.0 to enlarge the image.)
There is just no way to add detail that isn't present in the original image, no matter how good your equipment.
Do yourself a favor. Take a picture of an object, scene or person with your digital camera. Then, take the same picture using a 35mm camera. Take the film to be developed at a QUALITY photo-processing center (Walmart, CVS, and Seattle-Filmworks DON'T cut-it!) Have them print an 8x10 from the film, and compare it to the 8x10 print of that picture from your printer. If you DON'T see that the film print is considerably better, go visit your eye-doctor. Your postings have shown that you either do not know the level of quality that is available, or you have a vision problem. Either way, a test like this could do you good!
posted on April 27, 2002 10:40:10 AM new
Wow. I am still using my Mavica FD-7 that is probably obsolete, but I LOVE the thing, and you will have to pry it from my cold, dead hands!<p>
I love the convenience of the diskette, and in fine mode, I get great results. I would like to add a megapixel model for creative photography when I can afford one (if eBay doesn't get up and running, I can't even get next week's groceries!)... ;0) <p>
I was a pro photographer from the early 70's until the early 90's, but now just enjoy it as a hobby. Still have my Yashica 2-1/4 and all my Minoltas, but usually use a pocket Olympus! <p>
Just havin' fun...
posted on April 27, 2002 10:50:11 AM new
This is odd. The pics I posted here were right off the FD 73 camera and print out at around 8x10 with no enlarging or distortion or blurring, unlike the example above.
posted on April 27, 2002 11:41:29 AM newStill have my Yashica 2-1/4 and all my Minoltas, but usually use a pocket Olympus!
The pocket cameras are not to be dismissed by any stretch. I've got a lot of cameras, my M6 being my favorite (craftsmanship at it's highest level), but I'll bet I've got more great pictures with my Olympus XA than any of the others. When the Olympus XA was discontinued I rushed out and bought 2 more, one still sits in the box unopened.
I've got/had some very nice pocket cameras, Minox, Contax, both very fine cameras, but I'd grab my Olympus XA before any of them to take on a trip. If there's a better pocket camera than the Olympus XA I need to know about it.
posted on April 27, 2002 02:07:09 PM new
There's a difference between what looks good on a computer monitor, and how big the image will print. A VGA-sized digital photo on a monitor set to 800x600 will look fine. In fact, you'd probably have to reduce the resolution to use it in an eBay ad.
It's only when you go to print the image that the megapixel rating is important.
posted on April 27, 2002 03:55:07 PM new
eauctionmgnt:
I'm not so sure you are correct.
I'm not a pro, but I have dabbled in photography all my life. I have some of the best camera's Nikon & Mamyia make. I only bought the digital for ease of listing auction's. But I'm not so sure, that with the proper printing Eqpt. the print's can't equal those of film!
posted on April 27, 2002 04:42:09 PM new
dadofstickboy,
The picture you posted simply does not have a high enough resolution to rival film. Photoshop shows me that the image you posted measures 640x480 pixels at a resolution of 72 pixels per inch. This is MUCH lower than the resolution of film, and the difference should be noticeable to the naked eye. (certainly trained eyes would notice and most amateur's would too) Twinsoft is absolutely correct in his posts explaining how you simply can't add extra detail when you don't have it to begin with. I'm not saying that there are not digital cameras out there that CAN rival traditional photography (at printed sizes of 8x10 and lower).... because there are! The system I referred to in my first post is one of them. But, the technology still isn't cheap enough for the general public to embrace it. Until the price lowers, the suggestions of film scanners and use of a good film camera are good ideas. Of course, until Artdoggy responds to this thread he started, nobody can really give him any good advice. We just don't know enough about what he is planning on doing to give him accurate suggestions.
posted on April 27, 2002 05:19:22 PM new
eauctionmgnt:
The photo you see was taken quickly,on a dingy rainy day in Tenn. I put no effort into making it a great shot. The digital will give great reslution if you put the effort into the shot. I've taken pic's of coins to list on auction,and when posted they showed more flaw's than I saw holding it in my hand. I really can't argue digital too much because I've never really tried to make a digital shot that's, the one to remember. But you can see the one I posted is a lot clearer than the one of the duck's earlier. There is no so called pixalation in my shot and I take close up's and macro with out any.
I use the Sony FD-83.I like the Sony because of the floppy disc.Makes computer work so much easier. But if I was going to look for the ultimate digital photo, I would be looking to buy a Nikon.
posted on April 27, 2002 08:55:20 PM new
my mom is the dirrector of a photo department in european press agency and
all of their 13 profesional photographers
use Nikon digital cameras,
so does my cousin who shoots models .
digital rules profesional world.
(normal cameras are still used of course,
but not too much )
)