Newbie's Query

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Satoshi wrote:

> Our family member got new Sony Cybershot 5 MP cameras.
> They were great cameras. The default setting of the cameras was 5 mp.
> I am wondering what MP do you use for ordinary shooting.
> 5mp pictures were great but its 5mp size/picture is not so convenient for
> emailing.
> I like to learn from experienced people what mp is just enough to print
> reasonable pictures.
>
> Satoshi


150 dpi is usable for prints (but not very good) so if you were only
doing 4x5 snapshots 750x600 could be used, 300dpi is very good so twice
that size at 1500x1200 but you really would want to shoot at full size
in case you want to crop or get a rare wonderful picture that you want
to print at 8x10. Use irfanview to batch resize for emailing at a size
more like 750x600 or smaller. It is another step but once you get the
hang of it, not too difficult. The only reason to shoot low res is if
you don't have enough memory & are certain you won't need to make big
prints.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> 150 dpi is usable for prints (but not very good) so if you were only doing
> 4x5 snapshots 750x600 could be used,

Paul, for newbies, digicam math seems to require an advanced math degree:-)

I feel that 4 x 5 size would be very convenient. When you talk about 750 x
600 pixel,
what mp should I set for cameras? Satoshi

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Satoshi wrote:

>>150 dpi is usable for prints (but not very good) so if you were only doing
>>4x5 snapshots 750x600 could be used,
>
>
> Paul, for newbies, digicam math seems to require an advanced math degree:-)
>
> I feel that 4 x 5 size would be very convenient. When you talk about 750 x
> 600 pixel,
> what mp should I set for cameras? Satoshi


No, really it's very simple math & I hate math. I don't know the size of
your 5MP images off hand but dpi is simply dots per inch if you want
mid-range 200dpi prints at 4x5 simply say 4x200 & 5x200 to get the size.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Download irfanview at http://www.irfanview.com and download the plugins
too for lossless rotation. It's free and lightning fast. It will take a
little studying to learn how to batch reduce but it's worth it. Other
programs will do this & you probably got something with your camera but
this is the fastest. It's a little bit geeky with lots of options but
worth learning.


Once set up, it's as simple as typing "B" for batch, "add all", create a
new folder, move into that & chose to output into that & click "start" &
hit the escape key to dismiss the program & you are ready to go.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cr1kev$g4o$1@reader2.nmix.net>,
"Satoshi" <machocraig@hotmail.com> wrote:

> what MP do you use for ordinary shooting.

8.2

> 5mp pictures were great but its 5mp size/picture is not so convenient for
> emailing.

I'll bet.

> I like to learn from experienced people what mp is just enough to print
> reasonable pictures.

3-4MP should be adequate for prints up to 8x10 (or 10X8 if you're in the U.K.)

When preparing my photos for emailing or posting on my website, I simply
"export" them to a MUCH smaller size.

 
JR

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Satoshi wrote:

> Our family member got new Sony Cybershot 5 MP cameras.
> They were great cameras. The default setting of the cameras was 5 mp.
> I am wondering what MP do you use for ordinary shooting.

Always use the best (largest/finest) setting.

> 5mp pictures were great but its 5mp size/picture is not so convenient for
> emailing.

For e-mailing you can easily downsize them with a suitable image editor.

> I like to learn from experienced people what mp is just enough to print
> reasonable pictures.

What is "reasonable" and how large will your pictures be ? Do you want
to print reasonable 8x10 inch photos or reasonable 4x6 inch photos.

If you always choose the highest resolution from your camera, you'll
always be able to get the best prints the camera can produce.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I use that program all the time.

>the plugins too for lossless rotation.

What's name of this plugin? Satoshi


"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:n5Odnespe5FJ7EncRVn-rw@speakeasy.net...
> Download irfanview at http://www.irfanview.com and download the plugins
> too for lossless rotation. It's free and lightning fast. It will take a
> little studying to learn how to batch reduce but it's worth it. Other
> programs will do this & you probably got something with your camera but
> this is the fastest. It's a little bit geeky with lots of options but
> worth learning.
>
>
> Once set up, it's as simple as typing "B" for batch, "add all", create a
> new folder, move into that & chose to output into that & click "start" &
> hit the escape key to dismiss the program & you are ready to go.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There is just one file on their site called "all-plugins.zip". When
installed you just type shift-j to rotate a picture permanently.

