Clueless newbie question

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

Hi,

There are two factors here. I have an S500, and my premium paper prints are
sharp and colorful, from 4x6" on up to 8.5x11". Computer screens have a limited
sharpness, and smallish images just do not have much detail. If an image fills
the screen, then of course there will be more visible detail.

Have you tried printing 4x6" prints on good paper, either on your printer or
elsewhere? With your camera, assuming that your camera technique is adequate,
prints should be nicely sharp and detailed from 4x6" up to 8.5x11".

Good luck.

Morton



stars wrote:

> I have had a Canon PowerShot S100 since 2001. By the end of 2004 the
> battery wouldn't really hold a charge and the pictures came out dark, so I
> decided to get a new camera. As I had been happy with Canon & had
> accessories like extra Compact Flash Cards and a card reader that would work
> with a newer model, I decided to stick with Canon. I went back and forth
> between the A95 and the PowerShot s500. After being used to the small size
> of the s100, handy for travel, etc., I couldn't get used to the size of the
> A95, so I wound up with the s500.
>
> Anyway, I expected the same level of pictures as the s100, just better
> quality due to more megapixels. Apparently I am completely clueless when it
> comes to this b/c now I am having the following issue:
> Photos taken on my s500 look funny when viewed at a normal size onscreen
> (doing a lot of photo sharing through ofoto.com, shutterfly, snapfish,
> etc.). If I increase the size of the photos the quality becomes nice and
> clear - but how can I share a photo that is larger than my 17" screen?? Is
> there a setting I need to change on my camera, or is it something that I
> need to do once the file is downloaded onto my computer? Is it possible to
> get nice sharp pics from a 5 megapixel that look clear at a 4X6 or 5X7 size
> onscreen?
>
> Can someone advise?
> Thank you in advance.

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

Replying to my own post - I think I have it figured out. I fiddled with the
settings on my camera and I was able to shoot a photo that looks clear at a
small size. This should work for my ebay listings.

Thanks again for the help!

"stars" <stars@vzavenue.net> wrote in message
news:3ce2ceF6lbmicU1@individual.net...
> Thanks for the quick response. I have not tried printing any pictures
yet.
> I don't have a color printer here - just a b/w laser. I usually print
> through ofoto.com. Assuming my photos print well, is there anything I can
> do to get decent quality on-screen? People's faces look funky when
viewing
> the photos through one of the photo-sharing sites. Do I need to compress
> the file size? Also, I want to take pictures of a few things to sell on
> ebay, so I need to be able to post clear photos. Is this a matter of
> adjusting the settings on my camera when I take a photo specifically for
> this use, or do I need to compress the file after the photo is taken?
>
>
> "mort" <mort@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:4261C549.7F32C32E@cloud9.net...
> > Hi,
> >
> > There are two factors here. I have an S500, and my premium paper prints
> are
> > sharp and colorful, from 4x6" on up to 8.5x11". Computer screens have a
> limited
> > sharpness, and smallish images just do not have much detail. If an image
> fills
> > the screen, then of course there will be more visible detail.
> >
> > Have you tried printing 4x6" prints on good paper, either on your
printer
> or
> > elsewhere? With your camera, assuming that your camera technique is
> adequate,
> > prints should be nicely sharp and detailed from 4x6" up to 8.5x11".
> >
> > Good luck.
> >
> > Morton
> >
> >
> >
> > stars wrote:
> >
> > > I have had a Canon PowerShot S100 since 2001. By the end of 2004 the
> > > battery wouldn't really hold a charge and the pictures came out dark,
so
> I
> > > decided to get a new camera. As I had been happy with Canon & had
> > > accessories like extra Compact Flash Cards and a card reader that
would
> work
> > > with a newer model, I decided to stick with Canon. I went back and
> forth
> > > between the A95 and the PowerShot s500. After being used to the small
> size
> > > of the s100, handy for travel, etc., I couldn't get used to the size
of
> the
> > > A95, so I wound up with the s500.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I expected the same level of pictures as the s100, just better
> > > quality due to more megapixels. Apparently I am completely clueless
> when it
> > > comes to this b/c now I am having the following issue:
> > > Photos taken on my s500 look funny when viewed at a normal size
onscreen
> > > (doing a lot of photo sharing through ofoto.com, shutterfly, snapfish,
> > > etc.). If I increase the size of the photos the quality becomes nice
> and
> > > clear - but how can I share a photo that is larger than my 17"
screen??
> Is
> > > there a setting I need to change on my camera, or is it something that
I
> > > need to do once the file is downloaded onto my computer? Is it
possible
> to
> > > get nice sharp pics from a 5 megapixel that look clear at a 4X6 or 5X7
> size
> > > onscreen?
> > >
> > > Can someone advise?
> > > Thank you in advance.
> >
>
>

