Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ultra-compact camera any good?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
April 13, 2005 9:31:31 AM

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

Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to buy?
I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday. So far,
I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 12:27:33 PM

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

On 13 Apr 2005 05:31:31 -0700, "Newbie" <chromallly@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to buy?
>I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday. So far,
>I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.

Have a look at the Sony DSC-W1 or W5, has a huge
LCD screen, a threaded lens housing to adapt extra
lenses, uses AA batteries, pretty good selection
of menu options and takes great pictures, also is
pocketable.
April 13, 2005 12:53:35 PM

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

On 13 Apr 2005 05:31:31 -0700, "Newbie" <chromallly@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to buy?
>I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday. So far,
>I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.

I have friends who use the SD300, S100, S400, etc and we all travel
together on business for one week a month. We get some time for
pictures, usually on evening walks. The ability to carry these with
you everywhere is certainly attractive. However it doesn't seem to be
the do-all to end-all. In some situations they are difficult to hold
steady, mainly the low light situations. Flash power seems to be
barely adequate for their use, although for me I rarely use a strobe
beyond 5 feet or so, and it seems ok to me. Other friends with larger
hands have opted for the A series cameras, especially since a lot of
our travel is international and the AA batteries make good sense for
that situation. The "grip" on those cameras also gives good advantage
for steady holding.

I have very large hands and after using the ultra-compact series, I
opted for something bigger, the s60. I can't say enough good about the
camera, but it does have the typical P&S failings (e.g. low light
focus speed, shutter lag, etc.). All livable if you know the
limitations. The 28mm equiv focal length lens was the primary reason I
opted for the s60 - the larger size was a plus for me.

Even with the S60, I find my most frequently used accessory is a
sturdy pocket tripod. They easily stow away to come out when the sun
goes down or you know you are going to be in an interior situation. I
like the sturdy manfrotto tabletop pod.

On the ultra compacts, if you can keep your fingers from drifting in
front of the strobe (or lens) and still get a good purchase on the
camera with a steady two finger squeeze for shutter release - it
should be a very good companion.

Regards,
Roger
Related resources
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 1:28:41 PM

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

Newbie wrote:
> Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to buy?
> I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday. So
> far, I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.

My basic carry-with for a couple of years have been Minolta Dimmidge X
cameras, an Xi and an Xt. They make good snaps and the latter will
record little movies for as long as your battery, SD card, and patience
hold out.

________________
I have a lot of photo equipment, but this Xt is the one that gets the
most use, day in and day out.

Views of the Xt and its
predecessor, and some example photos:
http://www.fototime.com/inv/BC32073BD1DA91E
http://www.fototime.com/inv/1C358AB540D2CAE
http://www.fototime.com/inv/D1400EF27A5935D

First attempt at sharing video from Xt (it's about 3MB; make sure your
sound is on; Fototime converts the original MOV file to Windows video,
the orig is still available if you want it; some browsers want you to
download one player or another, MSIE opens the WinPlayer and awaaaay you
go):
http://www.fototime.com/ADEA7BDBA90A1D8/conv.wmv

--
Frank ess
-----------------------------
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:50:23 PM

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

"Newbie" <chromallly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113395491.294068.288770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to buy?
> I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday. So far,
> I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.
>
Just Bought my wife a Sony DSC-W1. She wanted some thing small to fit in
purse. Large screen. Light weight, awesome quality. 5 MP. W W
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 6:15:00 PM

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

Newbie wrote:

> Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to buy?
> I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday. So far,
> I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.
>

Fine choice. Some of the older Canon's (still excellent) are cheap
at amazon.com - $150-250! electronics -> digital cameras -> canon

---

lots of other compacts out there from FujiFilm F440/F450, Sony DSC-T
series, Casio EXILIMs, Pentax Optio, etc. Just a matter of what you're
looking for in features, etc.

usual review sites like dcreview.com dpreview.com
imaging-resource.com steves-digicams.com megapixel.net will have
reviews of them all.

---

but can't go wrong with a Canon, esp. when their on sale at
amazon.com prices.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 6:41:59 PM

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

"Warren Weber >>>bresnan.net>" <hiviewNO SPAM@> wrote in message
news:gNmdnf1BNNJa0MDfRVn-jw@bresnan.com...
>
> "Newbie" <chromallly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1113395491.294068.288770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to
buy?
> > I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday. So
far,
> > I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.
> >
> Just Bought my wife a Sony DSC-W1. She wanted some thing small to fit
in
> purse. Large screen. Light weight, awesome quality. 5 MP. W W

Hi, can I butt in here. I considered that camera, but two people I know
said it took good pictures outside, but had bad red eye problems with
indoor flash photos. I know red eye can be taken out with software, but
just wondered what it was like without software.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 6:42:00 PM

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:41:59 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:

>"Warren Weber >>>bresnan.net>" <hiviewNO SPAM@> wrote in message
>news:gNmdnf1BNNJa0MDfRVn-jw@bresnan.com...
>>
>> "Newbie" <chromallly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1113395491.294068.288770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> > Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to
>buy?
>> > I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday. So
>far,
>> > I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.
>> >
>> Just Bought my wife a Sony DSC-W1. She wanted some thing small to fit
>in
>> purse. Large screen. Light weight, awesome quality. 5 MP. W W
>
>Hi, can I butt in here. I considered that camera, but two people I know
>said it took good pictures outside, but had bad red eye problems with
>indoor flash photos. I know red eye can be taken out with software, but
>just wondered what it was like without software.
>
>Cathy
There is a red eye reduction mode built into the
camera that can be accessed in the setup menu, just do it the
one time for all modes.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 8:25:16 PM

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

"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:viuq519307c2sj106kf8tondak0shb1vj3@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:41:59 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:
>
> >"Warren Weber >>>bresnan.net>" <hiviewNO SPAM@> wrote in message
> >news:gNmdnf1BNNJa0MDfRVn-jw@bresnan.com...
> >>
> >> "Newbie" <chromallly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1113395491.294068.288770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to
> >buy?
> >> > I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday.
So
> >far,
> >> > I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.
> >> >
> >> Just Bought my wife a Sony DSC-W1. She wanted some thing small to
fit
> >in
> >> purse. Large screen. Light weight, awesome quality. 5 MP. W W
> >
> >Hi, can I butt in here. I considered that camera, but two people I
know
> >said it took good pictures outside, but had bad red eye problems with
> >indoor flash photos. I know red eye can be taken out with software,
but
> >just wondered what it was like without software.
> >
> >Cathy
> There is a red eye reduction mode built into the
> camera that can be accessed in the setup menu, just do it the
> one time for all modes.