In the lower left while viewing a picture you should see the resolution
in pixels, simply divide each by 200 to find how big that prints in
inches. Even on your 1MP setting it's probably a bit too large for
emailing so you will need to resize so just use the 5MP setting.

Satoshi wrote:

> I use that program all the time.
>
>
>>the plugins too for lossless rotation.
>
>
> What's name of this plugin? Satoshi
>
>
> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:n5Odnespe5FJ7EncRVn-rw@speakeasy.net...
>
>>Download irfanview at http://www.irfanview.com and download the plugins
>>too for lossless rotation. It's free and lightning fast. It will take a
>>little studying to learn how to batch reduce but it's worth it. Other
>>programs will do this & you probably got something with your camera but
>>this is the fastest. It's a little bit geeky with lots of options but
>>worth learning.
>>
>>
>>Once set up, it's as simple as typing "B" for batch, "add all", create a
>>new folder, move into that & chose to output into that & click "start" &
>>hit the escape key to dismiss the program & you are ready to go.
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks.
That stuff was already installed.
I will take a look at that.

Many thanks, Paul.

Satoshi

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:EJWdnYlg2LAR40ncRVn-vA@speakeasy.net...
> There is just one file on their site called "all-plugins.zip". When
> installed you just type shift-j to rotate a picture permanently.
>
> In the lower left while viewing a picture you should see the resolution in
> pixels, simply divide each by 200 to find how big that prints in inches.
> Even on your 1MP setting it's probably a bit too large for emailing so you
> will need to resize so just use the 5MP setting.
>
> Satoshi wrote:
>
>> I use that program all the time.
>>
>>
>>>the plugins too for lossless rotation.
>>
>>
>> What's name of this plugin? Satoshi
>>
>>
>> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>> news:n5Odnespe5FJ7EncRVn-rw@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>>Download irfanview at http://www.irfanview.com and download the plugins
>>>too for lossless rotation. It's free and lightning fast. It will take a
>>>little studying to learn how to batch reduce but it's worth it. Other
>>>programs will do this & you probably got something with your camera but
>>>this is the fastest. It's a little bit geeky with lots of options but
>>>worth learning.
>>>
>>>
>>>Once set up, it's as simple as typing "B" for batch, "add all", create a
>>>new folder, move into that & chose to output into that & click "start" &
>>>hit the escape key to dismiss the program & you are ready to go.
>>
>>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I would shoot at the highest res possible. You can always downsize, but
uprezzing results in loss of detail even if there are some very fine
products to do this.

A 5mpix camera will produce very good 8x10's and even 11x14's if the image
is shot well. Downsizing images is easy, and there are a ton of tools that
do this. Make sure to save the original.

Emailing even small images (like 300k) can be very hard on people who have
dial up connections. PS provides approximate download times when you resize.
Another way to share images is by putting them on a site, and sending the
link. This allows people with slower connections the option of viewing
smallish thumbnails, and then they can choose which images they may want to
view larger.

With email if you send say five 300K images to an individual with a slow
connection, that email spins and spins until it is downloaded, and will
block all other mail. If all the people you email have good bandwidth, then
of course this is no issue.

Ron


"Satoshi" <machocraig@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cr1kev$g4o$1@reader2.nmix.net...
> Our family member got new Sony Cybershot 5 MP cameras.
> They were great cameras. The default setting of the cameras was 5 mp.
> I am wondering what MP do you use for ordinary shooting.
> 5mp pictures were great but its 5mp size/picture is not so convenient for
> emailing.
> I like to learn from experienced people what mp is just enough to print
> reasonable pictures.
>
> Satoshi
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:VuCdnWmWKqchxkncRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
>
> 150 dpi is usable for prints (but not very good) so if you were only doing
> 4x5 snapshots 750x600 could be used, 300dpi is very good so twice that
> size at 1500x1200 but you really would want to shoot at full size in case
> you want to crop or get a rare wonderful picture that you want to print at
> 8x10. Use irfanview to batch resize for emailing at a size more like
> 750x600 or smaller. It is another step but once you get the hang of it,
> not too difficult. The only reason to shoot low res is if you don't have
> enough memory & are certain you won't need to make big prints.

