A New Shutterbug

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

More megapixels will definitely give one a sharper image. I think the digital camera at work only has about 2 megapixels and probably a small image capturing surface, so, yes the images are not extremely sharp coming out of the camera. It's good enough for making a website, which I did myself (using FrontPage 2002), but I wouldn't use it for professional looking images. I do think the higher end digital cameras are giving film a run for it's money, and maybe some of those can have effects that mirror things like shutter speed, aperture, and focal plane of film cameras. I can't afford one, so I haven't played with one to find out.

Regarding art versus photography, photography does have some elements of art, such as a selective recreation of reality and maybe some of the metaphysical value judgments that go with creating a work of art (once one learns how to use the camera). However, photography really only captures reality as it is, not as it might be and ought to be; even though a great photographer can give moods to his shots in dealing with lighting and settings. As a custom picture framer, I have seen some incredible digital photographs and with modern in-home high end printers, one can get paper printed images that are extremely sharp in content and color / light range that rivals film reproductions.

[Space Patroller]

More megapixels will definitely give one a sharper image. I think the digital camera at work only has about 2 megapixels and probably a small image capturing surface, so, yes the images are not extremely sharp coming out of the camera. It's good enough for making a website, which I did myself (using FrontPage 2002), but I wouldn't use it for professional looking images. I do think the higher end digital cameras are giving film a run for it's money, and maybe some of those can have effects that mirror things like shutter speed, aperture, and focal plane of film cameras. I can't afford one, so I haven't played with one to find out.

Regarding art versus photography, photography does have some elements of art, such as a selective recreation of reality and maybe some of the metaphysical value judgments that go with creating a work of art (once one learns how to use the camera). However, photography really only captures reality as it is, not as it might be and ought to be; even though a great photographer can give moods to his shots in dealing with lighting and settings. As a custom picture framer, I have seen some incredible digital photographs and with modern in-home high end printers, one can get paper printed images that are extremely sharp in content and color / light range that rivals film reproductions.

When this first came up on my radar, the reccommended minimum was 1.3 megapixels. I've seen on ebay factory refurbished units of 10 meg for about $US85 and was tempted but didn't know about the documentation, and some units going for $US500 and more. I figure 7 meg ought to be enough for more than I plan to do.

The Polaroid i739 has 7 megapixels and 3 levels of image quality: Economy, Normal and Fine. Wiht an SD card of 2 GB you can hold 553 still images so I'm not going to spare the bytes there although the filesize is big. 2+ MB. I've used the Microsoft editor zoom in to as high as 200% and there was no image breakup that I could see.

The unit also functions as a camcorder with, at 2 GB a time limit of what looks like 57 minutes, and a "PC camera" which I take to be a webcam

I made my own website using Notepad. and the "headbump" method; learning the HTML by bumping my head on the ceiling of my knowledge and needing some more.

[Space Patroller]

This is what I have: Time=10:20 am, Location=Fall River, MA, Direction=approx True North+ 60 deg, Size=7 Mp, Quality=Fine, Mode=Landscape, Focus=Standard (auto), File Size each 3.40 MB

EDIT: from image to url due to page display time

1. Raw

http://mediazilla.spacepatrol.us/5_21_pic1.JPG

2) Processed via Microsoft Photo Editor Auto-Correct

http://mediazilla.spacepatrol.us/5_21_pic2.JPG

Edited May 22, 2009 by Space Patroller

[RationalBiker]

Thomas,

Yes, DSLRs definitely do many things exactly as a film camera does. Shutter speed, aperture and focal plane (if you mean depth of field) are all mechanical functions on DSLRs that operate exactly as a film camera. As near as I can tell, the more advanced sensors also are equally as responsive to light as some high quality film. Digital 'shutters' (turning the sensor and turning the sensor off instead of having an actual bladed aperture opening) are obviously more common on the point and shoot cameras.

In fact, a major advantage to digital cameras over film cameras is the ability to adjust ISO settings on the fly without having to change film. My cameras effective ISO range is from 50 to 6400. The sensor in my camera handles low light noise very well on the higher ISO settings. One could go from landscape shooting to sports shooting almost instantly if the need were to arise.

I still stick with the idea that certain forms of photography are art forms for the reasons I have already stated.

Edited May 22, 2009 by RationalBiker

[Space Patroller]

I've discovered Auto Exposure Bracketing which takes a burst of images (in my calse 3) at different exposures. You'd be surprised at the difereences in image quality that can make and with an SD card, space is not at a premium. If been through 5 sets of batteris. One set of alkaline and 4 recharge cycles and am on my fifth of the latter. I have 3 sets of NiMH AA and 4 AAA's for other things.

[RationalBiker]

I've discovered Auto Exposure Bracketing which takes a burst of images (in my calse 3) at different exposures.

I may have mentioned this above, but you can use some programs to take those 3 images and make a composite image with a broader range of light. The process is called High Dynamic Range Photography and the results can be quite stunning, if not surreal.