So presumably the red eye reduction built in mode works well so red eye
is not a problem when photographing people using indoor flash with this
camera?

Cathy
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 8:31:17 PM

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:25:16 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:

>"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:viuq519307c2sj106kf8tondak0shb1vj3@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:41:59 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Warren Weber >>>bresnan.net>" <hiviewNO SPAM@> wrote in message
>> >news:gNmdnf1BNNJa0MDfRVn-jw@bresnan.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Newbie" <chromallly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1113395491.294068.288770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to
>> >buy?
>> >> > I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday.
>So
>> >far,
>> >> > I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.
>> >> >
>> >> Just Bought my wife a Sony DSC-W1. She wanted some thing small to
>fit
>> >in
>> >> purse. Large screen. Light weight, awesome quality. 5 MP. W W
>> >
>> >Hi, can I butt in here. I considered that camera, but two people I
>know
>> >said it took good pictures outside, but had bad red eye problems with
>> >indoor flash photos. I know red eye can be taken out with software,
>but
>> >just wondered what it was like without software.
>> >
>> >Cathy
>> There is a red eye reduction mode built into the
>> camera that can be accessed in the setup menu, just do it the
>> one time for all modes.
>
>So presumably the red eye reduction built in mode works well so red eye
>is not a problem when photographing people using indoor flash with this
>camera?
>
>Cathy
That is another question, I leave it on all the time
so I have not really noticed any red-eye when using the
flash, but most of my pics are outdoor shots.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 8:37:02 PM

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

"Cathy" <not@there.com> writes:
> So presumably the red eye reduction built in mode works well so red eye
> is not a problem when photographing people using indoor flash with this
> camera?

Redeye is always a problem with compact digicams if you use the flash.
It's less severe when the flash is far away from the lens, but it's
still there. The only way to get rid of it is post processing. The
redeye reduction features like preflashing the subject tends to do
nothing but make them squint. Even when they don't squint though,
there is still redeye.

The correct solution to redeye is indirect flash, but built-in flashes
generally can't do that.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 9:44:09 PM

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:41:59 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> Hi, can I butt in here. I considered that camera, but two people I know
> said it took good pictures outside, but had bad red eye problems with
> indoor flash photos. I know red eye can be taken out with software, but
> just wondered what it was like without software.

That camera is still sold, but was replaced by the substantially
similar DSC-W5. Don't count on any camera's anti redeye techniques
to do a decent job. There's primarily one factor that causes
cameras to produce redeye. The closer the flash is to the lens, the
worse it will be. An otherwise very nice camera, the DSC-W#'s have
their flash tubes very close to the lens so they would be expected
to produce very noticeable redeye. The best way to minimize redeye
is to reduce the overall percentage of illumination provided by the
flash. One way is to maximize a room's lighting. Another is to use
a supplemental slave flash, which is usually more powerful and would
be located further from the lens. I think Sony makes one for their
little P&S's and I know that Canon has one for their small A510 and
other small cameras (it comes with a mounting bracket). Since
they're triggered by the camera's built-in flash, anti redeye
flashes and any other preflashes must be able to be disabled for the
slave flash to be triggered when the shutter is open. If you want
to be the only one in a group picture without blazing red eyes, see
if you can find a pair of dark blue or green contact lenses. :) 
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 10:45:13 PM

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

>>>> Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to buy?

My Canon SD20 is beyond excellent. Super small; no zoom; no viewfinder;
fabulous color; wonderfully sharp. Fast, ultra-convenient, and about
one-third the size of a pack of cigarettes--you forget you have it with you.
The accessories (extra battery or SD cards) are tiny too. The problem is
that it is SO small that it is hard to hold the thing steady when you press
the shutter button. The answer is to always put it on the multiple-shot
setting, and always take 3 or 4 shots at one long press. This has the
added advantage of catching a variety of people's motions and expressions,
and one is always the best of the bunch--and chances are only 25% that the
first one you would have snapped if only taking one shot would have been the
one.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:36:29 PM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:viuq519307c2sj106kf8tondak0shb1vj3@4ax.com...
>
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:41:59 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Warren Weber >>>bresnan.net>" <hiviewNO SPAM@> wrote in message
>>>news:gNmdnf1BNNJa0MDfRVn-jw@bresnan.com...
>>>
>>>>"Newbie" <chromallly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1113395491.294068.288770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to
>>>
>>>buy?
>>>
>>>>>I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday.
>
> So
>
>>>far,
>>>
>>>>>I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Just Bought my wife a Sony DSC-W1. She wanted some thing small to
>
> fit
>
>>>in
>>>
>>>>purse. Large screen. Light weight, awesome quality. 5 MP. W W
>>>
>>>Hi, can I butt in here. I considered that camera, but two people I
>
> know
>
>>>said it took good pictures outside, but had bad red eye problems with
>>>indoor flash photos. I know red eye can be taken out with software,
>
> but
>
>>>just wondered what it was like without software.
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>
>>There is a red eye reduction mode built into the
>>camera that can be accessed in the setup menu, just do it the
>>one time for all modes.
>
>
> So presumably the red eye reduction built in mode works well so red eye
> is not a problem when photographing people using indoor flash with this
> camera?
>
> Cathy
>
Nope. NO camera that has the flash close to the lens is immune to
red-eye. Most red-eye reduction system don't work well on children who
react slower to the preflash, and many adults end up squinting, ruining
the picture beyond even photoshop's ability to save it.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:36:30 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Cathy wrote:
>> "irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:viuq519307c2sj106kf8tondak0shb1vj3@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:41:59 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Warren Weber >>>bresnan.net>" <hiviewNO SPAM@> wrote in message
>>>> news:gNmdnf1BNNJa0MDfRVn-jw@bresnan.com...
>>>>
>>>>> "Newbie" <chromallly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1113395491.294068.288770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to
>>>>
>>>> buy?
>>>>
>>>>>> I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday.
>>
>> So
>>
>>>> far,
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just Bought my wife a Sony DSC-W1. She wanted some thing small to
>>
>> fit
>>
>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>> purse. Large screen. Light weight, awesome quality. 5 MP. W W
>>>>
>>>> Hi, can I butt in here. I considered that camera, but two people I
>>
>> know
>>
>>>> said it took good pictures outside, but had bad red eye problems
>>>> with indoor flash photos. I know red eye can be taken out with
>>>> software,
>>
>> but
>>
>>>> just wondered what it was like without software.
>>>>
>>>> Cathy
>>>
>>> There is a red eye reduction mode built into the
>>> camera that can be accessed in the setup menu, just do it the
>>> one time for all modes.
>>
>>
>> So presumably the red eye reduction built in mode works well so red
>> eye is not a problem when photographing people using indoor flash
>> with this camera?
>>
>> Cathy
>>
> Nope. NO camera that has the flash close to the lens is immune to
> red-eye. Most red-eye reduction system don't work well on children
> who react slower to the preflash, and many adults end up squinting,
> ruining the picture beyond even photoshop's ability to save it.

