Daily Equine Forum Visit Horse Saddle Shop Read Horse Saddle Shops Blog Horse Saddle Shop Twitter Horse Saddle Shop Facebook Image Map
Daily Equine Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics |Recent Messages | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Creative, fun and entertaining
 Saddle Shop Corral
 Camera Talk
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 07/28/2008 :  07:48:01 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hey, I'm opening a thread on cameras, only because I have asked Hook for advice on getting a digital camera with certain print size requirements and he made some suggestions. All of that discussion is in "Meet Bella, My New Dog" thread here in Saddle Shop Corral. However, for others who have similar questions (since cameras are sort of a biggie with horse folk, lol) it seems a good idea to have a dedicated thread for any further discussion.

First, Hook, thanks again for your recommendations. The Canadian prices scared me a tad, but Amazon's prices were more affordable (and I know zilch about the exchange rate).

Amazon has reviews on the two of your list that caught my attention, both of them being the 12.1MP. The PowerShot G9 and the PowerShot SD950IS. Not too many on the G9, but there WAS a product discussion thread on that one, where some guy posted that interested people should see another, more dedicated, camera discussion forum that might go into more depth. I went there, and some of the discussion is way above my head (especially with the abbreviations known to camera buffs).

But for discussions about just about ANY camera, here is the forum and this link will land you on the Canon board, but there are other camera brand boards, depending on the camera type you have...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1010&page=3

Okay, that said, back to my questions to Hook (others are welcome to chime in)...

Hook, you singled out the PS950IS, slim style, 12.1MP IS 3.7 Zoom. That one is about $320 or thereabouts if my recall is correct. Looks like a really nice Point-and-Shoot (P&S)!

However, you did not comment on the PowerShot G9 - Compact Camera - 12.1MP - IS 6X zoom. I'm curious as to why not.

The G9 appears to be very close in size to the PS950, however it has a higher number by the zoom (6X vs. 3.7). I have to ask what appears obvious, just for confirmation. Does that mean, I assume, that it'll zoom in closer, so you can take a photo from farther away and have it look like you were right up close? (Getting really elementary here, but just checkin.)

Also, the G9 apparently has "RAW" which may stand for something, but does spell "raw" meaning that you can override the P&S feature and do your own settings. It also, however, appears to have fans of its P&S capabilities.

This may be hard for you to answer, but given that I am a total novice (but do have a brain rattling around in there somewhere), is it the sorta thing where once you get into shooting more photos, you are just bound to want to start doing your own settings? Or is that something that only people who have a fair foundation in photography would ever get into? (I do not know the learning curve).

I did read some reviews that were hot, hot, hot in favor of the G9 (not at all discussing the SD950), just talking about the G9. However, there's also some sort of thing where some people said that when you turn the camera on, the lens slides out. They were saying that this increases the chance of dust particles getting in, and even to the point where they noticed spots in their photos (looked like a blur spot). Those were noticed at certain settings (I think they were talking about aperture... like a tight aperture or something).

Earlier (last year reviews) of the G9, apparently there was a defect where light leaked in, and Canon did say it was a defect. A lot of the G9s had that problem. Apparently now, a year later, it must have been fixed since I'm not reading anymore about that.

I haven't read as much in the way of reviews on the SD950.

Any thoughts about whether the G9 (with its RAW capabilities) would be worth another $100? It's just about $100 more in price. However, I don't know whether, in the average Point&Shooter's world, that capability is something that will, with familiarity, become something you're really glad you got, or whether it's the sort of thing that will just not get used unless you're a real camera buff.

I do know that some of the posts I read, these were obviously written by people who are pretty savvy, who have SLRs (I think that's the initials -- a more advanced camera) but who said that when they went on trips, they were very happy with the capabilities of the G9 in exchange for its small size, without added equipment (e.g., special lenses, etc.)

Any thoughts on this?
Carol



Hook
Trail Boss (Moderator)



Canada
6115 Posts

Posted - 07/28/2008 :  09:04:54 AM  Show Profile  Visit Hook's Homepage Send Hook a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The main difference for you is size. The G9 ( a very good camera and a step up from the 950)looks more like a traditional "point and shoot" and the P950IS is a slimmer version to put in your pocket or purse. (for trail riding pictures as you wanted.) Both have lots of settings.

The ability to save the picture in RAW format is for experienced folks who have the knowledge to manipulate the data to achieve more specific results. My son says I should learn to use it but most folks do not have the knowledge or the time. Think of it as having a dark room for processing pictures but you still need the knowledge how to get the results you want from the processing. I have never tried the RAW format.

