Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photo Quality

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 8:10:46 PM

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

I have just bought a FujiFilm S7000. I am new to this digital camera thing.
I have the camera set on Auto & the setting on 6 mp. The pictures I take
don't look too bad when I download them to my computer, but when I enlarge
them to 100 % in Photo Elements 3, they look nasty. Very grainy & blotchy
looking color. I've looked at other people's pictures enlarged & they look
good. Can someone advise me how to properly set the settings on a digital
camera?

--


Ted H.

More about : photo quality

December 27, 2004 8:10:47 PM

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

Theodore Hewitt wrote:

>I have just bought a FujiFilm S7000. I am new to this digital camera thing.
>I have the camera set on Auto & the setting on 6 mp. The pictures I take
>don't look too bad when I download them to my computer, but when I enlarge
>them to 100 % in Photo Elements 3, they look nasty. Very grainy & blotchy
>looking color. I've looked at other people's pictures enlarged & they look
>good. Can someone advise me how to properly set the settings on a digital
>camera?

Are the photos indoors without the flash? If so, turn on the flash and
try again. Or take a few daylight photos outside and compare.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 8:46:20 PM

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

Most of what I've taken has been indoors. I have tried with flash & without.
I have only taken one outside so far. The weather here has been on the dark
snowy side of things.

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:G9GdnXqFsO2g2k3cRVn-ow@golden.net...
> Theodore Hewitt wrote:
>
>>I have just bought a FujiFilm S7000. I am new to this digital camera
>>thing.
>>I have the camera set on Auto & the setting on 6 mp. The pictures I take
>>don't look too bad when I download them to my computer, but when I enlarge
>>them to 100 % in Photo Elements 3, they look nasty. Very grainy & blotchy
>>looking color. I've looked at other people's pictures enlarged & they look
>>good. Can someone advise me how to properly set the settings on a digital
>>camera?
>
> Are the photos indoors without the flash? If so, turn on the flash and
> try again. Or take a few daylight photos outside and compare.
Related resources
December 27, 2004 8:46:21 PM

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

Theodore Hewitt wrote:

>Most of what I've taken has been indoors. I have tried with flash & without.
>I have only taken one outside so far. The weather here has been on the dark
>snowy side of things.

If you've used flash, then something is wrong with the settings. You
should be able to get a good grain-free shot on Auto without any
problems.

Perhaps it's a problem with Elements. Have you tried viewing the image
in another viewer, like the Windows XP image viewer or Paint?
December 27, 2004 8:46:21 PM

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

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:46:20 GMT, "Theodore Hewitt"
<tedwoodie@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Most of what I've taken has been indoors. I have tried with flash & without.
>I have only taken one outside so far. The weather here has been on the dark
>snowy side of things.
>
>"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:G9GdnXqFsO2g2k3cRVn-ow@golden.net...
>> Theodore Hewitt wrote:
>>
>>>I have just bought a FujiFilm S7000. I am new to this digital camera
>>>thing.
>>>I have the camera set on Auto & the setting on 6 mp. The pictures I take
>>>don't look too bad when I download them to my computer, but when I enlarge
>>>them to 100 % in Photo Elements 3, they look nasty. Very grainy & blotchy
>>>looking color. I've looked at other people's pictures enlarged & they look
>>>good. Can someone advise me how to properly set the settings on a digital
>>>camera?
>>
>> Are the photos indoors without the flash? If so, turn on the flash and
>> try again. Or take a few daylight photos outside and compare.

I'm not familiar with your camera (I have a Canon A80) but there's a
couple of ideas come to mind. What size and format are your output
files? My most detailed 4 MP files can run over 3 Mbytes as jpegs; 6
MP should give you even larger files than that. I wonder if perhaps
your settings weren't saved for some reason and have dropped to lower
resolution defaults?

Also, is there a "film speed" setting -- "ISO"? High values there
(400, 800 and higher) speed up the camera but introduce more noise
into the picture -- a sort of digital grain.

DaveT
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:40:52 PM

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

No, I haven't tried those.

