Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gromit, Sparkle, and Doug on August 12, 2010 at 8:11pm

Hope I don't come off as too much of a know-it-all but I've been shooting actively since the '80s and shooting digital since about 1992. I did documentation photographic work extensively as part of my engineering work before I retired, and have had some minor success apart from work. I wouldn't say I'm a pro but I've been around. Here, my advice is worth at least what you pay for it. :-)

Camera choices are expanding rapidly. The newest area is the Micro 4/3 cameras from Panasonic, Sony, and Olympus. They provide DSLR interchangeable lenses without the bulk of a DSLR and a much bigger sensor chip than point n shoot cameras have, although not as big as a full size DSLR. The Micro 4/3 image quality is outstanding although not on par with the better DSLRs. I'm thinking about getting a 4/3 camera to carry on my motorcycle because my Nikon D90 is too bulky and maybe too fragile. Google "Micro Four Thirds" for more info on those cameras. Might be just what you need, John.

One mistake people make with cameras is mistaking mega-pixels for image quality. To get the real low down on what a camera will produce for image quality you have to start with a look at pixel density. The point n shoot cameras with 12 - 14 MP usually have high pixel densities because the sensor chip is a fixed size and they just cram on more pixels. This leads to muddy photos when you look close. Check out the specs on www.dpreview.com and compare the pixel density number for the best cameras and the cheapest, you'll see a big difference and there in lies one of the biggest factors in image quality apart from the glass.

John is correct, lower ISO is better if you can get it although it's somewhat unfashionable now amongst photo geeks. Noise as ISO increases varies from camera to camera with cheaper cameras being much noisier at a given ISO than more expensive ones. My old Nikon CoolPix 8800 shot at ISO 50 and I loved it in bright light. Some cheap camera will clip highlights at low ISO so there can be a trade off. I shoot my Nikon D90 as low an ISO as I can get away with for the situation.

Fast lenses are wonderful things but lenses don't always take their very best image at the maximum aperture. Every lens has a "sweet spot" and that's usually around f/8. A fast f-number is great if that suits the shooting situation. Blurring background, often referred to now as bokeh (from a Japanese word for blur), can be done with most any camera if you set up the shot correctly. Below, a photo of a lizard taken with my Nikon CoolPix 8800. f/7.4, 1/80th, ISO 50.

The background is blurred, but the bokeh isn't necessarily that attractive. The point is though, that it didn't take a very small aperture to get the effect. It was the position of the camera to the subject. The 8800 was not a cheap point shoot though (about $700 new) and sadly, not made anymore either. A current equivalent would be the Nikon P100, I think. If you can find a cheap 8800 on Ebay it's a great camera, better than many newer ones.

Too, learning to edit images is indispensable. You don't have to become a PhotoShop Jedi Master but it's good to learn some basics about cropping, leveling horizons, resetting white balance, clarifying and image, and a few other things. Learning to read the histogram for an image and adjust it makes a huge difference too, a somewhat advance concept but one worth learning. I see so many pictures on MyCorgi that are good but could be 50% better with 5 minutes of tweaking.

I've always edited with Corel PaintShop Pro but recently switched to Nikon Capture NX2 which is an amazing program although with fewer features than PSP. Better known is PhotoShop Elements which is a cut down version of PhotoShop and should give all an amateur needs for editing. I started with PSP long ago and only switched to Capture NX2 because the new version of PSP is a bloated pig. Ver. X2, much better. Capture NX has turned out to be a revelation though. Wonderful, easy way to make good photos better.

Another way to get nicely blurred backgrounds without spending a ton of money on a lens is to go to a shorter length like a 50mm f/1.8. This will give wonderful images but you have to be willing to move around more to get the framing correct. Photo here with my 50mm f/1.8. Much more interesting and artistic bokeh than than I got at f/7.4 with the CoolPix 8800:

By the way, John was correct when he mentioned problems with zooming messing up pictures, it does very much on point n shoots where you can't use a manual aperture setting. When the PnS cameras reach their max aperture they go for higher ISO and slower shutter speeds, usually to the detriment of the image. Slower shutter speeds (below 1/60) means holding very still, something that can be difficult if one is tire or in an awkward position.

Anyway, it is possible to get very nice pictures with a relatively inexpensive point shoot but you do have to work at it more. An awful lot depends too on what your final intent is for the image: Web page? Framed on wall? Collecting electron dust on your hard disk? If you're not printing at sizes larger than 8x10 a top notch camera of 6 MP will give you wonderful images. For most of us having more than 12 mp only gives the ability to crop the image more and still have a nice image.

One more to prove my point about mega-pixels. Below is "Rocket Rex" Staten, a motocross champion of the 1970s. Image was taken at a vintage motocross event back in 2000 with a 3.2 mega-pixel Nikon CoolPix 950. It's one of my favorite photos.

I hope I didn't go on too much. Maybe there's a pro lurking on MyCorgi that can add to what I said or at least tell me I'm full of Corgi poop. LOL

Doug

Permalink Reply by Gromit, Sparkle, and Doug on August 12, 2010 at 8:41pm

A follow up thought, since I'm feeling verbose today, the web display of an image can vary quite a lot. Images can look better in some web browsers than others and better on one site than another. They will look much better on some monitors than others. They usually look their worst on laptop screens.

MyCorgi, when it resizes and displays and images, tends to dull the picture a bit. Clicking on the "View Full Size" link often reveals a much nicer image than the one displayed first. I've noticed this especially with John's wonderful hiking images.

I've upload a given photo to Webshots, Flickr, Picassa, and SmugMug and found the photo looked best on SmugMug. But you have to pay to use SmugMug so it loses some appeal right there. I use Webshots simply because I've been on there a long time and have tons of free storage space. My next choice would be Flickr but they limit how much you can upload too much unless you pay.

I've found (and your mileage may vary):

Firefox and Google Chrome browsers display images the best in terms of fidelity to the original.
Internet Explorer seems to do the least effective job.

As I understand it Firefox and Chrome are "color managed" browsers. Internet Explorer isn't and I've noticed that my on-line images look there worst in I.E.

Don't ask me to explain "color managed" as I have only a slight idea of what that means at this point.

So, using a cheap monitor and Internet Explorer on a less than stellar site can make even the best photos look dull.

Doug

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page