Here's that dumb-luck photo: no "redeye reduction", no redeye, from a
Minolta Dimmidge Xt, distance between flash and lens is about 1.2
thumb-widths.

http://www.fototime.com/B9A0C628615E856/orig.jpg


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:39:09 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:sn3r519b6jorvlhh1jev21c7pnlpj9ke47@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:41:59 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > Hi, can I butt in here. I considered that camera, but two people I
know
> > said it took good pictures outside, but had bad red eye problems
with
> > indoor flash photos. I know red eye can be taken out with software,
but
> > just wondered what it was like without software.
>
> That camera is still sold, but was replaced by the substantially
> similar DSC-W5.

There's a DSC-W7 now.

Don't count on any camera's anti redeye techniques
> to do a decent job. There's primarily one factor that causes
> cameras to produce redeye. The closer the flash is to the lens, the
> worse it will be. An otherwise very nice camera, the DSC-W#'s have
> their flash tubes very close to the lens so they would be expected
> to produce very noticeable redeye.

Yes, thats what I thought but a lot of digital cameras have flashes
close to the lens. I never have red eye problems with my 35mm. It has
the press the button half way down first, then the flash, but sometimes
people don't have patience especially my children who don't like being
photographed in the first place. I only know of one person who didn't
mind how long it took to take a photo and that was my mother. She loved
it and the camera loved her even when she was getting old. I wish I was
as photogenic.

The best way to minimize redeye
> is to reduce the overall percentage of illumination provided by the
> flash. One way is to maximize a room's lighting. Another is to use
> a supplemental slave flash, which is usually more powerful and would
> be located further from the lens. I think Sony makes one for their
> little P&S's and I know that Canon has one for their small A510 and
> other small cameras (it comes with a mounting bracket).

When I was looking at the A510 and A520 reviews, I saw the flash. I
think I would probably just try to make a room have more light or use
natural light before it got dark. Or just take the red eye out with
software later on.

Since
> they're triggered by the camera's built-in flash, anti redeye
> flashes and any other preflashes must be able to be disabled for the
> slave flash to be triggered when the shutter is open. If you want
> to be the only one in a group picture without blazing red eyes, see
> if you can find a pair of dark blue or green contact lenses. :) 

I notice in sample photos I've looked at, that red eye shows up a lot
more in people with dark brown eyes than people with light blue eyes.
Its the contrast.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:43:58 AM

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

"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1rar51dsenr4hrq5lboa3hbe4t2sqatodc@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:25:16 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:
>
> >"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:viuq519307c2sj106kf8tondak0shb1vj3@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:41:59 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Warren Weber >>>bresnan.net>" <hiviewNO SPAM@> wrote in message
> >> >news:gNmdnf1BNNJa0MDfRVn-jw@bresnan.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Newbie" <chromallly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1113395491.294068.288770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera
to
> >> >buy?
> >> >> > I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday.
> >So
> >> >far,
> >> >> > I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Just Bought my wife a Sony DSC-W1. She wanted some thing small
to
> >fit
> >> >in
> >> >> purse. Large screen. Light weight, awesome quality. 5 MP. W W
> >> >
> >> >Hi, can I butt in here. I considered that camera, but two people I
> >know
> >> >said it took good pictures outside, but had bad red eye problems
with
> >> >indoor flash photos. I know red eye can be taken out with
software,
> >but
> >> >just wondered what it was like without software.
> >> >
> >> >Cathy
> >> There is a red eye reduction mode built into the
> >> camera that can be accessed in the setup menu, just do it the
> >> one time for all modes.
> >
> >So presumably the red eye reduction built in mode works well so red
eye
> >is not a problem when photographing people using indoor flash with
this
> >camera?
> >
> >Cathy
> That is another question, I leave it on all the time
> so I have not really noticed any red-eye when using the
> flash, but most of my pics are outdoor shots.

Most outdoor shots that I've seen samples of, in the last few months,
look good in almost all digital cameras. Indoor shots with flash tend to
be more varied results, some have a lot of red eye and others don't have
much. There is quite a variation.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:48:03 AM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xvf6q8d0h.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> writes:
> > So presumably the red eye reduction built in mode works well so red
eye
> > is not a problem when photographing people using indoor flash with
this
> > camera?
>
> Redeye is always a problem with compact digicams if you use the flash.
> It's less severe when the flash is far away from the lens, but it's
> still there. The only way to get rid of it is post processing. The
> redeye reduction features like preflashing the subject tends to do
> nothing but make them squint. Even when they don't squint though,
> there is still redeye.

You're probably right. After processing is probably best. Seems strange
that you can actually eliminate red eye with software after the photo
has been taken.

Why is red eye more or a problem than in 35 mm indoor flashes. My 35mm
camera which was just a cheap camera but takes great pictures, never
seems to have red eye, or if it does, it is nothing like some of the
samples I've seen of some digital cameras.

> The correct solution to redeye is indirect flash, but built-in flashes
> generally can't do that.

It might help if the flash is not too close to the lens, but often it
is. Seems to me you have to choose the most important things you want
and you may not be able to get everything you want.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:48:04 AM

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

"Cathy" <not@there.com> writes:
> Why is red eye more or a problem than in 35 mm indoor flashes. My 35mm
> camera which was just a cheap camera but takes great pictures, never
> seems to have red eye, or if it does, it is nothing like some of the
> samples I've seen of some digital cameras.