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:WLCdndVnrbNp_03cRVn-iw@golden.net...
> Theodore Hewitt wrote:
>
>>Most of what I've taken has been indoors. I have tried with flash &
>>without.
>>I have only taken one outside so far. The weather here has been on the
>>dark
>>snowy side of things.
>
> If you've used flash, then something is wrong with the settings. You
> should be able to get a good grain-free shot on Auto without any
> problems.
>
> Perhaps it's a problem with Elements. Have you tried viewing the image
> in another viewer, like the Windows XP image viewer or Paint?
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 12:04:11 AM

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

I just tried 3 other programs I have & the quality results were all the
same.

"Theodore Hewitt" <tedwoodie@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:o r_zd.1173999$Gx4.669612@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> No, I haven't tried those.
>
> "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
> news:WLCdndVnrbNp_03cRVn-iw@golden.net...
>> Theodore Hewitt wrote:
>>
>>>Most of what I've taken has been indoors. I have tried with flash &
>>>without.
>>>I have only taken one outside so far. The weather here has been on the
>>>dark
>>>snowy side of things.
>>
>> If you've used flash, then something is wrong with the settings. You
>> should be able to get a good grain-free shot on Auto without any
>> problems.
>>
>> Perhaps it's a problem with Elements. Have you tried viewing the image
>> in another viewer, like the Windows XP image viewer or Paint?
>
>
December 28, 2004 1:24:18 AM

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

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:30:59 -0500, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:

>Theodore Hewitt wrote:
>
>>Most of what I've taken has been indoors. I have tried with flash & without.
>>I have only taken one outside so far. The weather here has been on the dark
>>snowy side of things.
>
>If you've used flash, then something is wrong with the settings. You
>should be able to get a good grain-free shot on Auto without any
>problems.
>
>Perhaps it's a problem with Elements. Have you tried viewing the image
>in another viewer, like the Windows XP image viewer or Paint?
If you are using the full 6 megapixel setting, the 100% view will be
very large but should be sharp and dot free.
Check to see that you are on 6 mp. Then try on lower mp settings. Try
on the lower different ISO settings (160 – 800)
Manual: Equivalent to ISO 200/400/800 (resolution is set at 1M /
2M /3M for shots taken at ISO 800) Try the 200 ISO setting.
If still poor take back to shop and exchange under warranty if dealer
unable to rectify problem/fault.
Norman
December 28, 2004 7:46:40 PM

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

Theodore Hewitt wrote:

>>> If you've used flash, then something is wrong with the settings. You
>>> should be able to get a good grain-free shot on Auto without any
>>> problems.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it's a problem with Elements. Have you tried viewing the image
>>> in another viewer, like the Windows XP image viewer or Paint?
>
>I just tried 3 other programs I have & the quality results were all the
>same.

Then it's a problem with the settings, or the camera is defective.

Is there a reset option to return the settings to their defaults? Out of
the box the camera should take decent pictures at the normal settings.
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 8:20:08 PM

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

Jude wrote:
> With digital cameras, you want the best pictures, so you have to set
your
> camera settings to best resolution rather than default settings
called the
> raw, and also use the biggest file saved, the bigger the file saved,
the
> better the resolution, more pixels=quality when enlarge, be careful,
> sometime when viewing pictures with software, you only get part of
the file,
> not full pixels..it looks pixelite when enlarging..That camera of
yours is a
> wonderful piece of technology and complex also, I suggest you read
the book
> and make a lot of same shots with different settings..practice makes
> perfect.
> People tend to compare old film camera with digital..not the
same..ols film,
> the lower the ASA speed=the best results, here in digital its
oposite, the
> more or best quality settings and bigger file saved= best pictures
> Wish I could buy one of this soon because I LOVED photography and am
> learning digital..wow, what a different world
>
> Good Luck my friend
>
> http://www.torontopics.com/digital/fuji7000.html lots of reviews
here

The default on my Olympus C-755 something like 2048x1782 or
something... jpg. There is one higher jpg setting, and then a tiff
setting which even when taking dark images (dark=less data=smaller
file) comes out to about 14Mb... this is a 4Mp camera.

Anyway, I have been reducing the images sizes (they default to
something like 31"x... something) and you only notice pixelation when
you zoom in higher than 200%. My images typically default to around
100Kb.