You would like the added zoom feature of the G9 as it will allow you to get much more detailed phots from a futher distance.

Let me know if you need a more detailed explanation(s)

Hook(ed)......on Horses

"The best things in life are nearest: Breath in your nostrils, light in your eyes, flowers at your feet, duties at your hand, the path of right just before you. Then do not grasp at the stars, but do life's plain, common work as it comes, certain that daily duties and daily bread are the sweetest things in life. " Author: Robert Louis Stevenson
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 07/28/2008 :  09:59:35 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hi Hook, thanks for the added input. Okay, I've done more research into the reviews. Common complaints about the G9 are... "noise" and "grainy." There's also a very common sounding defect (not sure if it's been fixed) in what people are describing as a "light leak" which may be in the LCD (which I assume is another way of looking at what's in frame). I don't know if that shows up in the photos. Another complaint ias been that dust gets inside it. Also mentioned more often than I'd like are "stuck pixels" or "dead pixels." I don't know if those show up through the viewfinder or in the photo itself. Others (more than one by far) have mentioned that the lens can stick once it comes out (may be related to the dust getting in issue).

That camera is $450. It also apparently is bigger than I first gave it credit for in comparison to the 950. It is 4.2 x 2.8 x 1.7 (roughly, 4 x 3 x 2wide). And it weighs 11.4 oz. The 950 is 3.8x2.4x1.1 (roughly 4 x just under 2-1/2 x 1 inch wide. That's more substantial of a size difference than I thought. And the 950 weighs 6 oz., almost half as much.

It also had a share of complaints (battery door is a bad design, and opens too easily. Also, it had some complaints about what's called the "Fatal E error" which apparently tells you to close the lens and re-open it, which doesn't repair the error message.) But that complaint, as I recall, was for both of them. I think (am hoping without trying to retrace my steps) that that complaint was hopefully posted more last year, and hopefully has been fixed with later issues of that camera.

I'm really leaning toward smaller size and less cost. $319 vs. $450 is a fair difference. Oh, another thing -- regarding the RAW mode on the G9, I've read several complaints about the fact that Canon supplies its own proprietary software of some sort (I believe the 3-letter end extension) which Photoshop does not recognize. I think there's a workaround where you have to upload it somehow and convert it somehow to get it into an extension that Photoshop recognizes. And I'm not sure if that rquires compression which would (from my limited knowledge) defeat the whole point of the RAW (uncompressed) feature.

I'm leaning toward the 950, largely because of size and weight (which they call "pocketability.")

But one further question. If we multiply my needed width and height (which you computed at 2261 x 2926 = 6,615,686 and it comes out to 6.6 MP, do I really need 12.1 MP?? I mean, would it be smart to conside, say, an 8MP camera (which I would assume would be cheaper)? Or... I guess my question is based on the numbers you computed, the 12.1MP is almost double what I need. So are there any other advantages to higher MP capable camera? That's given that my print-size-at-266dpi requirements are satisfied with way less than 12.1MP? And similarly, are there any DISadvantages to working with a 12.1MP camera?

Again not knowing more than references I've read, people do talk about it being nice to be able to use the overkill (12.1mp) specifically for ability to crop. But then is there a trade-off in terms of storage? I suspect either way one would want to get another storage card or two.

This is where I am totally ignorant. I simply don't know what comes along with the 12.1mp vs., say, an 8mp or 10mp. The advantages, disadvantages, trade-offs.

Gawd, there's a lot to it, isn't there, lol!
Go to Top of Page

Hook
Trail Boss (Moderator)



Canada
6115 Posts

Posted - 07/28/2008 :  9:44:47 PM  Show Profile  Visit Hook's Homepage Send Hook a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by OnTheWay



But one further question. If we multiply my needed width and height (which you computed at 2261 x 2926 = 6,615,686 and it comes out to 6.6 MP, do I really need 12.1 MP?? I mean, would it be smart to consider, say, an 8MP camera (which I would assume would be cheaper)? Or... I guess my question is based on the numbers you computed, the 12.1MP is almost double what I need. So are there any other advantages to higher MP capable camera? That's given that my print-size-at-266dpi requirements are satisfied with way less than 12.1MP? And similarly, are there any Disadvantages to working with a 12.1MP camera?

Again not knowing more than references I've read, people do talk about it being nice to be able to use the overkill (12.1mp) specifically for ability to crop. But then is there a trade-off in terms of storage? I suspect either way one would want to get another storage card or two.

This is where I am totally ignorant. I simply don't know what comes along with the 12.1mp vs., say, an 8mp or 10mp. The advantages, disadvantages, trade-offs.

Gawd, there's a lot to it, isn't there, lol!