Redeye is not inherently any better or worse in digicams than in film
cameras. The main issue is the distance between the lens and the flash.

> It might help if the flash is not too close to the lens, but often it
> is. Seems to me you have to choose the most important things you want
> and you may not be able to get everything you want.

Always true.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:14:24 AM

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:KcqdnVejWrYOIsDfRVn-qg@giganews.com...
> Ron Hunter wrote:
> > Cathy wrote:
> >> "irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:viuq519307c2sj106kf8tondak0shb1vj3@4ax.com...
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:41:59 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> "Warren Weber >>>bresnan.net>" <hiviewNO SPAM@> wrote in message
> >>>> news:gNmdnf1BNNJa0MDfRVn-jw@bresnan.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Newbie" <chromallly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:1113395491.294068.288770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera
to
> >>>>
> >>>> buy?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday.
> >>
> >> So
> >>
> >>>> far,
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just Bought my wife a Sony DSC-W1. She wanted some thing small
to
> >>
> >> fit
> >>
> >>>> in
> >>>>
> >>>>> purse. Large screen. Light weight, awesome quality. 5 MP. W W
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi, can I butt in here. I considered that camera, but two people
I
> >>
> >> know
> >>
> >>>> said it took good pictures outside, but had bad red eye problems
> >>>> with indoor flash photos. I know red eye can be taken out with
> >>>> software,
> >>
> >> but
> >>
> >>>> just wondered what it was like without software.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cathy
> >>>
> >>> There is a red eye reduction mode built into the
> >>> camera that can be accessed in the setup menu, just do it the
> >>> one time for all modes.
> >>
> >>
> >> So presumably the red eye reduction built in mode works well so red
> >> eye is not a problem when photographing people using indoor flash
> >> with this camera?
> >>
> >> Cathy
> >>
> > Nope. NO camera that has the flash close to the lens is immune to
> > red-eye. Most red-eye reduction system don't work well on children
> > who react slower to the preflash, and many adults end up squinting,
> > ruining the picture beyond even photoshop's ability to save it.
>
> Here's that dumb-luck photo: no "redeye reduction", no redeye, from a
> Minolta Dimmidge Xt, distance between flash and lens is about 1.2
> thumb-widths.
>
> http://www.fototime.com/B9A0C628615E856/orig.jpg

Thats more like it!.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:16:39 AM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xpswyi35s.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> writes:
> > Why is red eye more or a problem than in 35 mm indoor flashes. My
35mm
> > camera which was just a cheap camera but takes great pictures, never
> > seems to have red eye, or if it does, it is nothing like some of the
> > samples I've seen of some digital cameras.
>
> Redeye is not inherently any better or worse in digicams than in film
> cameras. The main issue is the distance between the lens and the
flash.

Well, maybe my 35 mm is OK as far as distance between lens and flash
because I don't get any red eye with indoor flashes when taking peoples
photo, and I also have a small Pentax about 10 years old and it doesn't
create red eye either. So I am not used to having red eye photos :) 

> > It might help if the flash is not too close to the lens, but often
it
> > is. Seems to me you have to choose the most important things you
want
> > and you may not be able to get everything you want.
>
> Always true.

With many choices in life.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:24:10 AM

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:39:09 -0400, Cathy wrote:

>> That camera is still sold, but was replaced by the substantially
>> similar DSC-W5.
>
> There's a DSC-W7 now.

Right, but unlike the 5mp W1 and W5, the W7 is 7mp, which is more
resolution that I'd care for in a little camera. With 4 or 5
megapixels I have all the resolution I need, my old computer
appreciates the smaller image files, and I it's kinda neat when the
camera I'd prefer actually costs less (than the W7).


> I notice in sample photos I've looked at, that red eye shows up a lot
> more in people with dark brown eyes than people with light blue eyes.
> Its the contrast.

You've discovered yet another way to reduce redeye. Instead of
eliminating the red from the pupils, color the eyes a complimentary
blue. :) 
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:24:56 AM

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:25:16 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:

>"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:viuq519307c2sj106kf8tondak0shb1vj3@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:41:59 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Warren Weber >>>bresnan.net>" <hiviewNO SPAM@> wrote in message
>> >news:gNmdnf1BNNJa0MDfRVn-jw@bresnan.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Newbie" <chromallly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1113395491.294068.288770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to
>> >buy?
>> >> > I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday.
>So
>> >far,
>> >> > I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.
>> >> >
>> >> Just Bought my wife a Sony DSC-W1. She wanted some thing small to
>fit
>> >in
>> >> purse. Large screen. Light weight, awesome quality. 5 MP. W W
>> >
>> >Hi, can I butt in here. I considered that camera, but two people I
>know
>> >said it took good pictures outside, but had bad red eye problems with
>> >indoor flash photos. I know red eye can be taken out with software,
>but
>> >just wondered what it was like without software.
>> >
>> >Cathy
>> There is a red eye reduction mode built into the
>> camera that can be accessed in the setup menu, just do it the
>> one time for all modes.
>
>So presumably the red eye reduction built in mode works well so red eye
>is not a problem when photographing people using indoor flash with this
>camera?

Red eye reduction doesn't work.

Archie
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:24:57 AM

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

"Archie" <Archie@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
news:mg3r519uf5ufljo9cmkup9eci0he3jfss3@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:25:16 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:
>
> >"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:viuq519307c2sj106kf8tondak0shb1vj3@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:41:59 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Warren Weber >>>bresnan.net>" <hiviewNO SPAM@> wrote in message
> >> >news:gNmdnf1BNNJa0MDfRVn-jw@bresnan.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Newbie" <chromallly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1113395491.294068.288770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera
to
> >> >buy?
> >> >> > I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday.
> >So
> >> >far,
> >> >> > I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Just Bought my wife a Sony DSC-W1. She wanted some thing small
to
> >fit
> >> >in
> >> >> purse. Large screen. Light weight, awesome quality. 5 MP. W W
> >> >
> >> >Hi, can I butt in here. I considered that camera, but two people I
> >know
> >> >said it took good pictures outside, but had bad red eye problems
with
> >> >indoor flash photos. I know red eye can be taken out with
software,
> >but
> >> >just wondered what it was like without software.
> >> >
> >> >Cathy
> >> There is a red eye reduction mode built into the
> >> camera that can be accessed in the setup menu, just do it the
> >> one time for all modes.
> >
> >So presumably the red eye reduction built in mode works well so red
eye
> >is not a problem when photographing people using indoor flash with
this
> >camera?
>
> Red eye reduction doesn't work.