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

Hi Charlie,

I dug up the manual to the camera (I know, I know...should have done that
before bothering everyone here). Apparently for resolution I have 4
choices - Large, Medium1, Medium2, and Small. I set the camera to "Small"
which equates to 640 X 480 pixels. There was also a setting called
"Compression" which gave me three settings - Superfine, Fine, and Normal. I
set the camera on Superfine. I took a few pics of something I wanted to
sell on ebay and they came out nice and clear at a small size - perfect for
the purpose I was aiming for.

I have Adobe photoshop, but was not adept enough at reducing the image size
without sacrificing the quality. Maybe changing the settings on my camera
is "taking the long way around", but it got me where I needed to go!

-stars


"Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113755403.409971.148310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Stars,
>
> Can you tell us what setting on your camera gave you better results?
>
> My suggestion was going to be that you use a photo editing software and
> reduce the side of your image to a maximum width of 750 pixels. This
> will make your photo viewable on 800 x 600 resolution screens.
>
> By re-sizing your photo first, you get the compression algorithm in the
> resizing feature of your software to make it look better at a small
> size.
>
> Charlie
>
> Got digital photos? Show them off!
> http://FlyingSamPhoto.com
>

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

pat@photography-cafe.com (J P Scott) wrote:
> "stars" <stars@vzavenue.net> wrote...
>> Hi Charlie,
>>
>> I dug up the manual to the camera (I know, I know...should have
>> done that before bothering everyone here). Apparently for
>> resolution I have 4 choices - Large, Medium1, Medium2, and Small.
>> I set the camera to "Small" which equates to 640 X 480 pixels.
>> There was also a setting called "Compression" which gave me three
>> settings - Superfine, Fine, and Normal. I set the camera on
>> Superfine. I took a few pics of something I wanted to sell on ebay
>> and they came out nice and clear at a small size - perfect for the
>> purpose I was aiming for.
>>
>> I have Adobe photoshop, but was not adept enough at reducing the
>> image size without sacrificing the quality. Maybe changing the
>> settings on my camera is "taking the long way around", but it got
>> me where I needed to go!
>
> Hi Stars...
>
> When I first got my first digital camers (Nikon Coolpix 950), I
> thought it would be best to take them all medium sized so that I'd
> get more photos on my memory card and they were an ideal size for
> showing on the net. But for printing them out they are just not
> good enough.
>
> I soon changed my mind and now I take ALL my photos at fine quality
> and then re-size them (BUT NEVER THE ORIGINAL) to send them to
> friends or post them on the net.

So do I - memory cards are cheap these days. I crop/edit images for
printing, saving at 90-95% jpg quality. For posting to the net, I
reduce them to something like 640x480.

The OP seems to have found something that works for his specific
purpose, but s/he doesn't seem to understand the basic mathematics of
number of pixels, resolution and physical image size.

--
Martin S.

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

"MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote in message
news:426543e4$0$7982$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
> pat@photography-cafe.com (J P Scott) wrote:
<<snipped original message> >
> > Hi Stars...
> >
> > When I first got my first digital camers (Nikon Coolpix 950), I
> > thought it would be best to take them all medium sized so that I'd
> > get more photos on my memory card and they were an ideal size for
> > showing on the net. But for printing them out they are just not
> > good enough.
> >
> > I soon changed my mind and now I take ALL my photos at fine quality
> > and then re-size them (BUT NEVER THE ORIGINAL) to send them to
> > friends or post them on the net.
>
> So do I - memory cards are cheap these days. I crop/edit images for
> printing, saving at 90-95% jpg quality. For posting to the net, I
> reduce them to something like 640x480.
>
> The OP seems to have found something that works for his specific
> purpose, but s/he doesn't seem to understand the basic mathematics of
> number of pixels, resolution and physical image size.
>
> --
> Martin S.