12 MP is overkill but the answer lies in just how good you are a framing photos. If you do not expect to crop by very much then an 8 MP would still be adequate.

If the budget would stand it, the 12.1 would be more forgiving if you have to crop but it does use a lot of memory. The 6 MP file from my Digital Rebel arr over 3 megs each so the 12MP will be twice as big. Remember that the camera can be set to take smaller pictures if you don't need the high quality, say for posting on the Forum.

In reality a well framed 6MP picture would serve your purpose.

BTW the Program that comes with the Camera will have the ability to convert the RAW files to JPEG format after the wizardry is done if you go that route.

Hook(ed)......on Horses

"The best things in life are nearest: Breath in your nostrils, light in your eyes, flowers at your feet, duties at your hand, the path of right just before you. Then do not grasp at the stars, but do life's plain, common work as it comes, certain that daily duties and daily bread are the sweetest things in life. " Author: Robert Louis Stevenson
Go to Top of Page

ILoveJoe
Clinician



USA
2499 Posts

Posted - 07/29/2008 :  12:34:22 AM  Show Profile Send ILoveJoe a Private Message  Reply with Quote
We are really happy with our Nikon 35mm digital camera. We have the D50 which has been discontinued but was replaced by the D40 and more current update is the D40x.

The thing I really like about this camera (D50) is the ability to use the 35mm lenses so we can put the really big zoom lens on and soom so close to an object it is amazing. You can use the auto focus or put it on manual and control the focus yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D40
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 07/29/2008 :  06:07:52 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Actually, Hook, I think "pocketability" is probably more important to me than the RAW capability. My only question though before I own that notion... if the SD950IS only shoots JPEG, can I do color corrections, sharpening and that sort of thing (and then re-save it as a TIF or EPS) without screwing it up? Somewhere in my reading, I thought I saw something about ANY modifications you make to a JPG file, even rotating it, starts taking away quality. I'm not 100% sure he was talking about JPG format, but pretty sure.

That would be a definite consideration. As for cropping, I suspect I would not be able to count on perfect framing, and some cropping ability would be really important. I could do your math and see how much cropping I could get away with, with an 8.0MP and a 10MP also.

As for shooting in lower size to save space, can you lower it way down with the 950 (like to 3MP for shots I'll not need big print size for)? Or is it just the sort of thing where you can cut it down to half or full, and those are the only choices.

And finally, as for storage of larger photos (assuming I'm shooting at 10 or 12MP) then are we talking a lot of money for more storage cards?

The latter two questions sort of go together, because if the storage cards are pretty darned expensive, then I wouldn't want to overkill on anything but a sure-deal magazine photo op.

Oh, yes... also a big question I have. Can I shoot various photos at a lower MP (knowing I'm just going to use them for here or to send to friends via email) but then on the same card, just flip the setting to 12MP and take that ONE OR TWO shots at the higher MP?

Carol
Go to Top of Page

ILoveJoe
Clinician



USA
2499 Posts

Posted - 07/29/2008 :  12:04:35 PM  Show Profile Send ILoveJoe a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Carol a 2 gig SD card runs about 20 bucks at the photo lab at Walmart. You can also invest in a portable hardrive and copy the pictures to it.
Hubby wrote a program that reads the files from the SD card then copies it to the portable harddrive, the program automatically creates date folders and sorts the photos that way. Much neater than scrolling through years of photos all in one folder.
Go to Top of Page

FLOOPER
Trail Boss (Moderator)



USA
2493 Posts

Posted - 07/29/2008 :  12:29:36 PM  Show Profile  Visit FLOOPER's Homepage Send FLOOPER a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hey OTW,

Hook has given you some great advice and input (along with others). I thought I would toss in a bit more info, cause I think you might be getting overly concerned about megapixels (a lot of people do.) So here's my input (given to me by some professional photographer friends of mine)

Megapixels are way overrated. Unless you blow a photo up 200 or 300%, you will see very little difference between an 8 mp and 12 mp camera. The more important determinant for how well a photo is going to look when you crop/enlarge it is the optical quality of the lens. That's why, if you are going to do a lot of enlarging of photos and use them for framing/artwork, etc., you would ultimately be better off with a digital SLR from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta, etc. Look at the difference in the size of the lenses...on the SLR, the size is much, much bigger than on a point-and-shoot. The lenses on a point and shoot are tiny, and simply don't have the resolving power of the bigger lenses (providing the bigger lens has good optics) regardless of how many megapixels (once you get over 6). PS: This is not coming from me, this is what all the professional photographers that I work with in my business have told me (when I asked their advice about the same questions you've been asking).