That was a very confusing answer for something very simple. For viewing
on-screen such as on the web or for e-mailing, forget completely about
worrying about dpi. It's meaningless for viewing on an electronic display.
For Satoshi - there should have been at least a basic image editing program
included with the camera. Use it to resize the image to 640 x 480 pixels.
When you re-save the image, be sure to use a different name. I usually use
a compression level (quality level) when saving to keep the image size to
100k or less for e-mailing.

Mark

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark B. wrote:

> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:VuCdnWmWKqchxkncRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
>
>>150 dpi is usable for prints (but not very good) so if you were only doing
>>4x5 snapshots 750x600 could be used, 300dpi is very good so twice that
>>size at 1500x1200 but you really would want to shoot at full size in case
>>you want to crop or get a rare wonderful picture that you want to print at
>>8x10. Use irfanview to batch resize for emailing at a size more like
>>750x600 or smaller. It is another step but once you get the hang of it,
>>not too difficult. The only reason to shoot low res is if you don't have
>>enough memory & are certain you won't need to make big prints.
>
>
> That was a very confusing answer for something very simple. For viewing
> on-screen such as on the web or for e-mailing, forget completely about
> worrying about dpi. It's meaningless for viewing on an electronic display.
> For Satoshi - there should have been at least a basic image editing program
> included with the camera. Use it to resize the image to 640 x 480 pixels.
> When you re-save the image, be sure to use a different name. I usually use
> a compression level (quality level) when saving to keep the image size to
> 100k or less for e-mailing.


Hey, I was just trying to help out, what's gained in insulting me dude?

Talking about DPI may sound overly technical but if you are talking
about printing, it is what's needed to find the answer. He asked about
printing so it needed to be explained. 200 dpi simply means 200 pixels
prints one inch long.

While I'm lashing out about this resentfully <g>, 72dpi is approximately
what a computer screen displays. That gives a good comparison for
understanding that a 150dpi print is twice as detailed, a 300 dpi print
four times better than a computer monitor. While our eyes are used to
thinking of a 72dpi computer image as pretty nice looking, 72dpi on a
print is going too look awful for all but the very softest sort of
image. It can get a lot more confusing talking about printer resolution
stuff but the very most basic concept someone needs to understand is
approximate dpi.

Regarding email file size, 100K is darn big for a 640x480 image. It can
easily be half that size with a jpeg compression of about 60 or 70 using
irfanview. It only needs to be set once, you might as well do it right.
I wouldn't make a 640x480 image that fat unless it was a very picky
special fine art photo.

Hmph.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Satoshi wrote:
> Our family member got new Sony Cybershot 5 MP cameras.
> They were great cameras. The default setting of the cameras was 5 mp.
> I am wondering what MP do you use for ordinary shooting.
> 5mp pictures were great but its 5mp size/picture is not so convenient for
> emailing.
> I like to learn from experienced people what mp is just enough to print
> reasonable pictures.
>
> Satoshi
>
>

If you might want to print one of the photos, it's best to set the camera to the
highest quality mode.

If you will only ever email the pictures or view them on the computer then you
only need a 1 megapixel mode.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Satoshi wrote:
>>150 dpi is usable for prints (but not very good) so if you were only doing
>>4x5 snapshots 750x600 could be used,
>
>
> Paul, for newbies, digicam math seems to require an advanced math degree:-)
>
> I feel that 4 x 5 size would be very convenient. When you talk about 750 x
> 600 pixel,
> what mp should I set for cameras? Satoshi

Can you tell us what MP settings your camera has?


--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Default setting was 5mp. But it allows to change from 1 to 5 mp.
I am just learning.
In fact, film camera is a lot easier to handle than digital camera because
we do not have to worry about pixels, dpi and x by x size, etc. Digicam is
a pain. Satoshi

"Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:m4r1rc.dm3.ln@192.168.11.2...
> Satoshi wrote:
>>>150 dpi is usable for prints (but not very good) so if you were only
>>>doing 4x5 snapshots 750x600 could be used,
>>
>>
>> Paul, for newbies, digicam math seems to require an advanced math
>> degree:-)
>>
>> I feel that 4 x 5 size would be very convenient. When you talk about 750
>> x 600 pixel,
>> what mp should I set for cameras? Satoshi
>
> Can you tell us what MP settings your camera has?
>
>
> --
> --
> Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia
>
> My Digital World:
> Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
> Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
> Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
> Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.
>
> Disclaimer:
> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as
> neither
> given nor endorsed by it.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yep you will end up spending more time on the computer sorting pictures
than with film.