Archie, I thought I saw a message here before where someone said that
the built in red eye reduction for this camera did not work very good
for indoor flash photos of people or maybe it was somewhere else.. Was
it you by chance who commented here before on this? When you say it
doesn't work, in your experience, do you mean it works but not very good
and you've fixed it with software later on?

Cathy
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 3:39:28 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:mqgr51978ouiojtqaf7vpsslprequaa3qf@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:39:09 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> >> That camera is still sold, but was replaced by the substantially
> >> similar DSC-W5.
> >
> > There's a DSC-W7 now.
>
> Right, but unlike the 5mp W1 and W5, the W7 is 7mp, which is more
> resolution that I'd care for in a little camera. With 4 or 5
> megapixels I have all the resolution I need, my old computer
> appreciates the smaller image files, and I it's kinda neat when the
> camera I'd prefer actually costs less (than the W7).

My memory is going and its getting late, I forget - what kind of camera
do you have?

> > I notice in sample photos I've looked at, that red eye shows up a
lot
> > more in people with dark brown eyes than people with light blue
eyes.
> > Its the contrast.
>
> You've discovered yet another way to reduce redeye. Instead of
> eliminating the red from the pupils, color the eyes a complimentary
> blue. :) 

Haha... Good idea!. I have light blue eyes and so do my two grown up
daughters, but my son has brown eyes, so his eyes would have to be
crayoned in blue. What was that song - "don't it make my brown eyes
blue" :) 

Cathy
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 3:58:50 AM

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:39:28 -0400, Cathy wrote:

>> Right, but unlike the 5mp W1 and W5, the W7 is 7mp, which is more
>> resolution that I'd care for in a little camera. With 4 or 5
>> megapixels I have all the resolution I need, my old computer
>> appreciates the smaller image files, and I it's kinda neat when the
>> camera I'd prefer actually costs less (than the W7).
>
> My memory is going and its getting late, I forget - what kind of camera
> do you have?

A couple of little Canons and most recently a Fuji S5100. As
mentioned in another thread, I'm still testing its battery life
using alkaline AAs.


>> You've discovered yet another way to reduce redeye. Instead of
>> eliminating the red from the pupils, color the eyes a complimentary
>> blue. :) 
>
> Haha... Good idea!. I have light blue eyes and so do my two grown up
> daughters, but my son has brown eyes, so his eyes would have to be
> crayoned in blue. What was that song - "don't it make my brown eyes
> blue" :) 

Sung back a ways by Crystal Gayle (sp?), sister of so-and-so (said
because I don't recall who - possibly Loretta Lynn?)
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 3:59:02 AM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
> news:sn3r519b6jorvlhh1jev21c7pnlpj9ke47@4ax.com...
>
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:41:59 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi, can I butt in here. I considered that camera, but two people I
>
> know
>
>>>said it took good pictures outside, but had bad red eye problems
>
> with
>
>>>indoor flash photos. I know red eye can be taken out with software,
>
> but
>
>>>just wondered what it was like without software.
>>
>> That camera is still sold, but was replaced by the substantially
>>similar DSC-W5.
>
>
> There's a DSC-W7 now.
>
> Don't count on any camera's anti redeye techniques
>
>>to do a decent job. There's primarily one factor that causes
>>cameras to produce redeye. The closer the flash is to the lens, the
>>worse it will be. An otherwise very nice camera, the DSC-W#'s have
>>their flash tubes very close to the lens so they would be expected
>>to produce very noticeable redeye.
>
>
> Yes, thats what I thought but a lot of digital cameras have flashes
> close to the lens. I never have red eye problems with my 35mm. It has
> the press the button half way down first, then the flash, but sometimes
> people don't have patience especially my children who don't like being
> photographed in the first place. I only know of one person who didn't
> mind how long it took to take a photo and that was my mother. She loved
> it and the camera loved her even when she was getting old. I wish I was
> as photogenic.
>
> The best way to minimize redeye
>
>>is to reduce the overall percentage of illumination provided by the
>>flash. One way is to maximize a room's lighting. Another is to use
>>a supplemental slave flash, which is usually more powerful and would
>>be located further from the lens. I think Sony makes one for their
>>little P&S's and I know that Canon has one for their small A510 and
>>other small cameras (it comes with a mounting bracket).
>
>
> When I was looking at the A510 and A520 reviews, I saw the flash. I
> think I would probably just try to make a room have more light or use
> natural light before it got dark. Or just take the red eye out with
> software later on.
>
> Since
>
>>they're triggered by the camera's built-in flash, anti redeye
>>flashes and any other preflashes must be able to be disabled for the
>>slave flash to be triggered when the shutter is open. If you want
>>to be the only one in a group picture without blazing red eyes, see
>>if you can find a pair of dark blue or green contact lenses. :) 
>
>
> I notice in sample photos I've looked at, that red eye shows up a lot
> more in people with dark brown eyes than people with light blue eyes.
> Its the contrast.
>
> Cathy
>
Children and babies are the worst. Most adults have learned not to look
directly at the flash. The only cure for red-eye at the camera level is
to have the flash as far as practical from the direction of the lens.
It is nice that software can handle the problem so easily.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 4:03:13 AM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
> news:7xvf6q8d0h.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
>
>>"Cathy" <not@there.com> writes:
>>
>>>So presumably the red eye reduction built in mode works well so red
>
> eye
>
>>>is not a problem when photographing people using indoor flash with
>
> this
>
>>>camera?
>>
>>Redeye is always a problem with compact digicams if you use the flash.
>>It's less severe when the flash is far away from the lens, but it's
>>still there. The only way to get rid of it is post processing. The
>>redeye reduction features like preflashing the subject tends to do
>>nothing but make them squint. Even when they don't squint though,
>>there is still redeye.
>
>
> You're probably right. After processing is probably best. Seems strange
> that you can actually eliminate red eye with software after the photo
> has been taken.
>
> Why is red eye more or a problem than in 35 mm indoor flashes. My 35mm
> camera which was just a cheap camera but takes great pictures, never
> seems to have red eye, or if it does, it is nothing like some of the
> samples I've seen of some digital cameras.
>
>
>>The correct solution to redeye is indirect flash, but built-in flashes
>>generally can't do that.
>
>
> It might help if the flash is not too close to the lens, but often it
> is. Seems to me you have to choose the most important things you want
> and you may not be able to get everything you want.
>
> Cathy
>