In other words...what they told me is once you get over 6 mp, don't worry about the megapixels and go for the camera with the best lens.

PS: In my business, when creating brochures, ads, posters, billboards, and other printed materials, our art directors purchase a lot of high resolution jpegs (from stock photo companies), work with them in PhotoShop or Illustrator, and then save them as EPS or Photoshop files with no loss of quality. Of course, these photos are usually originally shot in the RAW format by the photographer, giving them the ability to do more precise color correction, brightness and contrast correction, etc. and THEN they save it to a jpeg format for the art directors to work with. But to be honest, the average non-professional photographer just doesn't have the "professional eye" to benefit from the added editing ability you get with RAW files, nor the time to go in and fine tune each photo's settings. So I wouldn't worry about RAW vs JPEG too much!





Flooper

"I'm a man. I can change. If I have to. I guess."
The Man's Prayer from the Red Green Show

Edited by - FLOOPER on 07/29/2008 12:51:03 PM
Go to Top of Page

puddleplasher
Clinician



USA
1296 Posts

Posted - 07/29/2008 :  6:33:21 PM  Show Profile  Visit puddleplasher's Homepage Send puddleplasher a Private Message  Reply with Quote
And yes, you can switch picture quality level halfway through a card, as well as any other settings the camera lets you switch; each picture is saved with whatever settings you used to take it, and it doesn't affect the other pictures on the card.

'plash

Pepper sez: "Don't forget the horse!!"
'Plash's Ride Log
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2008 :  06:57:04 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hmmmmm. The plot thickens. First, PP, thanks for that info, I hoped as much, but it's good to know that if I get a shot that's potential for a front cover photo, I can switch to high res, but also be able to switch back down and pop of little shots also.

Otherwise, Flooper that brings in a whole new criteria. What you're saying sure has a logical ring to it. Maybe what I'm looking for can't be had in the same camera. Way back when, I looked at SLRs (Canon) and it seems to me they were bigger, so not as "pocketable" (I love that word). Most of the front cover photos I use range between 27MB and 50MB depending on the amount of white in them. These were all scanned (from a 35mm slide) on my print house's drum scanner, which cost close to $100/photo when I had them professionally scanned (late 90s).

I'll have to get into Amazon again and check out SLRs, just to see what the difference is. Obvious question in regard to that... how do I know the quality of the lens??

Also, it's worth noting that my own front cover photos are a different league than the big slick mags. Vogue and Gourmet need very high end photo quality. Mine doesn't need that so much. As long as it's in focus, not noticeably grainy and a reeeeasonable dynamic range, I can usually use it. My stock is only 45# and I use self-cover, so it is not the high gloss thicker cover stock. Therefore I can get away with far lesser quality than one of those example mags can.

I sure would love to see a landscape shot taken with a higher MP point-and-shoot (8, 10 or 12mp) such as the 950IS, in the largest file size it can produce, and send it into my print house for at least an Iris proof of it. Maybe given my low-end paper stock, that would produce good enough quality even though it wouldn't for a Gourmet type front cover.

Flooper, if these guys work with you in the same office so they're right there, would it be workable to PM me a mailing address where I could snail mail you a copy of the mag and maybe they could just glance at it and tell if I truly would need the bigger lens... OR if a 10 or 12mp pocketable type P&S camera would suffice for it? I really don't know if my paper stock matters so that a lower end lens would be "good 'nuff."
Carol
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2008 :  07:06:49 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Another thought! Does anyone have an 8mp, 10mp or 12mp point-and-shoot (to maximize the chance that the lens would be the smaller type found in a P&S) who would be willing to take a nice portrait-oriented landscape shot in JPG format? While that file size would be too big to attach to an email, I do have an FTP account. With free uploading software (e.g., FileZilla or better is FTP Commander), that file size could be uploaded onto my FTP site. I could then take that photo and upload it to my print house, have them make a proof of it, and my tech rep could look at it AND send me a copy of it so I could see if it would work.

I'm not sure I would buy a camera specifically for front cover photos IF it can't ALSO be used as a pocketable point-and-shoot. This would be a way for me to test one out.
Go to Top of Page

FLOOPER
Trail Boss (Moderator)



USA
2493 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2008 :  10:12:14 AM  Show Profile  Visit FLOOPER's Homepage Send FLOOPER a Private Message  Reply with Quote
OTW,

I have the Canon SD1100IS 8 mp point and shoot. It takes gorgeous pictures with excellent detail, depth of field, color, contrast and sharpness. It's not quite as good as my Nikon Digital SLR (D-50), but it's darn close to my untrained eye. The way you describe what your needs are, it, or something similar, would work quite well for you.

