Photography

[Gordon Maney]

We have seen a transition to digital photography to a very substantial degree. A measure of that is how little film is currently being inventoried by even serious camera shops.

With regard to publishing a magazine or maintaining a website, digital images are a dream to work with, and after your initial purchase price of the camera, the cost per image produced is zero, allowing you to take lots of pictures.

I want to raise the awareness of users with regard to the creation of quality, digital images. So I am posting an initial poll to learn what we can and to cause viewers to think about these issues.

A mistake many people have made upon making the move to a digital camera is they choose small image file size, lower quality images, so they can store more images on their camera media, or on their computer. They view these images on their computer and they look great. If they have prints made from such images they are typically disappointed, as the resolution of the file, evidenced by its slze, is small and cannot support production of a detailed image.

Because I am forever finding myself explaining to Dodgers why their images are not suitable for printing, I want to work to educate digital camera users with regard to why they should choose high quality images. Storage media is not so cheap there is no reason to choose low quality. Furthermore, when you order 5x7 or 8x10 prints of baby Alice and discover they are muddy and pixelated, you will realize why small image files of low quality are not a good thing.

Note: This is an anonymous poll, so no one would know how you voted. I am just trying to learn what most people are doing.

[MoparFreak69]

I found myself in much the same situation a year or so ago when I was tired of the crap my point and shoot camera was spitting out. I had never paid much attention to photography, just pointed and shot like so many others do. After much research it was determined that the only way to get the results that I expected out of a camera was to buy something a little more top shelf. On stage steps the DSLR. Several thousand shots later and I am understanding exactly what it takes to make a photo work and turn out like I want. Most people do not understand the 3 basic components of light. The most inportant part of photo taking that the camera decides how to manage, which it often fails at doing.

The hardest part is convincing people to part with that kind of money. I have well over $2500 in my setup and it is nowhere near up to snuff as far as lens ranges that I would like to use.

The second hardest part is that people simply want everything automated. A person wants to just push a button and get a great picture, without any effort on their part. Its the way of the world.

I guess another point is that most people are fine with only printing up 4x6 photos to fit into an album and that being the end of it. People dont really seem to care that they cant take a picture of a group of people and crop out everything but one face and still be able to print that up in an 8x10 and have it look crisp and clear as if the shot was zoomed in on that one person in the first place.

A final thought is post-processing. Not many people want to spend many minutes adjusting and tweaking settings to get to the real picture behind the haze/fog/lack of contrast. I find myself with memory cards stacked full of photos that I havent gotten to processing yet because my camera shoots in RAW format and they cannot be viewed in anything but photoshop. Its just a lot of work that a lot of people dont want to deal with.

[Gordon Maney]

I found myself in much the same situation a year or so ago when I was tired of the crap my point and shoot camera was spitting out. I had never paid much attention to photography, just pointed and shot like so many others do. After much research it was determined that the only way to get the results that I expected out of a camera was to buy something a little more top shelf. On stage steps the DSLR. Several thousand shots later and I am understanding exactly what it takes to make a photo work and turn out like I want. Most people do not understand the 3 basic components of light. The most important part of photo taking that the camera decides how to manage, which it often fails at doing.

The hardest part is convincing people to part with that kind of money. I have well over $2500 in my setup and it is nowhere near up to snuff as far as lens ranges that I would like to use.

The second hardest part is that people simply want everything automated. A person wants to just push a button and get a great picture, without any effort on their part. Its the way of the world.

I guess another point is that most people are fine with only printing up 4x6 photos to fit into an album and that being the end of it. People don't really seem to care that they cant take a picture of a group of people and crop out everything but one face and still be able to print that up in an 8x10 and have it look crisp and clear as if the shot was zoomed in on that one person in the first place.

A final thought is post-processing. Not many people want to spend many minutes adjusting and tweaking settings to get to the real picture behind the haze/fog/lack of contrast. I find myself with memory cards stacked full of photos that I haven't gotten to processing yet because my camera shoots in RAW format and they cannot be viewed in anything but photoshop. Its just a lot of work that a lot of people dont want to deal with.

Some digital cameras that can produce RAW images will allow you to set the camera so it saves both a RAW and a .jpg image of each photo. You might see if your camera will allow you to do that, as it would allow you more viewing options.

[MoparFreak69]

While I do have the option of shooting in Raw and Jpeg at the same time, adding a 14MB+ Jpeg file on top of the 42MB+ Raw file burns through an 8GB memory card real quick. As it is I can only get 220 photos on an 8GB card.

[Gordon Maney]

Have several pieces of media, then move all the images to your computer and then initialize the media and start over.

The advent of low cost online backup has been a great thing, too.

[712edf]

I have an Kodak Easyshare C913 camera. Its simple & inexpensive. And No It doesn't always do what I intend for it to do. But my main pupose for this camera is to take pictures to put into either emails or on the internet, such as in a Craiglist ad or on website forums such as this one. I do this via the SD card. Often I have to reduce the size of the image to post it or send it via email. I don't have a printer, nor any desire to print any of the pictures I take, it would just create more clutter. And storage isn't an issue, as I usually delate images from my computer once I am done with them. It serves my purpose.

I think film cameras take better pictures (assuming quality camera/film & knowledgable photographer).

[QuantumJo]

The photos I take are set on the highest resolution possible.

