Quality of digital pictures

[taylortroop]

Want to get some wonderful lasting photo memories of our cruise to Alaska. I am still trying to get familiar with my HP Photosmart R607 digital camera. It is a 4.1 MP with 21x zoom. I noticed that if I set the image quality setting at 4MP, I have room for 116 photos. If I change the setting to 2MP, I have room for 175 settings. Obviously I want to have lots of room for pictures but I also don't want to compromise the photo quality. I will have the photos printed at a photo lab when we return home. What do the seasoned experts here recommend? Thanks.

[MaryEllen1952]

With that size of MP you have limited photo quality so you have to decide if you want better quality pics (with increased pix denisty) or more photos. The higher the density, the less number of pics available on the storage media. If you plan to shoot a subject at a distance you need to decrease the pix density to obtain maximum distance. When you decide to get a new digital, go to the 7.2 - there is a dramatic increase in the quality of pics as well as shutter speed. Otherwise anything under 5MP has compromised quality.

[calee]

If you aren't planning on printing anything larger than 3x5 or 4x6 prints the 2mp should be ok. Personally I'd go with the 4.1mp and buy more memory. I don't know what type of card your camera uses but they've all come down in price and with what you've spent for this cruise why not splurge on more memory?

[JohnQ]

I have to agree with Calee. I would recomm shooting all at max pixels and quality settings. Some will argue that if all you are going to do is 4x6, 2mg is fine. But that depends on quality of camera and lens and photographer. What I found with my 4meg camera is that when I took a whale tail or bear picture, I had to do a lot of cropping and this greatly reduces the number of pixels available to make a good print. And if you find that one or 10 photos that you decide you want 8x10's, you will be stretching the quality more than I think you will be happy with. Memory cards are cheap, and you can have cd burned.

[george@sea]

What do the seasoned experts here recommend? Thanks.

 

To get started, check out this URL ->http://www.dslreports.com There are 2 differant forums at that website that deal with digital camera's and both have good FAQ's that are helpful and they have links to other helpful websites.

[Cruizer_J]

Agree with others, I would buy more memory cards and shoot at 4.1mp. In addition to flexibility with cropping and picture size that the higher resolution gives you, I found that, after we were home and had transferred our Alaska pictures to the PC, it was just nice to be able to look at smaller details that I hadn't noticed before.

[tee_wrecks]

Great information and advice from everyone. But during all this talk of megapixels and memory cards and stuff the thing that always gets overlooked is technique. Don't forget that if you make a mistake with your technique (composition, exposure, shutter speeds for moving subjects) 10,000 megapixels won't help. Before you leave home be sure you know your camera and it's limitations. If it is biased towards slower shutter speeds in the Program mode chances are you don't want to use that mode for shooting a pod of whales or a calving glacier.

 

Good luck and good shooting.

[stephenandrew]

I have taken and printed an awful lot of photos with my Nikon Coolpix 3100 (3.1 MP) and my Nikon D70 SLR (6 MP). I have blown up the 3.1 MP photos as large as 8x12 and seen no observable loss in the quality of the image. Some of my favorite photos were taken with the Coolpix. At smaller images sizes (8x10, 5x7, 4x6) the quality is obviously as good. When I look at comparable photos taken with the D70, I don't see a dramtic increase in image quality or detail---I imagine if I want to blow up a photo to poster size, the D70 would perform better. My own feeling is there is way to much emphasis on the number of MPs in a given digital camera. What I think is by far more important, is the composition of the picture, the lighting, the substance of the image, etc. When you make your trip, worry more about the quality of your photos--if you can, try and set up appropriately, be aware of the lighting, frame your image to maximize its visual appeal. I can assure you that you can take an awful lot of wonderful photos at 3.1MPs. The photographer is the most important part of the pciture taking process.

[mommabean]

stephenandrew is right. It's all about knowing your camera and making proper use of it's features, setting up the shot, understanding your lighting, action, etc... I get lots of wonderful shots with my tiny little Sony 3.1 megapixel camera. I do admit that I have no desire for a picture over 4x6 in size. I use my camera's 2:3 ratio aspect which brings down the megapixels to 2.8 and I get crisp, clear pictures for my scrapbooking projects. When a picture comes out bad, it was because I messed it up, not a camera resolution problem.

 

If I intended to make 8x10 prints I would have bought a camera with higher megapixels but still, I wouldn't want to fill up my memory cards with a resolution I don't need.

 

Buy an extra memory card and shoot at the 3 MP setting. I bought my daughter the camera that you have and it's a great and easy to use camera. I love how it flips the pictures automatically that you have taken while holding the camera sideways. HP cameras are so nice and a great value.