Satoshi wrote:

> Default setting was 5mp. But it allows to change from 1 to 5 mp.
> I am just learning.
> In fact, film camera is a lot easier to handle than digital camera because
> we do not have to worry about pixels, dpi and x by x size, etc. Digicam is
> a pain. Satoshi
>
> "Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
> news:m4r1rc.dm3.ln@192.168.11.2...
>
>>Satoshi wrote:
>>
>>>>150 dpi is usable for prints (but not very good) so if you were only
>>>>doing 4x5 snapshots 750x600 could be used,
>>>
>>>
>>>Paul, for newbies, digicam math seems to require an advanced math
>>>degree:-)
>>>
>>>I feel that 4 x 5 size would be very convenient. When you talk about 750
>>>x 600 pixel,
>>>what mp should I set for cameras? Satoshi
>>
>>Can you tell us what MP settings your camera has?
>>
>>
>>--
>>--
>>Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia
>>
>>My Digital World:
>>Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
>>Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
>>Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
>>Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.
>>
>>Disclaimer:
>>Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
>>relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as
>>neither
>>given nor endorsed by it.
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:ecWdncB_Q9BZAEncRVn-2w@speakeasy.net...
> Mark B. wrote:
>
>> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>> news:VuCdnWmWKqchxkncRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>>150 dpi is usable for prints (but not very good) so if you were only
>>>doing 4x5 snapshots 750x600 could be used, 300dpi is very good so twice
>>>that size at 1500x1200 but you really would want to shoot at full size in
>>>case you want to crop or get a rare wonderful picture that you want to
>>>print at 8x10. Use irfanview to batch resize for emailing at a size more
>>>like 750x600 or smaller. It is another step but once you get the hang of
>>>it, not too difficult. The only reason to shoot low res is if you don't
>>>have enough memory & are certain you won't need to make big prints.
>>
>>
>> That was a very confusing answer for something very simple. For viewing
>> on-screen such as on the web or for e-mailing, forget completely about
>> worrying about dpi. It's meaningless for viewing on an electronic
>> display. For Satoshi - there should have been at least a basic image
>> editing program included with the camera. Use it to resize the image to
>> 640 x 480 pixels. When you re-save the image, be sure to use a different
>> name. I usually use a compression level (quality level) when saving to
>> keep the image size to 100k or less for e-mailing.
>
>
> Hey, I was just trying to help out, what's gained in insulting me dude?
>
> Talking about DPI may sound overly technical but if you are talking about
> printing, it is what's needed to find the answer. He asked about printing
> so it needed to be explained. 200 dpi simply means 200 pixels prints one
> inch long.
>
> While I'm lashing out about this resentfully <g>, 72dpi is approximately
> what a computer screen displays. That gives a good comparison for
> understanding that a 150dpi print is twice as detailed, a 300 dpi print
> four times better than a computer monitor. While our eyes are used to
> thinking of a 72dpi computer image as pretty nice looking, 72dpi on a
> print is going too look awful for all but the very softest sort of image.
> It can get a lot more confusing talking about printer resolution stuff but
> the very most basic concept someone needs to understand is approximate
> dpi.
>
> Regarding email file size, 100K is darn big for a 640x480 image. It can
> easily be half that size with a jpeg compression of about 60 or 70 using
> irfanview. It only needs to be set once, you might as well do it right. I
> wouldn't make a 640x480 image that fat unless it was a very picky special
> fine art photo.
>
> Hmph.

Apologies, you're right, he did ask about printing. I still think it may be
a little confusing to a newbie to think about dpi for both printing and
screen display. dpi doesn't mean anything for display. I only mentioned
100k as a suggested upper limit for a 640x480; it depends a lot on the type
of photo it is and of course how much compression is applied.

As for printing, I like to aim for 300dpi so for 4x6 the image needs to be
1200 x 1800 which is only about 2.2 megapixels. At max resolution, a
compact 5mp would yield an image of about 6.5 x 8.6 for printing, but it's
possible to go much larger depending on the image and viewing distance.
I've frequently made 8x10 prints from a 3mp digital SLR.