Basically, the way to tell how good the optics of a camera are is to read the reviews. There's a reason 99.9% of pros use either Canon, Nikon, Minolta, or Olympus...quality!

No, the art directors don't work right in the office with me...they are actually spread all across the country!!

Flooper

"I'm a man. I can change. If I have to. I guess."
The Man's Prayer from the Red Green Show
Go to Top of Page

FLOOPER
Trail Boss (Moderator)



USA
2493 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2008 :  11:43:43 AM  Show Profile  Visit FLOOPER's Homepage Send FLOOPER a Private Message  Reply with Quote
OTW,

I took a landscape picture of the yard and farmhouse of where I keep my horses. I uploaded it to my iDisk site. I PMd you info on how to go to my site and download the photo. It's a jpeg in the highest resolution (3264 x 2448) that my little Canon 8 mp point and shoot can take.

Flooper

"I'm a man. I can change. If I have to. I guess."
The Man's Prayer from the Red Green Show
Go to Top of Page

PaintGal
Trail Boss (Moderator)



USA
5300 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2008 :  4:17:10 PM  Show Profile Send PaintGal a Private Message  Reply with Quote
OTW,

I purchased a new camera this spring after reading a gazillion reviews and practically memorizing Steve's Digicam specs on several cams. A couple of things I learned is that no camera is perfect but everyone wants to think their camera is. LOL! Don't get too focused on the brand other than making sure it's one of the top 4 or 5 manufacturers. You're going to see "noise" and "grain" as a complaint of most cameras, especially if the reviewer has a different brand.

I finally settled on an Olympus E-510 based on several reviews AND physically holding the camera in 3D. Make sure you do that. Go to a store and pick them up, hold them, extend the lenses and click the buttons! I really was interested in another cam until I held it and it just seemed big... clunky.

I've found that an advantage to a larger megapix cam is that you can crop down to focus on the subject and still have enough there to make a 4x6 or 5x7 print at Walmart!

Those pics of that buck that I posted were taken with the Oly and certainly are not indicative of the quality of the camera & lens. He was several hundred feet away, on the east side of the woods and the sun was setting. I was balancing on the running board of my SUV, hanging onto the door and trying not to drop the camera. I was using the 40-150mm lens zoomed to the 150 mark. I'm still learning the settings and most of my pics are taken using my best friend "Otto" (a.k.a. Auto).

I knew I'd be taking pics of my critters and any wildlife that I could sneak up on so getting a cam with sequential shooting was important. It allows you to keep snapping pics by keeping the shutter button pressed. If you're focusing on landscapes, then you may not need that feature but would need a wide angle lens and a panorama shooting feature. With SLR cams, you can add lenses as you can afford them and/or need them.

Another feature you might consider is "image stabilization". It compensates for the movement that hand held cameras have. The Oly has that built into the body. I don't know about the other big names but do know that some have it in the lenses which adds to their price and good lenses are not cheap!

If you're used to a point & shoot that has the LCD monitor so you can compose the shot and see what it looks like before you shoot, remember that most SLR's don't have that feature. You have to compose the shot through the viewfinder and then you can review it on the panel after you take it.

As for RAW..... UGH! I can take pics in RAW format and did thinking I'd play around with it and learn how to "tweak" them like the pros. I thought my computer was going to crash before the file uploaded. Those files are HUGE....just HUGE and not for amateurs. I'm sticking with JPEG.

Good luck with the camera search!