Memory is not my issue - have plenty of memory cards around here. Yes, I
found something that worked for my specific purpose of posting a picture to
ebay (and my item sold right away - an added bonus of that nice picture).
Is my little solution the answer to all of my hopes & dreams for my dig
photo taking? Nope.

At first I was a bit insulted by your post - who is Martin to claim I don't
have an understanding of basic mathematics? He has no idea that my job
requires me to perform advanced calculations on my fancy calculator all day
long! : ) However, before getting all defensive I re-read your post and
decided, that hey, you're right - I haven't bothered to learn the basics of
photography. Call me lazy - I was looking for a quick answer. Yes yes, I
understand that the higher the number of pixels, the clearer the image.
Monet and pointillism are not lost on me. Yes yes, I know there is math
involved. Feel free to point me to a good resource to read up a bit more
about digital photography & photo-editing, and rest assured I will learn all
the necessary math!

: )

-stars
(a "she" )

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

"MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote in message
news:42668914$0$67517$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
> "stars" <stars@vzavenue.net> wrote:
> > "MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote...
> >> pat@photography-cafe.com (J P Scott) wrote:
> <<snipped original message> >
> >> > Hi Stars...
> >> >
> >> > When I first got my first digital camers (Nikon Coolpix 950), I
> >> > thought it would be best to take them all medium sized so that
> >> > I'd get more photos on my memory card and they were an ideal size
> >> > for showing on the net. But for printing them out they are just
> >> > not good enough.
> >> >
> >> > I soon changed my mind and now I take ALL my photos at fine
> >> > quality and then re-size them (BUT NEVER THE ORIGINAL) to send
> >> > them to friends or post them on the net.
> >>
> >> So do I - memory cards are cheap these days. I crop/edit images for
> >> printing, saving at 90-95% jpg quality. For posting to the net, I
> >> reduce them to something like 640x480.
> >>
> >> The OP seems to have found something that works for his specific
> >> purpose, but s/he doesn't seem to understand the basic mathematics
> >> of number of pixels, resolution and physical image size.
> >
> > Memory is not my issue - have plenty of memory cards around here.
> > Yes, I found something that worked for my specific purpose of
> > posting a picture to ebay (and my item sold right away - an added
> > bonus of that nice picture). Is my little solution the answer to all
> > of my hopes & dreams for my dig photo taking? Nope.
> >
> > At first I was a bit insulted by your post - who is Martin to claim
> > I don't have an understanding of basic mathematics? He has no idea
> > that my job requires me to perform advanced calculations on my fancy
> > calculator all day long! : ) However, before getting all
> > defensive I re-read your post and decided, that hey, you're right -
> > I haven't bothered to learn the basics of photography. Call me lazy
> > - I was looking for a quick answer. Yes yes, I understand that the
> > higher the number of pixels, the clearer the image. Monet and
> > pointillism are not lost on me. Yes yes, I know there is math
> > involved. Feel free to point me to a good resource to read up a
> > bit more about digital photography & photo-editing, and rest assured
> > I will learn all the necessary math!
>
> Sorry if you felt insulted, and granted it does take a bit of time to
> get the hang of it. I'm sure there are websites that will help you, but
> I don't know any off-hand. Maybe others can make a recommendation, or
> you could try Google, or even read the manuals for Photoshop, etc.
>
> Irfanview is a simple, free but versatile program for doing basic
> manipulation of digital images, such as cropping and resizing.
>
> Think of the camera image as an original 35mm negative - you want to
> preserve it. Do any editing, cropping and resizing from the original,
> and save the result only once, especially if you want the best quality
> print. Since jpeg is a "lossy" compression format, each time you edit
> and re-save a file, you lose some quality. Whenever you "Save As.." a
> jpeg file, there is a "quality" option which adjusts the amount of
> compression (and the size of the saved file). The "fine" or "best
> quality" setting on a digital camera equates to about 95% quality. For
> files to be printed, use a high quality setting; for e-mail or website
> display, where the file size you can send may be limited, a lower
> setting of 75 or 80% will give you a smaller file with reasonable
> quality. Experiment!
>
> --
> Martin S.

Thanks for the tips Martin. I'm going to google up some more info and look
into Irfanview.