One other thing, I have only been using the 10x optical zoom (it
mechanically zooms... but said "seamless" zoom, so I assumed it was
always on). I was playing with it at a party over the holiday (taking
some cool B&W photos) and I noticed that the default is digital zoon
_off_. Heh. I thought my mile-away shots across some canyons up in the
forest were pretty good. Now I will have to get out there and make sure
I am getting 40x, not 10x.

As for ISO and such... mine defaults to ISO 50, but it is adjustable in
manual mode for 100, 200 and 400. You notice the added gain as a
brighter preview image on-the-fly by scrolling through the ISO
settings... very handy for previewing the proper setting (again, if you
are in manual mode) if it is dark or at night (even in manual mode, the
exposure time tries to adjust, which I kind of don't like).

I have been getting what I think are nice pictures from it. I'll post
weblinks maybe later tonight when I get home (everybody wants to see
pictures, that's why we're here, right?).

Zach
January 6, 2005 10:15:13 PM

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

With digital cameras, you want the best pictures, so you have to set your
camera settings to best resolution rather than default settings called the
raw, and also use the biggest file saved, the bigger the file saved, the
better the resolution, more pixels=quality when enlarge, be careful,
sometime when viewing pictures with software, you only get part of the file,
not full pixels..it looks pixelite when enlarging..That camera of yours is a
wonderful piece of technology and complex also, I suggest you read the book
and make a lot of same shots with different settings..practice makes
perfect.
People tend to compare old film camera with digital..not the same..ols film,
the lower the ASA speed=the best results, here in digital its oposite, the
more or best quality settings and bigger file saved= best pictures
Wish I could buy one of this soon because I LOVED photography and am
learning digital..wow, what a different world

Good Luck my friend

http://www.torontopics.com/digital/fuji7000.html lots of reviews here
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 3:57:51 AM

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

"The PhAnToM" <victorthecleaner@gmail.com> wrote:

> The default on my Olympus C-755 something like 2048x1782 or
> something... jpg. There is one higher jpg setting, and then a tiff
> setting which even when taking dark images (dark=less data=smaller
> file) comes out to about 14Mb... this is a 4Mp camera.

I believe most digital cameras have a higher jpg setting which is the
same resolution but less compressed (comparable to selecting 95% quality
when saving in an editing program). All jpg files are compressed to some
extent, while tiff files are not, hence the larger size. On my 4Mp HP,
the default image size is approx. 1.2Mb, and at the higher quality
setting it's 2.0Mb. It all depends what you want to do with the pics; if
you want to print them full frame at 4x6, a 2Mp (1200x1800) image at
about 800Kb is perfectly adequate. If you want to edit and crop, you
need to start with a higher quality. Every time you save a jpg, you lose
some quality, so try to do all your edits on the original image before
saving, and select a low compression setting. For ultimate quality, do
all your edits in an uncompressed format such as bmp or tiff.

--
Martin S.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 9:04:49 AM

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

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 19:15:13 -0500, "Jude" <judeott@hotmail.com> wrote:

>With digital cameras, you want the best pictures, so you have to set your
>camera settings to best resolution rather than default settings called the
>raw, and also use the biggest file saved, the bigger the file saved, the
>better the resolution, more pixels=quality when enlarge, be careful,
>sometime when viewing pictures with software, you only get part of the file,
>not full pixels..it looks pixelite when enlarging..That camera of yours is a
>wonderful piece of technology and complex also, I suggest you read the book
>and make a lot of same shots with different settings..practice makes
>perfect.
>People tend to compare old film camera with digital..not the same..ols film,
>the lower the ASA speed=the best results, here in digital its oposite, the
>more or best quality settings and bigger file saved= best pictures
>Wish I could buy one of this soon because I LOVED photography and am
>learning digital..wow, what a different world
>
>Good Luck my friend
>
>http://www.torontopics.com/digital/fuji7000.html lots of reviews here
>
I thought that if you captured in raw format (a lot of digital cameras
do not allow) that you would get the greatest possible image quality.
I know a lot of the Photoshop experts recommend that you use this raw
image to get the best possible editing results in Photoshop. I quess
if you were not going to do editing it may not be helpful.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 3:47:44 PM

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

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Donald Link <linkd@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > I thought that if you captured in raw format (a lot of digital
cameras
> > do not allow) that you would get the greatest possible image
quality.
>
> Not necessarily --- it means the greatest tweakability, but
> it also means a longer workflow and postprocessing.
>
> > I know a lot of the Photoshop experts recommend that you use this
raw
> > image to get the best possible editing results in Photoshop.
>
> I *vastly* prefer getting the shot right in the first place.