Karen ~ Trails
&
Joe Paint Gelding
Paoli, IN


"My treasures do not sparkle or glitter, they shine in the sun and neigh in the night."



~~~~~~

Edited by - PaintGal on 07/30/2008 4:23:43 PM
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 07/31/2008 :  08:13:00 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by FLOOPER

OTW,

I took a landscape picture of the yard and farmhouse of where I keep my horses. I uploaded it to my iDisk site. I PMd you info on how to go to my site and download the photo. It's a jpeg in the highest resolution (3264 x 2448) that my little Canon 8 mp point and shoot can take.



[quote]

Hey Floop--

Thanks a lot! I downloaded it, brought it into Photoshop, and in the following order, did the following...

1. Brought it into Photoshop. Photoshop saw it as a JPEG at 22.9MB (and Windows Explorer saw it as 6MB which is something I just have never understood).

2. Within Photoshop, I re-saved as TIF (went from original 22.9M to 30 Mb) - again, within Photoshop. (I assume the TIF file type adds weight just because of its own characteristics.)

3. Under "Image size" with "Resample Image" left UN-checked) I plugged in 266dpi, which gave it a print size of 12w x 9.2high, and no change in file size.

4. Changed color mode from RGB to CMYK, which is what I'd have to do to print it in the magazine.

5. Uploaded it to my printer's server. I'm going to have an Iris (or whatever they use now) Proof made of it to see what we get, unless they have a Photoshop scan-guy there who can just bring it into Pre-flight and be able to tell me if it'll print out at that size acceptably.

QUESTIONS!!!

A. Your camera is rated at 8mp. You shot it at full, highest size. The file size, both on your download site and once I got it into my computer, reported 6Mp. Why did it come out at 6 instead of 8 if your camera is rated at 8.0Mp??

B. Does anyone have any clue why in Windows and on the download site, both saw it as a 6MB file size, yet Photoshop saw it as 22.9MB?? That's happened to me before, and I have no clue why there's that difference, or which to believe!

C. When you open this same file in Photoshop or whatever program you use, and click on Image Size, what resolution do you see as resident within that file? When I opened it, I saw 180dpi (ppi) resolution. I noticed that also with some photos of Bella that the shelter sent me. So do the more recently purchased digital cameras automatically create photos that open in that resolution? I seem to remember digital photos used to open at 72ppi (dpi).

The reason I ask the latter is... somewhere in vague memory I seem to recall opening a file, and being surprised at its resolution because I thought it would be different. And that other photos I opened reported being at that same resolution. So I don't know if Photoshop is reading the resolution that is RESIDENT within the photo file, or if it's opening it with a pre-set resolution.

The other stats I got on it when I newly opened it (still in JPG format) were...
18" wide x 13" tall. Is that what your program shows its physical size to be at 180dpi?

I wish I didn't have this doubt about what Photoshop is telling me AND I also don't understand why Photoshop sees one file size (22.9 megs) while two other sources (Windows Explorer and your upload website's reported file size) show only 6!!

If the latter were to be the true case, then at 266 dpi, a 6-meg file size would be a very small photo physical print size.

I just don't understand these discrepancies. I'm hoping that one of you camera folk on here does.

Floop, thanks MUCH for going to the trouble (and having the upload site) so I could download this as an example. I'm dying to see what my print house says about whether a photo shot with an 8MP camera set at full kick will work. And if so, how it will come out in print form at finished size.

But I still don't understand why yours was a 6Mp file size when your camera is an 8Mp.
Carol



Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 07/31/2008 :  08:19:48 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
PaintGal--

You bring up a VERY good point about holding the camera in your hands. I did read some reviews where people referred to that, and I thought they were being tweaky-fussy. However, I read a couple more where people said one camera or another didn't "hold right," and now you are mentioning the same thing.

I think it would pay to stop at a dedicated camera store and do just that. Unless Best Buy has some of these in stock. I'm glad you made a point of mentioning it though, because I was sort of discounting that aspect, and I have no idea why.

IF I can get a slim, little, "pocketable" digit camera that will take "acceptable" photos for the mag front cover photos (which I'm always struggling to find) then I would be in 7th heaven, because trail riding and on-the-fly photos anywhere are really a huge feature to me (dictates a small point-and-shoot). If I can compromise a TAD of quality on front cover photos AND get the pocketability, then that would be perfect.
C

Go to Top of Page

FLOOPER
Trail Boss (Moderator)



USA
2493 Posts

Posted - 07/31/2008 :  08:27:51 AM  Show Profile  Visit FLOOPER's Homepage Send FLOOPER a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Carol,

You might be confusing megapixel with megabit... Sounds like the file size is 6 mb, not 6 mp. To figure megapixels, you use the resolution that the photo was shot at. That photo's resolution was

3264 pixels X 2448 pixels=7,990,272 pixels. Rounded up, that's why they call it 8 mp.

I don't know the answers to your other questions. The file size of that picture on my Mac is also 6 mb.