-stars

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

Intentionally top-posting - THANK YOU!!! Yes - you read my original
questions correctly. I solved my ebay issue by taking smaller sized/more
compressed pics, but that wasn't going to be a solution for posting pics on
the web for friends/family, etc. I have printed out your post for
reference. Thank you for taking the time to write all of that out - it is
appreciated.

-stars


"Karl" <ksmith_newsgroup@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1E8ae.4855$H53.2394@lakeread05...
> Stars,
>
> If I'm reading your original questions correctly, (and quite possibly I'm
> not), here's what I do with my 5 megapixel digital for printing and
> displaying on a monitor or web site. I always shoot my pics with the
> intention of getting the best quality I can for prints up to 8x10, but
> knowing I most likely will make 4x6 prints, and will want to post pics on
> the web or use the pics for monitor wallpaper or to email for someone to
> view on a monitor. This may be more info than you could possibly need.
>
> I always take the pics with the largest capture size and least compression
> done inside the camera itself. In your case, I think maybe that's the
Large
> setting and whichever the compression setting is for the least amount of
> compression (either SuperFine or Normal... check the manual). This will
give
> you the most information/data for every pic. You can throw away some of
this
> data during the editing, but you can never "add" quality/data back in to
> enlarge a small pic to make it a larger one.
>
> When I transfer my pics from the memory card to my PC, I save two copies
of
> each pic; one copy to a folder I call "archive" and the second copy to
> another folder I name corresponding to the event where the pics were
taken.
> I never again touch the copies in the "archive" folder. That's a safety
net
> folder in case I edit something horribly wrong, I can recover the
original.
> I always edit the pics in the second folder.
>
> I use PhotoShop Elements for my editing program, but I'm sure you can do
> this same set of procedures with whatever editing program came with your
> digital camera.
>
> I'm going to make a 4x6 print: I open the pic from the second folder with
my
> editing program, I choose "resize", and unclick the "resample" box; if the
> pic is landscape-oriented, I choose resize the width to 6" (and the height
> will be resized to 4.5" ); if it's a portrait-oriented pic, set the height
to
> 6", (and the width will be resized to 4.5" ). Next, crop your pic to get
that
> extra 1/2" of material out of the 4.5" dimension so it'll fit onto 4x6"
> print paper without the printer driver randomly cropping the pic. Once
> you've done that, then go back to the "resize" menu, checkmark the
> "resample" box, and then enter "300" into the dots per inch field. Now,
save
> this edited pic as something other than the original you started out with.
> (Maybe add a number or letter to the original name when you're saving it).
> More importantly, you might also want to change the file "type" from a
"jpg"
> file to "tiff" or "psd" format file when you save it. ("jpg" format files
> are already compressed files, and every time you "save" a jpg file, you
> throw away/lose clarity/detail information when the jpg compression is
done
> again to save the file. "jpg" format is a "lossy" format. The "tiff" and
> "psd" formats are "loss-less" formats). Most all photo printers for us
> consumers eat 300 dots per inch as their most efficient input. You can
feed
> your printer more than that, but I've found it makes no difference at all
to
> the quality of the print, and sometimes the extra dots per inch choke the
> printer or at least slow it down. Now, you'll have terrifically clear 4x6
> prints of whatever your digital camera saw. If you're going to send the
> edited pics to ofoto.com or another site to have prints made, you also
need
> to save the final edited file in "jpg" format because I think that's the
> format they want you to send to them.
>
> Once you've done the above, and you decide you want to display the 4x6
pics
> (you already edited for printing) on a monitor, go back into your editing
> program to "resize", make sure the "resample" box is checked, and then put
> "72" in the dots per inch window and click okay. This will have several
> effects: it'll give you a significantly smaller file saved on your PC's
hard
> drive, it'll be a smaller file to email, and it'll be the optimum dots per
> inch for displaying a 4x6" picture on a monitor or on a web site. Save
this
> file as yet another modified name from the (edited 4x6 print) input file.
If
> you're going to send it to someone to display on a monitor, save it also
as
> a "jpg" format file to send out, (since "jpg" is a pretty universal format
> file that both Mac and PC users can display on a monitor).
>
> Okay. Told you this was going to be more info than you needed. One last
> pointer: Be sure to back up your hard drive onto floppies, CDs, DVDs, or
> another hard drive in (or outside of) your PC, so in case your hard drive
> hiccups, you won't have lost all your originals and your time-consuming
> edited pics. Enjoy!
>
> ...Karl
>
>