I am able to take great shots with my 6-7 year old Canon point & shoot, about $200 when it was new. It is more than adequate for publication. I used to get images for the WNY Mopars 2011 Calendar I made last year.
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/20/67charger1.jpg

[Gordon Maney]

I have an Kodak Easyshare C913 camera. Its simple & inexpensive. And No It doesn't always do what I intend for it to do. But my main pupose for this camera is to take pictures to put into either emails or on the internet, such as in a Craiglist ad or on website forums such as this one. I do this via the SD card. Often I have to reduce the size of the image to post it or send it via email. I don't have a printer, nor any desire to print any of the pictures I take, it would just create more clutter. And storage isn't an issue, as I usually delate images from my computer once I am done with them. It serves my purpose.

I think film cameras take better pictures (assuming quality camera/film & knowledgable photographer).

I am a long time advocate of film and film cameras. I learned photography with a 4x5, sheet film, press camera and a hand held meter. I resisted the move to internally metered cameras. I resisted the move to autofocus, and did not go there until a first digital camera.

My point is, I like film. Having said all that, film cameras do not take better pictures. If you use a really fine film camera, the best materials, with a skilled operator, and a really poor digital camera and a bad operator, then the film image will be better. Otherwise, not.

Digital has other issues and disadvantages however. It is here to stay; that is apparent.

[Gordon Maney]

The photos I take are set on the highest resolution possible.

I am able to take great shots with my 6-7 year old Canon point & shoot, about $200 when it was new. It is more than adequate for publication. I used to get images for the WNY Mopars 2011 Calendar I made last year.
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/20/67charger1.jpg

Very nice image, very nice car, and very nice stone structure!

[MoparFreak69]

The photos I take are set on the highest resolution possible.

I am able to take great shots with my 6-7 year old Canon point & shoot, about $200 when it was new. It is more than adequate for publication. I used to get images for the WNY Mopars 2011 Calendar I made last year.
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/20/67charger1.jpg

This photo is a case of the photographer knowing more about the shot than the camera. The setup is quite nice and the lighting seems to be about right for the shot. The camera overexposed, blowing out the highlights in a lot of areas, which would make a professional photographer cringe. Another small nit-pick I could post about is the Purple Fringing that occurs in the very high contrast areas (where the light shines through the trees). If you look closely you can see a purple splotch between the extreme white sunlight and the dark contrast of the tree leaves. There really isnt anything you can do about it, aside from camera and lens upgrades.

I hope this isnt taken the wrong way, The shot is quite nice and is set up very well. The operator did everything text book perfect. The shot was let down by the equipment in this case.

[oldmopar]

Not a real photo type I have a kodak z740 camera I mostly use it for internet photos and sends stuff to friends. I really cannot see the difference in the different settings. I just checked one of the photos I took the image properites read 2048 x 1536 24bits 863.18kb. I then use a photo program and it shrinks them down to 829x900 24bits 94.41kb.
Not really sure what this comes out to in photography but this works for me

[Gordon Maney]

Not a real photo type I have a kodak z740 camera I mostly use it for internet photos and sends stuff to friends. I really cannot see the difference in the different settings. I just checked one of the photos I took the image properties read 2048 x 1536 24bits 863.18kb. I then use a photo program and it shrinks them down to 829x900 24bits 94.41kb.
Not really sure what this comes out to in photography but this works for me

You cannot see a difference because you are viewing the image on a computer monitor that is low resolution and looks good to you.

One perspective is that the only thing you could use your smaller image for is viewing on your computer or emailing to friends. It could not be used for publishing or print making.

For a fun experiment, you could take a photo of anything at all — the dog, a chair, a coffee cup — and email [....to me at the contact us link below] a copy of the original, large size photo, and also a copy of the small version produced by your software, for me to compare. I could then offer a more useful comparison.

[Gordon Maney]

This photo is a case of the photographer knowing more about the shot than the camera. The setup is quite nice and the lighting seems to be about right for the shot. The camera overexposed, blowing out the highlights in a lot of areas, which would make a professional photographer cringe. Another small nit-pick I could post about is the Purple Fringing that occurs in the very high contrast areas (where the light shines through the trees). If you look closely you can see a purple splotch between the extreme white sunlight and the dark contrast of the tree leaves. There really isnt anything you can do about it, aside from camera and lens upgrades.

I hope this isnt taken the wrong way, The shot is quite nice and is set up very well. The operator did everything text book perfect. The shot was let down by the equipment in this case.

I don't think it is fair to say the equipment failed. The equipment was asked to deal with an array of values or lighting levels across the subject field. The reflective surfaces appear as they do. If a single image had been produced that did not appear as what you term blown out, then the rest of the image would have been too dark. All photos are a compromise at some level, unless you are talking about HDR [high dynamic range] photos, which require multiple images.

[MoparFreak69]

I don't think it is fair to say the equipment failed. The equipment was asked to deal with an array of values or lighting levels across the subject field. The reflective surfaces appear as they do. If a single image had been produced that did not appear as what you term blown out, then the rest of the image would have been too dark. All photos are a compromise at some level, unless you are talking about HDR [high dynamic range] photos, which require multiple images.

Not necessarily, pulling the exposure back a third step or so might have been just enough to prevent the blowout, but not darken the image considerably. That is the nice thing about shooting in RAW format though. As long as you dont overexpose too much, you can draw that detail back out and save the information that is present in the bright area. My camera isnt able to take HDR shots at one time like the newer models will so I do understand there will always be a compromise without having that capability.

[Gordon Maney]

I am pleased to see how the poll is going.