PhotoShop files are different from JPEGs, so when you open it in PhotoShop, it creates it as a PhotoShop file, which may explain the size change. But I really don't know.


Flooper

"I'm a man. I can change. If I have to. I guess."
The Man's Prayer from the Red Green Show
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 07/31/2008 :  09:00:59 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by FLOOPER

Carol,

You might be confusing megapixel with megabit... Sounds like the file size is 6 mb, not 6 mp. To figure megapixels, you use the resolution that the photo was shot at. That photo's resolution was

3264 pixels X 2448 pixels=7,990,272 pixels. Rounded up, that's why they call it 8 mp.

I don't know the answers to your other questions. The file size of that picture on my Mac is also 6 mb.

PhotoShop files are different from JPEGs, so when you open it in PhotoShop, it creates it as a PhotoShop file, which may explain the size change. But I really don't know.





Yeah, I think I used the wrong 2 initials a couple of times. What I meant was in all other sources, it was shown as a 6Meg file size. (Size, weight of file itself). But Photoshop saw it (still in its original JPG format) as a 22.9 Meg file.

It would almost HAVE to be in order for any (even a 12MP camera's) photo to ever be used at 266dpi, simply because I have waaaay smaller sized photos that I got from advertisers that are 6Meg files. Some of my front cover photos (created by scanning a 35mm slide on a professional (big) drum scanner... those files are typically 35-55 meg files.

I'm really hoping to find out why those two file size numbers were SOOO different. There is probably a techno explanation.

I will call my tech rep (who's not photo savvy, just printing-prep and layout program savvy) if he has anyone there who can offer an explanation. Again, there has to be one because no way can a true 6-meg file ever print up to that size at 266dpi.

If I find out the answer, I will definitely post it here.

In any event, thanks VERY much again for going to the trouble of shooting and uploading the file. I think this is going to tell us a lot!
Carol
Go to Top of Page

ArborealEquine
Advanced Rider

433 Posts

Posted - 07/31/2008 :  09:39:34 AM  Show Profile Send ArborealEquine a Private Message  Reply with Quote
OTW: "Does anyone have any clue why in Windows and on the download site, both saw it as a 6MB file size, yet Photoshop saw it as 22.9MB?? That's happened to me before, and I have no clue why there's that difference, or which to believe!"

OTW, I'm not a Photoshop expert, but I know Photoshop files aren't necessarily flat files and can have layers. Photo shop divides layers into tiles, and while an empty tile takes up almost no space, a tile with even just 1 pixel in it takes as much space as a full tile.

So, my guess is that Windows and the download site are reading the file as a flat file, but Photoshop is reading all the layers, and that's why the different applications report the same file as a different size. Just a hunch based on very incomplete knowledge on my part.

AE
________________________
I'm so busy, I'm not sure if I found a rope or lost my horse.
Go to Top of Page

FLOOPER
Trail Boss (Moderator)



USA
2493 Posts

Posted - 07/31/2008 :  10:55:09 AM  Show Profile  Visit FLOOPER's Homepage Send FLOOPER a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I have asked on of my art directors the PhotoShop size question. I'll post the answer as soon as they get back to me.

Flooper

"I'm a man. I can change. If I have to. I guess."
The Man's Prayer from the Red Green Show
Go to Top of Page

FLOOPER
Trail Boss (Moderator)



USA
2493 Posts

Posted - 07/31/2008 :  11:18:13 AM  Show Profile  Visit FLOOPER's Homepage Send FLOOPER a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Answer from my senior art director who is a digital imaging expert (has even been used at national PhotoShop seminars/clinics as a presenter).

"Because a jpeg compresses the file to 6mb when saving. When Photoshop opens it, it is uncompressed."

And there ya have it!!


Flooper

"I'm a man. I can change. If I have to. I guess."
The Man's Prayer from the Red Green Show
Go to Top of Page

FLOOPER
Trail Boss (Moderator)



USA
2493 Posts

Posted - 07/31/2008 :  11:37:16 AM  Show Profile  Visit FLOOPER's Homepage Send FLOOPER a Private Message  Reply with Quote
OTW,

Explanation from the art director on DPI:

"DPI is the number of pixels per linear inch on the display monitor (keep in mind many monitors display in scale, so 1" on the monitor might not be exactly 1" measured by a ruler--but it is in scale). So, a file that is shot at 180 DPI and 3240 X 2440 pixels resolution would be, as PhotoShop indicated, 18" x 13" size on the display monitor (18 X 180=3240). The ability to change DPI in in PhotoShop reduces or adds to the number of pixels, but cannot add to original content or detail. If you go up to a higher DPI, it will interpolate and add pixels, not detail. If you go to a lower DPI, it will interpolae and subtract pixels (and thus detail.) So for image quality, it is is best to stay with the native DPI of the photo (in this case 180). More advanced cameras will allow you to change DPI, but most point and shoots are set at one DPI for each quality level. Being able to change DPI in PhotoShop is important for web applications, for example, where you want most photos to be at 72 DPI for optimal loading."



Flooper

"I'm a man. I can change. If I have to. I guess."
The Man's Prayer from the Red Green Show
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 07/31/2008 :  11:41:13 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by FLOOPER