Any camera is a compromise. The designer starts with a set of
parameters, and then balances them against what is physically possible,
and then with what can be built and sold for a profit at a given price
point. So, do we use a better lens, or a 6mp sensor, or a not quite so
good lens and a 7mp sensor? If we put in a multi-mode multi-spot
autofocus, can we still have IS? It's all in the fine art of compromise.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 4:04:42 AM

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

Frank ess wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>Cathy wrote:
>>
>>>"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:viuq519307c2sj106kf8tondak0shb1vj3@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:41:59 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Warren Weber >>>bresnan.net>" <hiviewNO SPAM@> wrote in message
>>>>>news:gNmdnf1BNNJa0MDfRVn-jw@bresnan.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Newbie" <chromallly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:1113395491.294068.288770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Could anyone recommend me a good ultra-compact digital camera to
>>>>>
>>>>>buy?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I want to be able to carry it with me (on my pocket) everyday.
>>>
>>>So
>>>
>>>
>>>>>far,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm leaning towards the Canon SD300.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just Bought my wife a Sony DSC-W1. She wanted some thing small to
>>>
>>>fit
>>>
>>>
>>>>>in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>purse. Large screen. Light weight, awesome quality. 5 MP. W W
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi, can I butt in here. I considered that camera, but two people I
>>>
>>>know
>>>
>>>
>>>>>said it took good pictures outside, but had bad red eye problems
>>>>>with indoor flash photos. I know red eye can be taken out with
>>>>>software,
>>>
>>>but
>>>
>>>
>>>>>just wondered what it was like without software.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cathy
>>>>
>>>>There is a red eye reduction mode built into the
>>>>camera that can be accessed in the setup menu, just do it the
>>>>one time for all modes.
>>>
>>>
>>>So presumably the red eye reduction built in mode works well so red
>>>eye is not a problem when photographing people using indoor flash
>>>with this camera?
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>>
>>Nope. NO camera that has the flash close to the lens is immune to
>>red-eye. Most red-eye reduction system don't work well on children
>>who react slower to the preflash, and many adults end up squinting,
>>ruining the picture beyond even photoshop's ability to save it.
>
>
> Here's that dumb-luck photo: no "redeye reduction", no redeye, from a
> Minolta Dimmidge Xt, distance between flash and lens is about 1.2
> thumb-widths.
>
> http://www.fototime.com/B9A0C628615E856/orig.jpg
>
>
No red-eye, but terrible 'green face'. Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 4:42:20 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:bspr51d96qop66tl86l2mre15k011io8mq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:39:28 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> >> Right, but unlike the 5mp W1 and W5, the W7 is 7mp, which is more
> >> resolution that I'd care for in a little camera. With 4 or 5
> >> megapixels I have all the resolution I need, my old computer
> >> appreciates the smaller image files, and I it's kinda neat when the
> >> camera I'd prefer actually costs less (than the W7).
> >
> > My memory is going and its getting late, I forget - what kind of
camera
> > do you have?
>
> A couple of little Canons and most recently a Fuji S5100. As
> mentioned in another thread, I'm still testing its battery life
> using alkaline AAs.

Which Canon models do you have? You seem to have a thing about alkaline
batteries :) 

> >> You've discovered yet another way to reduce redeye. Instead of
> >> eliminating the red from the pupils, color the eyes a complimentary
> >> blue. :) 
> >
> > Haha... Good idea!. I have light blue eyes and so do my two grown up
> > daughters, but my son has brown eyes, so his eyes would have to be
> > crayoned in blue. What was that song - "don't it make my brown eyes
> > blue" :) 
>
> Sung back a ways by Crystal Gayle (sp?),

You have the spelling right. She had hair down to her feet. I was always
worried she would trip over it. I haven't seen her for a long time on
the TV.

sister of so-and-so (said
> because I don't recall who - possibly Loretta Lynn?)

You win the prize, only I don't know what it is yet. You got both right.
It was Loretta Lynn. I saw her on the TV the other night and she is
looking older. Of course we are all getting older, but I hadn't seen
her for a number of years. I am not a country music fan, But Loretta was
a very good singer and has had a wonderful long career.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:46:55 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:sMm7e.5564$303.30@fe05.lga...
> Cathy wrote:

<snip>

> > I notice in sample photos I've looked at, that red eye shows up a
lot
> > more in people with dark brown eyes than people with light blue
eyes.
> > Its the contrast.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> Children and babies are the worst. Most adults have learned not to
look
> directly at the flash. The only cure for red-eye at the camera level
is
> to have the flash as far as practical from the direction of the lens.
> It is nice that software can handle the problem so easily.

I haven't taken any photos of children and babies for a long time. But
if the flash is built in and near the lens not much you can do about
that. Is Irfanview good for taking out red eye? yes, you are right its
good if that works. I use Irfanview for a long time now,mainly for
making jpgs after scanning photos. Its a good program. years ago I used
to use a program called Lview for jpgs. I think its still around, but
you have to pay, so I didn't bother with it. It used to be free.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:50:22 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:mQm7e.5566

<snip>

> Any camera is a compromise. The designer starts with a set of
> parameters, and then balances them against what is physically
possible,
> and then with what can be built and sold for a profit at a given price
> point. So, do we use a better lens, or a 6mp sensor, or a not quite
so
> good lens and a 7mp sensor? If we put in a multi-mode multi-spot
> autofocus, can we still have IS? It's all in the fine art of
compromise.