Mark

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark B. wrote:

> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:ecWdncB_Q9BZAEncRVn-2w@speakeasy.net...
>
>>Mark B. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>>>news:VuCdnWmWKqchxkncRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>150 dpi is usable for prints (but not very good) so if you were only
>>>>doing 4x5 snapshots 750x600 could be used, 300dpi is very good so twice
>>>>that size at 1500x1200 but you really would want to shoot at full size in
>>>>case you want to crop or get a rare wonderful picture that you want to
>>>>print at 8x10. Use irfanview to batch resize for emailing at a size more
>>>>like 750x600 or smaller. It is another step but once you get the hang of
>>>>it, not too difficult. The only reason to shoot low res is if you don't
>>>>have enough memory & are certain you won't need to make big prints.
>>>
>>>
>>>That was a very confusing answer for something very simple. For viewing
>>>on-screen such as on the web or for e-mailing, forget completely about
>>>worrying about dpi. It's meaningless for viewing on an electronic
>>>display. For Satoshi - there should have been at least a basic image
>>>editing program included with the camera. Use it to resize the image to
>>>640 x 480 pixels. When you re-save the image, be sure to use a different
>>>name. I usually use a compression level (quality level) when saving to
>>>keep the image size to 100k or less for e-mailing.
>>
>>
>>Hey, I was just trying to help out, what's gained in insulting me dude?
>>
>>Talking about DPI may sound overly technical but if you are talking about
>>printing, it is what's needed to find the answer. He asked about printing
>>so it needed to be explained. 200 dpi simply means 200 pixels prints one
>>inch long.
>>
>>While I'm lashing out about this resentfully <g>, 72dpi is approximately
>>what a computer screen displays. That gives a good comparison for
>>understanding that a 150dpi print is twice as detailed, a 300 dpi print
>>four times better than a computer monitor. While our eyes are used to
>>thinking of a 72dpi computer image as pretty nice looking, 72dpi on a
>>print is going too look awful for all but the very softest sort of image.
>>It can get a lot more confusing talking about printer resolution stuff but
>>the very most basic concept someone needs to understand is approximate
>>dpi.
>>
>>Regarding email file size, 100K is darn big for a 640x480 image. It can
>>easily be half that size with a jpeg compression of about 60 or 70 using
>>irfanview. It only needs to be set once, you might as well do it right. I
>>wouldn't make a 640x480 image that fat unless it was a very picky special
>>fine art photo.
>>
>>Hmph.
>
>
> Apologies, you're right, he did ask about printing. I still think it may be
> a little confusing to a newbie to think about dpi for both printing and
> screen display. dpi doesn't mean anything for display. I only mentioned
> 100k as a suggested upper limit for a 640x480; it depends a lot on the type
> of photo it is and of course how much compression is applied.
>
> As for printing, I like to aim for 300dpi so for 4x6 the image needs to be
> 1200 x 1800 which is only about 2.2 megapixels. At max resolution, a
> compact 5mp would yield an image of about 6.5 x 8.6 for printing, but it's
> possible to go much larger depending on the image and viewing distance.
> I've frequently made 8x10 prints from a 3mp digital SLR.


Yup I made a bunch of prints with a 3.3MP olympus & I thought they were
all great at 200dpi. My new fancy schmantsy 6MP DSLR only goes to 15"
long at that dpi <g>.

: - )

Still, no setting is quite small enough for comfortable email without
reducing so he might as well use the full 5MP setting & plan on reducing
for sharing.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you are going to print a 5x4 you should use at least the 3MP setting.

Satoshi wrote:
> Default setting was 5mp. But it allows to change from 1 to 5 mp.
> I am just learning.
> In fact, film camera is a lot easier to handle than digital camera because
> we do not have to worry about pixels, dpi and x by x size, etc. Digicam is
> a pain. Satoshi
>



--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>you should use at least the 3MP setting.