[whYNOT]

Photography as art? considering that anything goes for art today, when even craft is 'art', then sure.

For me, it is categorically not art. Certainly it requires creativity, definitely there are tools and techniques that incrementally increase the photographers' communication of his view to the viewer. But, photography is what it is. It is always going to be subject-based.

With the most beautiful light, the perfect camera angle, the most critical timing, and an attractive or eye-catching subject, it remains a photograph - a craft, at its best approaching art but never getting there.

Any other claim, reduces, IMO, photography's unique specialness.

This conclusion wasn't arrived at easily, since I badly wanted to extend the 'range' of the craft into art, for a long time, but after nearly 40 years as photographer, and seeing the finest of other guys work, I am convinced.

On the question of PhotoShopping a picture, to accentuate or eliminate aspects in it , my feeling is a little ambiguous. This is a marvellous tool, but there definitely comes a stage where the finished image is no longer a photograph, but an attractive image. I spent thousands of hours in dark rooms improving on B+W pics, so I can't deny some manipulation can be valid. A nd anyway, to this day, I attempt to get the photo 'right' in camera - a throwback, I suppose to my film days!

[whYNOT]

Replying to Space Patroller re: the 'red eye effect'.

This is a photograph that shows the retina at the back of your subject's eye.

It's of course unflattering and distracting, as the subject's eyes seem to be pure red blobs, and camera manufacturers go to lengths to avoid it.

It is dependent on 3 factors: Your subject is looking directly at the lens ; you are using a flash, and the dedicated flash that is on camera ; the ambient light level is very low.

The camera flash fires, and because it is placed very near the optical axis of the camera's lens, and because the subject is looking straight back at the lens, and because his pupils are at their widest[because existing light is low or dark], the flash goes directly into his eyes, and bounces directly back into your lens along the same axis.

Voila, pretty pic of the retinas.

So most cameras with built-in flash are designed to pre-flash in little bursts, to trick the eyes into closing down the pupils, and then the main flash and exposure. I find this totally annoying, as of course, there is a delay after firing the shutter.

Simplest way around this is to get him to avert his eyes slightly; or to use a synched 'hammerhead' flash mounted at least 6 inches to one side of the lens.

Or there always Photo Shop...

[Space Patroller]

I'm becoming aware of other things about this little gem of mine. It has several modes of basic operation

Setup which is just that. Auto; point and shoot, Landscape, Progarm mode; has a larger choce of menus, night, sports: I gess that's a quick shutter for action shots, portrait and movie. These you set before you turn it on.

Once you turn it on you have

Flash: auto, red-eye, on, off

focus: Standard, infinity, macro

Capture. single, burst (3 at a whack) Auto-Bracket burst (3 at three different exposures)

Menu Size in mp 7, 5, 3, 1.3 and the smallest

Quality: Fine. normal, economy

Proggram mode extends the menu to include

Color: color, BW, sepia

Sharpness and color saturation. I just set mine for high

Also you can set ISO, metering: center, spot, and EV the latter between -2,0 to +2.0 I really haven't touched these since I don't know what I'm doing

Also uses a 2GB SD card 552 images@7m Fine

Of course, I do have to feed the beast: 3 sets of NiMH batteries, two chargers (I keep the 4 battery unit at home and put the 2-banger in the bag, 2GB card, minitripod and a shoulder bag in whichI keep that, my iPod Nono clone and full coverage earphones, and card reader (and If I can get it, compact binox). I'm entertaining the idea of getting a 4, 8 or 16 GB card to bring with me. Even at home, I work out of the bag

I have a feeling that this thing packs more wallop than I really understnad at this point in time.

I just wanted something that could do reasonably well at a decent price and a brand name (Polaroid i739m) 7m camera for $US65 looked like a peachy keen starter to me. I'm not planning to be a professional photographer or even and advanced hobbyist, (what would the normally-sighted say if I became even moderately competent at that level?)

Edited June 28, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Well, for my niece's wedding and family reunion, I decided to buy myself a brand new digital camera at Best Buy to take photographs. It's a Fuji FinePix J20: 10MP (excellent quality), $110, plus $35 for the extra large 8G memory chip. It takes good pictures, though I have to get used to it. The photo files are about 1.5 meg large, so I needed to touch up this one and make it smaller so it would email better. Supposedly, I can store up to 1,000 images on this memory card. A little overboard, but not that much more money compared to smaller memory chips. And it is smaller than a pack of cigarettes! Amazing technology. After being used to high quality film cameras, I wanted to wait until quality went up and price came down. Next year, they'll probably go for half this price but it was a good time to buy one. Beats carrying around a large bulky camera

[Steve D'Ippolito]

When buying electronics, I look for the point in the price curve where it suddenly zooms upward. I buy right at the bend. Things below that can't drop too much in price before they are not worth manufacturing at all--things above it will drop, probably within six months.

That way I don't kick myself too hard for not waiting.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

That way I don't kick myself too hard for not waiting.