Too bad! I guess I can't have everything and will have to choose what is
the most important to me. I have trouble making decisions where you have
to take some things and not others when you want them all :) 

Cathy
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:29:58 PM

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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:42:20 -0400, Cathy wrote:

>> A couple of little Canons and most recently a Fuji S5100. As
>> mentioned in another thread, I'm still testing its battery life
>> using alkaline AAs.
>
> Which Canon models do you have? You seem to have a thing about
> alkaline batteries :) 

The models are the S10 and S20. Both use a NiMH rechargeable
battery which was later changed in more recent S-series cameras to
Lithiums. I don't care much about using alkalines, it's much more a
thing about being able to use standard batteries, such as AA or
AAAs. Buried within Canon's bulky, proprietary battery are three
NiMH AAA cells. If Canon designed the camera to use 3 AAA batteries
instead, the camera could have been made a little slimmer, and a
replacement or backup set of batteries would have been far cheaper,
about $5 vs. the $50 Canon wants.

I prefer using NiMH batteries in cameras where appropriate, but
admonitions that alkalines should nowhere, nohow, unh uh, never be
used in digital cameras is just plain wrong. It depends on the
camera, and for most of the older ones still being used, alkalines
do a miserable job. But they can not only be appropriate for modern
cameras, but for some people, such as those that don't take many
pictures, and when they do, only use their cameras several times a
year, alkalines can be a much better choice than NiMH rechargeables.
They're more convenient. Because of high self discharge rates NiMH
batteries will be nearly exhausted if they haven't been charged
every month or two, even if they haven't been used. Alkaline
batteries can be stored for several years (preferably not in the
camera) and they'll still be able to be used at a moments notice.

As for the Fuji, it has gone well beyond some of the pessimistic
estimates predicted here, ranging from none to a dozen or two
pictures if alkalines were used. With lots of zooming, focusing,
using flash for many of the pictures, and spending a lot of time in
playback mode examining images on the LCD display, the camera has
taken well over 100 pictures, and the batteries show no sign yet of
needing to be replaced. But this test has been far more useful than
just showing how long alkalines will last in the camera. It has
given me the opportunity to become much more familiar with most of
the camera's modes and features that I hadn't used before. You can
read about features in the manual, but if you don't actually use
them, that information is not retained nearly as well. It's nice to
know that if I ever need to use them in an emergency, only one
dollar's worth of alkalines will do so much.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:54:16 PM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:sMm7e.5564$303.30@fe05.lga...
>
>>Cathy wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>I notice in sample photos I've looked at, that red eye shows up a
>
> lot
>
>>>more in people with dark brown eyes than people with light blue
>
> eyes.
>
>>>Its the contrast.
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>>
>>Children and babies are the worst. Most adults have learned not to
>
> look
>
>>directly at the flash. The only cure for red-eye at the camera level
>
> is
>
>>to have the flash as far as practical from the direction of the lens.
>>It is nice that software can handle the problem so easily.
>
>
> I haven't taken any photos of children and babies for a long time. But
> if the flash is built in and near the lens not much you can do about
> that. Is Irfanview good for taking out red eye? yes, you are right its
> good if that works. I use Irfanview for a long time now,mainly for
> making jpgs after scanning photos. Its a good program. years ago I used
> to use a program called Lview for jpgs. I think its still around, but
> you have to pay, so I didn't bother with it. It used to be free.
>
> Cathy
>

Irfanview does a rather poor, and slow job of red-eye handling.
I like the way Turbo Photo (shareware) works on red-eye. Or, if you are
fairly serious about your photoediting, you could invest in Photoshop
Elements 3.0. It runs about $80 at discount stores.
WELL worth the money, even though the Organizer function has some bugs.
The editing module does about 90% of what Photoshop CS ($600) does.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:56:33 PM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:mQm7e.5566
>
> <snip>
>
>>Any camera is a compromise. The designer starts with a set of
>>parameters, and then balances them against what is physically
>
> possible,
>
>>and then with what can be built and sold for a profit at a given price
>>point. So, do we use a better lens, or a 6mp sensor, or a not quite
>
> so
>
>>good lens and a 7mp sensor? If we put in a multi-mode multi-spot
>>autofocus, can we still have IS? It's all in the fine art of
>
> compromise.
>
> Too bad! I guess I can't have everything and will have to choose what is
> the most important to me. I have trouble making decisions where you have
> to take some things and not others when you want them all :) 
>
> Cathy
>
What I did was buy a camera with what I thought I wanted, and that I
could afford, then after using it for about a year, I compiled a list of
what I thought I needed improved, and bought a camera that had those
improved features. It's still a compromise, but it fits me needs well
at this point. The next one will probably have a 10x zoom IF they can
provide that in a package that will fit in my pocket, as this is a
non-negotiable point with me.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:53:16 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:D Cu7e.4333$c42.609@fe07.lga...
> Cathy wrote:

<snip>

> > I haven't taken any photos of children and babies for a long time.
But
> > if the flash is built in and near the lens not much you can do about
> > that. Is Irfanview good for taking out red eye? yes, you are right
its
> > good if that works. I use Irfanview for a long time now,mainly for
> > making jpgs after scanning photos. Its a good program. years ago I
used
> > to use a program called Lview for jpgs. I think its still around,
but
> > you have to pay, so I didn't bother with it. It used to be free.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
>
> Irfanview does a rather poor, and slow job of red-eye handling.
> I like the way Turbo Photo (shareware) works on red-eye. Or, if you
are
> fairly serious about your photoediting, you could invest in Photoshop
> Elements 3.0. It runs about $80 at discount stores.
> WELL worth the money, even though the Organizer function has some
bugs.
> The editing module does about 90% of what Photoshop CS ($600) does.

I would never be *that* serious about photoediting to pay $80.00 US :) 
and no doubt a lot more money here. Don't digital cameras come with
software for fixing up redeye problems? I got a new printer today at
Staples, a Canon ip1500 inkjet. It was cheap ($69.99 Can.) and costs
less for cartridges than my Epson C64 cartridges which were too
expensive, even though I got them refilled. When I checked out reviews
of it before I bought it, it mentioned it reduces red eye in photos, so
I guess they mean software, though I haven't got around to unpacking yet
it to find out.
A regular color printer would have been ok for me, but photo printers
seem to be all that is around these days. While in Staples I looked at
cameras as usual. They don't seem to have as many as they did a year or
so ago and had none of the new Sony's that I saw on one stores site
here. They seem to like HP cameras and have all the HP models. The M307
and M407 are the cheapest cameras I've seen. I looked at the Kodak LS743
and its not a bad looking camera, with a fairly clear viewfinder. Its
been out for quite a while and is one of the cameras which has not gone
down in price like many others have. I like the LCD location and even
though its only 1.8" , it
gives you the impression that its bigger because its in the middle of
the camera back.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:53:17 PM

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

"Cathy" <not@there.com> writes:
> I would never be *that* serious about photoediting to pay $80.00 US :) 
> and no doubt a lot more money here. Don't digital cameras come with
> software for fixing up redeye problems?