I will do that. Thanks. Satoshi

"Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:2tu1rc.6j7.ln@192.168.11.2...
> If you are going to print a 5x4 >
>> My Digital World:
> Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
> Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
> Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
> Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.
>
> Disclaimer:
> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as
> neither
> given nor endorsed by it.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Yep you will end up spending more time on the computer sorting pictures
> than with film.
>
> Satoshi wrote:
>
>> Default setting was 5mp. But it allows to change from 1 to 5 mp.
>> I am just learning.
>> In fact, film camera is a lot easier to handle than digital camera
>> because we do not have to worry about pixels, dpi and x by x size,
>> etc. Digicam is a pain. Satoshi
>>
>> "Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
>> news:m4r1rc.dm3.ln@192.168.11.2...
>>
>>> Satoshi wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 150 dpi is usable for prints (but not very good) so if you were
>>>>> only doing 4x5 snapshots 750x600 could be used,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul, for newbies, digicam math seems to require an advanced math
>>>> degree:-)
>>>>
>>>> I feel that 4 x 5 size would be very convenient. When you talk
>>>> about 750 x 600 pixel,
>>>> what mp should I set for cameras? Satoshi
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you tell us what MP settings your camera has?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia
>>>
>>> My Digital World:
>>> Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
>>> Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
>>> Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
>>> Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer:
>>> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
>>> relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as
>>> neither
>>> given nor endorsed by it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
That's funny. It takes me exactly as long to deal with the scanned film
images on the computer as the digital ones, and I save the time taken to
scan them. Also the time to despeckle, set white balance, etc. for the
scanned images. Methinks some bias is entering the discussion.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:RY8Bd.1476$Ke7.1088@fe33.usenetserver.com...
>>>
> That's funny. It takes me exactly as long to deal with the scanned film
> images on the computer as the digital ones, and I save the time taken to
> scan them. Also the time to despeckle, set white balance, etc. for the
> scanned images. Methinks some bias is entering the discussion.
>

I started out scanning film, and hated it. In the time it might take to
scan just a handful of images to the point where I can simply compare them,
I can d/l several dozen digital images, do a quick compare & ditch the bad
shots. I don't spend anywhere near the time on a purely digital image as I
would on a scanned one.

Mark

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:13:54 -0700, "Satoshi" <machocraig@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Our family member got new Sony Cybershot 5 MP cameras.
>They were great cameras. The default setting of the cameras was 5 mp.
>I am wondering what MP do you use for ordinary shooting.
>5mp pictures were great but its 5mp size/picture is not so convenient for
>emailing.


I always shoot at full resolution, super high quality JPEG with my
camera... because you never know if you are going to get a super image
that you might want to print.

As for emailing, just resize the pictures for that purpose. Some
programs will do it automatically to set parameters, I think Photoshop
Elements will, and probably other album programs as well.

Or just use whatever image editor came with your camera.

Cynthia

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Satoshi wrote:
>>150 dpi is usable for prints (but not very good) so if you were only doing
>>4x5 snapshots 750x600 could be used,
>
>
> Paul, for newbies, digicam math seems to require an advanced math degree:-)
>
> I feel that 4 x 5 size would be very convenient. When you talk about 750 x
> 600 pixel,
> what mp should I set for cameras? Satoshi
>
>
Hi Satoshi

I use the maximum resolution possible on the camera on the basis that a
very good image at a very low resolution = maximal frustration LOL! 8)


It is easy to resize and/or resample images using free software such as
IrfanView maybe even XnView and for PC users MS Photo Editor

I won't go into details as it is quite intuitive (eventually)

Aerticeus

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cynthia P wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:13:54 -0700, "Satoshi" <machocraig@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Our family member got new Sony Cybershot 5 MP cameras.
>>They were great cameras. The default setting of the cameras was 5 mp.
>>I am wondering what MP do you use for ordinary shooting.
>>5mp pictures were great but its 5mp size/picture is not so convenient for
>>emailing.
>
>
>
> I always shoot at full resolution, super high quality JPEG with my
> camera... because you never know if you are going to get a super image
> that you might want to print.
>
> As for emailing, just resize the pictures for that purpose. Some
> programs will do it automatically to set parameters, I think Photoshop
> Elements will, and probably other album programs as well.
>
> Or just use whatever image editor came with your camera.
>
> Cynthia
WinXP will do the resize if you just select the picture and elect to
send it email. Many programs, such as Irfanview, will also allow you to
resize, resample, and compress an image to get whatever filesize you want.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net