Snow, raw images:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637...
http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006962...

Snow, auto-level with PS:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637...
http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244007641...

Rainbow, using PS to remove rain drops from camera lens (the trained
eye can probably spot the area on the rainbow where I did a quick and
dirty PS removal):
http://community.webshots.com/photo/245445623/245457680...

Raw image:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232536553...

Auto-level with PS removes the fog:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232536909...

No fog removal:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232532067...

Fog removed with PS:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232531302...

(would have looked similarly washed out like previous photo, taken
within 20 mins of each other)

Now, I used to think that manipulation of digital images is cheating.
When you think about it, however, that is exactly what darkroom work is
with film. Taking contact prints to get the proper exposure time for
final prints. Doging and burning when doing enlargements. A little
alteration of data is sometimes not unwarrented. This is hobbyist
photography after all. If the final result is a good picture, without
comprimising the spirit of the subject, then it is all good, no?

That being said, I am honest enough to say when I did some alterations.


Zach

My whole sailing (one day a few weeks ago) album, if anyone is
interested.

http://community.webshots.com/album/232530461CmUhdu/0
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 3:48:15 PM

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

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Donald Link <linkd@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > I thought that if you captured in raw format (a lot of digital
cameras
> > do not allow) that you would get the greatest possible image
quality.
>
> Not necessarily --- it means the greatest tweakability, but
> it also means a longer workflow and postprocessing.
>
> > I know a lot of the Photoshop experts recommend that you use this
raw
> > image to get the best possible editing results in Photoshop.
>
> I *vastly* prefer getting the shot right in the first place.

Snow, raw images:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637...
http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006962...

Snow, auto-level with PS:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637...
http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244007641...

Rainbow, using PS to remove rain drops from camera lens (the trained
eye can probably spot the area on the rainbow where I did a quick and
dirty PS removal):
http://community.webshots.com/photo/245445623/245457680...

Raw image:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232536553...

Auto-level with PS removes the fog:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232536909...

No fog removal:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232532067...

Fog removed with PS:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232531302...

(would have looked similarly washed out like previous photo, taken
within 20 mins of each other)

Now, I used to think that manipulation of digital images is cheating.
When you think about it, however, that is exactly what darkroom work is
with film. Taking contact prints to get the proper exposure time for
final prints. Doging and burning when doing enlargements. A little
alteration of data is sometimes not unwarrented. This is hobbyist
photography after all. If the final result is a good picture, without
comprimising the spirit of the subject, then it is all good, no?

That being said, I am honest enough to say when I did some alterations.


Zach

My whole sailing (one day a few weeks ago) album, if anyone is
interested.

http://community.webshots.com/album/232530461CmUhdu/0
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 4:33:27 PM

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

The PhAnToM wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> > Donald Link <linkd@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I thought that if you captured in raw format (a lot of digital
> cameras
> > > do not allow) that you would get the greatest possible image
> quality.
> >
> > Not necessarily --- it means the greatest tweakability, but
> > it also means a longer workflow and postprocessing.
> >
> > > I know a lot of the Photoshop experts recommend that you use this
> raw
> > > image to get the best possible editing results in Photoshop.
> >
> > I *vastly* prefer getting the shot right in the first place.
>
> Snow, raw images:
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637...
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006962...
>
> Snow, auto-level with PS:
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637...
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244007641...

In retrospect, the auto mode from the camera was probably not good
enough. I should have switched to manual mode and increased ISO and
maybe the aperture, or put it into "night" mode to compare. These were
taken quick and dirty because we had a little kid and a worried mother
with who didn't want us to stay out too long (it was just about dark,
to be fair to her).