Answer from my senior art director who is a digital imaging expert (has even been used at national PhotoShop seminars/clinics as a presenter).

"Because a jpeg compresses the file to 6mb when saving. When Photoshop opens it, it is uncompressed."

And there ya have it!!





Ah-hah!!! Okay, that makes perfect sense. I assume, then, when I bring it into photoshop to tinker with it (color corrections, sharpening or even re-sizing), it would likely make sense to re-save it as a TIF before doing any of that. I'm thinking I haven't done that in the past, but just worked on a photo first, then done a single "resave as" and THEN picked TIF or EPS. Not sure if it makes any difference, however.

Thank him please (and you) for finding that out for me.
Carol
Go to Top of Page

FLOOPER
Trail Boss (Moderator)



USA
2493 Posts

Posted - 07/31/2008 :  11:45:33 AM  Show Profile  Visit FLOOPER's Homepage Send FLOOPER a Private Message  Reply with Quote
PS: He also said to pretty much ignore DPI...it's more of a setting to tell a printer how many pixels to print per inch, and a way to optimize a photo for web display. Other than that, it's pretty meaningless and not a reflection of the qualilty of a file. The measure of the quality of the file is the number of pixels that make up the file (w X l), not the number of pixels per inch...that's a measure of display quality and printing quality. Also, when he was talking about the DPI changes above, he was talking about keeping the dimensions of the photo the same. If you just change the DPI, but don't lock in the size, it will also change the dimensions.

Flooper

"I'm a man. I can change. If I have to. I guess."
The Man's Prayer from the Red Green Show

Edited by - FLOOPER on 07/31/2008 11:58:41 AM
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 07/31/2008 :  11:50:54 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by FLOOPER

OTW,

Explanation from the art director on DPI:

"DPI is the number of pixels per linear inch on the display monitor (keep in mind many monitors display in scale, so 1" on the monitor might not be exactly 1" measured by a ruler--but it is in scale). So, a file that is shot at 180 DPI and 3240 X 2440 pixels resolution would be, as PhotoShop indicated, 18" x 13" size on the display monitor (18 X 180=3240). The ability to change DPI in in PhotoShop reduces or adds to the number of pixels, but cannot add to original content or detail. If you go up to a higher DPI, it will interpolate and add pixels, not detail. If you go to a lower DPI, it will interpolae and subtract pixels (and thus detail.) So for image quality, it is is best to stay with the native DPI of the photo (in this case 180). More advanced cameras will allow you to change DPI, but most point and shoots are set at one DPI for each quality level. Being able to change DPI in PhotoShop is important for web applications, for example, where you want most photos to be at 72 DPI for optimal loading."






Okay, my understanding is that the resizing dangers come if you have "ReSample" turned on. Because then if you go to a higher DPI, pixels get added (and not particularly well, either). However, if you keep Re-Sample turned off, and go to a larger DPI, then the physical print size gets smaller as a result of the higher DPI, but no pixels are added or taken away.

Also that difference shows up in file size. If you have Re-Sample turned on, and increase resolution, the file size itself gets way bigger (because you are adding pixels). With Re-Sample turned off, you raise the DPI but the file size itself remains the same.

Is that correct??

That's how I've been taking digital photos so far and getting them into a high enough DPI to print in the magazine. All it means is that whatever physical print size that reduces the photo to (because it will), that's the print size I'm stuck with.

By the way, I wanted to confirm... is your camera shooting at 180 DPI? Because your camera's photo and also the dog shelter's photos were showing 180 DPI when I brought them into Photoshop.

The reason I'm asking that is because somewhere in my vague memory it seems that I set the DPI at 180, and since then it seems that any digital photo I bring into Photoshop shows at 180. So I don't know if that's stuck from before (and it may really have been shot at something else) or if it's just coincidence that the photos I've brought in (shot by you and her) both happen to be at 180dpi.
Carol
Go to Top of Page

OnTheWay
Clinician

1433 Posts

Posted - 07/31/2008 :  11:54:34 AM  Show Profile Send OnTheWay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by FLOOPER

PS: He also said to pretty much ignore DPI...it's more of a setting to tell a printer how many pixels to print per inch, and a way to optimize a photo for web display. Other than that, it's pretty meaningless and not a reflection of the qualilty of a file. The measure of the quality of the file is the number of pixels that make up the file (w X l), not the number of pixels per inch...that's a measure of display quality and printing quality.



Well, my print house says that I shouldn't try to bank on photos below a certain dpi printing well. They tell me 266 (I have 133 line screen whatever that means) is ideal, and anything over it is superfluous (e.g., 300dpi which is what I used to need with 150-line-screen). He said they can squeak by in many photos with 250 (may have been even a tad lower) but that it starts getting really marginal below that. Photos would look crappy once printed.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Daily Equine Forum © 2000-2002 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.19 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000