I don't know what they come with. I've been using GIMP, which might
not be the most convenient, but it's powerful and free (www.gimp.org).
Basically you use the lasso tool to select the part of the eye where
the redeye is. Then use the color tool to set the saturation in the
region to zero (i.e. remove the color from that region, leaving the
intensity alone so it becomes monochrome). That leaves the eye
looking more or less normal, with a highlight where you'd expect it.
The correction process is a little bit tedious and there's probably
some more convenient way if you're doing lots of pictures. But for
occasional ones, it's straightforward enough.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:34:08 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:mEu7e.4334$c42.2473@fe07.lga...
> Cathy wrote:
> > "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:mQm7e.5566
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>Any camera is a compromise. The designer starts with a set of
> >>parameters, and then balances them against what is physically
> >
> > possible,
> >
> >>and then with what can be built and sold for a profit at a given
price
> >>point. So, do we use a better lens, or a 6mp sensor, or a not quite
> >
> > so
> >
> >>good lens and a 7mp sensor? If we put in a multi-mode multi-spot
> >>autofocus, can we still have IS? It's all in the fine art of
> >
> > compromise.
> >
> > Too bad! I guess I can't have everything and will have to choose
what is
> > the most important to me. I have trouble making decisions where you
have
> > to take some things and not others when you want them all :) 
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> What I did was buy a camera with what I thought I wanted, and that I
> could afford, then after using it for about a year, I compiled a list
of
> what I thought I needed improved, and bought a camera that had those
> improved features. It's still a compromise, but it fits me needs well
> at this point. The next one will probably have a 10x zoom IF they can
> provide that in a package that will fit in my pocket, as this is a
> non-negotiable point with me.

I will be more of a casual user than you, and probably only use it a
few times a year, so I am hoping to get most of the features I want the
first time around as that will have to last me for a long time.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 12:13:25 PM

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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:53:16 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:

>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:D Cu7e.4333$c42.609@fe07.lga...
>> Cathy wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> > I haven't taken any photos of children and babies for a long time.
>But
>> > if the flash is built in and near the lens not much you can do about
>> > that. Is Irfanview good for taking out red eye? yes, you are right
>its
>> > good if that works. I use Irfanview for a long time now,mainly for
>> > making jpgs after scanning photos. Its a good program. years ago I
>used
>> > to use a program called Lview for jpgs. I think its still around,
>but
>> > you have to pay, so I didn't bother with it. It used to be free.
>> >
>> > Cathy
>> >
>>
>> Irfanview does a rather poor, and slow job of red-eye handling.
>> I like the way Turbo Photo (shareware) works on red-eye. Or, if you
>are
>> fairly serious about your photoediting, you could invest in Photoshop
>> Elements 3.0. It runs about $80 at discount stores.
>> WELL worth the money, even though the Organizer function has some
>bugs.
>> The editing module does about 90% of what Photoshop CS ($600) does.
>
>I would never be *that* serious about photoediting to pay $80.00 US :) 
>and no doubt a lot more money here. Don't digital cameras come with
>software for fixing up redeye problems? I got a new printer today at
>Staples, a Canon ip1500 inkjet. It was cheap ($69.99 Can.) and costs
>less for cartridges than my Epson C64 cartridges which were too
>expensive, even though I got them refilled. When I checked out reviews
>of it before I bought it, it mentioned it reduces red eye in photos, so
>I guess they mean software, though I haven't got around to unpacking yet
>it to find out.
Some of the imaging software that comes with a camera or printer
do better jobs than others with red eye. I have a simplistic type
of old software called Adobe Photo deluxe that does a great job
of red eye plus other touching up, very little learning curve
involved.
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 4:14:08 AM

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

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xsm1snb8a.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> writes:
> > I would never be *that* serious about photoediting to pay $80.00 US
:) 
> > and no doubt a lot more money here. Don't digital cameras come with
> > software for fixing up redeye problems?
>
> I don't know what they come with. I've been using GIMP, which might
> not be the most convenient, but it's powerful and free (www.gimp.org).
> Basically you use the lasso tool to select the part of the eye where
> the redeye is. Then use the color tool to set the saturation in the
> region to zero (i.e. remove the color from that region, leaving the
> intensity alone so it becomes monochrome). That leaves the eye
> looking more or less normal, with a highlight where you'd expect it.
> The correction process is a little bit tedious and there's probably
> some more convenient way if you're doing lots of pictures. But for
> occasional ones, it's straightforward enough.

Thanks Paul. I will check out www.gimp.org - I don't know anything
about red eye software, and don't have a digital camera yet, but no harm
in being prepared.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 4:30:40 AM

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

"irwell" <hook@yahoo.com> wrote in message

snip

Cathy wrote:

> >I would never be *that* serious about photoediting to pay $80.00 US
:) 
> >and no doubt a lot more money here. Don't digital cameras come with
> >software for fixing up redeye problems? I got a new printer today at
> >Staples, a Canon ip1500 inkjet. It was cheap ($69.99 Can.) and costs
> >less for cartridges than my Epson C64 cartridges which were too
> >expensive, even though I got them refilled. When I checked out
reviews
> >of it before I bought it, it mentioned it reduces red eye in photos,
so
> >I guess they mean software, though I haven't got around to unpacking
yet
> >it to find out.

> Some of the imaging software that comes with a camera or printer
> do better jobs than others with red eye. I have a simplistic type
> of old software called Adobe Photo deluxe that does a great job
> of red eye plus other touching up, very little learning curve
> involved.

I only have Arc photo that came with my scanner, and Easy photo print
that came with my Canon printer. The easy photo print has red eye
removal on it, but I don't know how good it is. I don't have Adobe Photo
deluxe and its probably expensive to buy.

Cathy
!