Zach
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 7:31:36 PM

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

Donald Link <linkd@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I thought that if you captured in raw format (a lot of digital cameras
> do not allow) that you would get the greatest possible image quality.

Not necessarily --- it means the greatest tweakability, but
it also means a longer workflow and postprocessing.

> I know a lot of the Photoshop experts recommend that you use this raw
> image to get the best possible editing results in Photoshop.

I *vastly* prefer getting the shot right in the first place.


I averaged >135 shots/day in December, I have taken 1500 pics on
a weekend (3-5 per object, I *love* continuous shooting).
No, I am not a professional.

Even with rigorous weeding I simply can not see me slogging through
nearly one thousand pictures (and 5+ cd ROMs worth of RAW data)
a week, converting them from RAW and tweaking the conversion
settings ...

I use JPEG and first weed, weed, weed out: not sharp? OUT!
Not interesting? OUT! Not best in series? OUT! The rest
gets some touching up, where needed: red eye removal, trimming,
selective sharpening[1], sometimes white balance.

I don't have the time to routinely do curve adjustments, correct
light levels or other such stuff. I may do that when I need a
picture but have no good one. But it really is better to spend 10
or 30 minutes for a few more shots than more than 1 hour touching
up the single mediocre one.

Oh, RAW takes up _much_ more space than JPEG, and I don't fancy
20+ GB a month in data (30+ cd roms) --- especially as I *do*
backup my data.

> I quess
> if you were not going to do editing it may not be helpful.



-Wolfgang

[1] wrote my own extended GIMP plugin for that, so it does
things as _I_ want it
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 2:40:32 PM

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

The PhAnToM <victorthecleaner@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Donald Link <linkd@mindspring.com> wrote:

>> > I thought that if you captured in raw format (a lot of digital
> cameras
>> > do not allow) that you would get the greatest possible image
> quality.

>> Not necessarily --- it means the greatest tweakability, but
>> it also means a longer workflow and postprocessing.

>> > I know a lot of the Photoshop experts recommend that you use this
> raw
>> > image to get the best possible editing results in Photoshop.

>> I *vastly* prefer getting the shot right in the first place.

> Snow, raw images:

raw, as in "RAW format" or rather as in 'as it came out of
the camera'?

> http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637...
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006962...

> Snow, auto-level with PS:
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637...

Identical URL to 'raw' image, sorry, no difference.

> http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244007641...

Obviously your camera was fooled: it delivered the pictures with a
very blue cast. So you did a colour correction. But I think you
removed _too_ much colour here. It almost looks like a b/w photo.

> Rainbow, using PS to remove rain drops from camera lens (the trained
> eye can probably spot the area on the rainbow where I did a quick and
> dirty PS removal):
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/245445623/245457680...

Easy enough, it looks damaged. Without the raw image, there
is no telling if/how the picture improved by rain drop
removal.

> Raw image:
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232536553...

> Auto-level with PS removes the fog:
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232536909...

Yes, but does it improve the image? Haze _is_ one of the things
the eye uses to see distance, and the result looks --- while the
sky is much more dramatic --- much later in the day. Ok, it
depends a lot on 'artistic' vs. 'documentary' photographing.

> Now, I used to think that manipulation of digital images is cheating.

It depends.

> When you think about it, however, that is exactly what darkroom work is
> with film. Taking contact prints to get the proper exposure time for
> final prints. Doging and burning when doing enlargements. A little
> alteration of data is sometimes not unwarrented. This is hobbyist
> photography after all. If the final result is a good picture, without
> comprimising the spirit of the subject, then it is all good, no?

Tell that to the judge. :-)

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 6:32:02 PM

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

>> I thought that if you captured in raw format (a lot of digital cameras
>> do not allow) that you would get the greatest possible image quality.
>
>Not necessarily --- it means the greatest tweakability, but
>it also means a longer workflow and postprocessing.

You absolutely get the potential for better image quality, if for no
other reason than the fact that you don't get JPEG artifacting. I
find that the output of my Canon S30 (3MP) is fine even for 8x10 (and,
actually, pretty good at 12x18), but I can't stand the JPEG-look even
at 5x7.

I wish more cameras offered compressed TIFF, or some other lossless
compression.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
!