I hear ya...but it was either buying a digital camera, or spending the same amount of money on film, processing, printing, and digitizing. It's certainly not top of the line, but it has good features, and was in my price range

For 10 megapixels, I thought it was a great deal. Of course, I don't know about the image panel behind the lens and how big it is -- not super high quality, I'm sure. But it is also pocket size and convenient.

I'm too excited about the reunion and the camera to go to sleep and I have to get up at 5 am....

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think the FinePix J20 takes really good pictures for its size and price. I didn't have the primary photographer's position or command of the audience, so these are not perfect in composure. Also, because the original photo files are over 1.5 meg in size and very large (10mp images), I reduced their size a bit for internet uploading. My nieces wedding album pics, taken inside a church with low lighting. I know, I 'm not for the church, but I was a guest....

[LoganCale]

Regarding megapixels and quality of image: generally the most important factor is the quality of the lens. The number of megapixels affect the maximum size at which you can output the image.

However, the physical dimensions of the sensor also affect quality: the greater the area, the less noise in the image, especially with longer exposures. Many digital cameras have a smaller sensor area than what 35mm film provided. I've recently upgraded to a camera with a full frame sensor (as in, full 35mm), and that, along with sensor technology improvements that have taken place since the time I bought my previous camera, does a remarkable job in reducing the amount of noise.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I'm not seeing any noise in those images (bridesmaids and bridegrooms), but maybe I'm not looking at them correctly? They are a little out of focus I think because I am not used to an autofocus camera and I may not have had a face centered in the lens (I've noticed that for other more obvious out of focus shots taken with the same camera). It has a built-in face detector, but I only had a few seconds to take these photos. The lens is a good sized lens, but I don't know the specs right off hand, and I'm sure the detector is not 35mm size. For the money, I'm more than satisfied. This camera on manual has a lot of controls on it, I think, shutter speed and aperture opening and focus, though I took all of my photos so far on automatic. I'm happy with it and the software that came with it that worked better after I downloaded an upgrade. For professional photos, I'd use my Minolta X700; however, I took over 200 photos while on this vacation, and that would have been a lot of rolls of film! Now I need to look into sending some of them off to be professionally printed or get photo-grade paper for my home printer.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Here's a few more pics of the wedding. One of the good things about having a digital camera and good software that comes with it, is the ability to adjust the photos before presenting them. Amazing how well they come out after hitting the auto-adjust button and then running them through L-View Pro image processor. I'm only going to show the good ones, no sense showing the bad ones, and I think a website came with the camera for me to post images, so I will do that and let you know the URL.

The Saint Leander's Church was beautiful inside, even if a little dark; so I can't wait until some future Howard Roark builds the Temple to the Human Spirit since that would be spectacular!

I threw one in of me at the camp fire that my Mom took

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Well, I have processed 67 out of 222 photos from the wedding, keeping only the one's of people attending the wedding or the reception (didn't process pictures of planes or from planes). I also didn't process the one's taken at night that didn't come out well or the one's that were poorly formatted for imagery. But I'm wondering where to display them for general viewing both for this thread and for my relatives to see? I thought Fuji Film provided a website to upload photos to, but maybe not, since I can't find a link or instructions on how to do that. I could put a page up on my own website, but is there a free internet service for displaying photographs -- flicker.com or something like that?

Thanks!

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

My photo album for Casey and Krystal's wedding is now available online via PhotoBucket. I set it up so comments cannot be made, which means titles cannot be seen. Ads may show up as you look at individual pictures. Also, you cannot copy and paste the photos.

ENJOY!

http://s1006.photobucket.com/albums/af188/...stal%20Wedding/

All photos except for one were taken with the FujiFilm FinePix J20 digital camera and modified or enhanced using their software and L-View Pro 2006. With my parameters in mind (mentioned above) there were 67 photographs.

Photobucket.com has a bulk image uploader, which I downloaded and used.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I've run into a peculiar problem with printing my digital photos. If I set the printer to "photo paper" it prints seamlessly, but the colors are not bright and off color and the black is not black. If I print using photo paper and set the printer to "plain paper" I get better color results. I'm using a Hewlett-Packard HP PSC 500 printer and was wondering if I need to upgrade my inks to get photo quality results? Also, I think the printing is clearer if I pre-size my photos using my software verses relying on the printer algorithms to resize them to full page. Anyone else have these types of problems, and how did you resolve them?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I ran a series of tests on both the J20 camera and my HP 500 printer by taking a photograph of a grid measuring cutting platform and layers of colored mats. The quality was excellent for printing so long as I pre-sized the photos to the size of the paper using L-View Pro. I'm still a little troubled at how the point and shoot / auto focusing works for groups of people, as it doesn't have a solid object to echo from.But I'll learn as I go

If you want to test your printer, these are about 8x6 printed out; primary colors along with black and white for the mats, and a wood grid pattern for the chopper board.

The lens actually isn't all that large, but seems of high quality.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.