[Love Cruis'n]

I’m afraid I’m going to very respectfully offer a different view on part of this. :)

 

YES – the framing, and the lighting, etc. all go into a great picture, but the original question was on pixel settings.

 

I’m from the camp that says shoot at the max pixels you can. As the guy at my local camera shop once asked me, if you don’t shoot at 5 mega-pixels why the heck did you spend the money on a 5 mega-pixel camera?

 

Well I heeded his advise, and in Hawaii in 2/04 got some great shots of whales using the maximum optical zoom (3x on my Cannon Sure Shot 50) and when first viewed back home on the PC, they were rather small images on a picture of a lot of ocean. BUT because I had shot at maximum, I was able to crop down (or if your prefer, zoom in after the shot was taken) and I ended up with some very nice pictures of whales, and no one would ever know the difference.

 

I have a pair of 256 cards, and I’m going to buy a 1 GIG card before our Alaska cruise in July. It may be my only Alaska visit for many years, the big thing is the wildlife and the scenic beauty, and to me $80 for a 1 Gig card at Costco is cheap insurance. Just an alternative opinion. :)

 

There are several other threads that share various opinions and equipment as well, you might want to check them out.

[Yukon]

Another viewpoint. Some of you are confusing the megabytes that a photo takes up with megapixels. I shoot with a Coolpix 4300 and my pics take up 1.2 Mb or so each because, although I shoot at maximum resolution, I save tham as jpegs (a compressed format) rather than tiffs (uncompressed). Quality? Well, I never print any, but have had several of mine published in high-quality magazines. Without technique and a good eye, though, mexapixels & $$$$ mean nothing.

 

Murray

[nancycoop1]

Hi - I am admittedly just learning about my digital camera, but I shot pictures at the highest setting. One of them was to be published in a magazine and I was told it was too big to be printed - is this because of the high number of pixels it was shot at?

 

Thanks

[ysr_racer]

It is a 4.1 MP with 21x zoom.

 

Disable the digital zoom and NEVER use it.

[ysr_racer]

Hi - I am admittedly just learning about my digital camera, but I shot pictures at the highest setting. One of them was to be published in a magazine and I was told it was too big to be printed - is this because of the high number of pixels it was shot at?

 

Thanks

 

Photos are easily resized. I find that hard to believe. I think they are lying to you.

[ysr_racer]

With that size of MP you have limited photo quality so you have to decide if you want better quality pics (with increased pix denisty) or more photos. The higher the density, the less number of pics available on the storage media. If you plan to shoot a subject at a distance you need to decrease the pix density to obtain maximum distance. When you decide to get a new digital, go to the 7.2 - there is a dramatic increase in the quality of pics as well as shutter speed. Otherwise anything under 5MP has compromised quality.

 

I pretty much disagree with everythig you said. Distance and density have nothing to do with each other unless you're going to crop the picture. Then you want the biggest pic you can take.

[Yukon]

Hi - I am admittedly just learning about my digital camera, but I shot pictures at the highest setting. One of them was to be published in a magazine and I was told it was too big to be printed - is this because of the high number of pixels it was shot at?

 

That's just silly - whoever said that has no clue about photo reproduction.

 

Murray

[calee]

The only size restrictions I've ever run across is posting to some sites on the internet.

[mommabean]

ysr_racer,

 

I wonder if this is just standard on sony cameras. But my little DSC- P8 is a 3.1 mp camera and when I use it in high resolution as I always do, the digital zoom is automatically disabled. I'm glad since no one really needs a digital zoom anyway. Unless of course they are desperate I guess. Doesn't it seem that if they are only going to allow the digital zoom to be used at the lower resolutions that the picture quality would decrease even more than it would by just using the 2 mp setting? Or am I missing something in my reasoning here?

 

By the way, I still think my 3 mp photos from my sony come out very crisp and sharp. I can't imagine why I'd need anything much higher unless I were going to blow something up larger or crop out part of the photo before printing my 4 x 6s. The only time I had a problem with clarity is on a very cloudy day when not able to use the flash. And I've finally figured out which buttons to push in order to force the 400 ASA setting to help solve that problem. Or do they call that ISO now?

[mommabean]

calee,

 

Me, too. Some sites won't accept a photo unless it's only a certain pixel size in each direction.

[ysr_racer]

I'm familiar with websites, here's mine: http://www.ysr-racer.com

 

The pictures that are linked are not hosted on my site. They're on picturetrail so the quality isn't the best, but you'll get the idea.

[bruce-r]

Buy additional memory cards for your camera. I recommend a minimum size of 512megs. 1gig cards are even better.

 

Find good prices for memory here: http://www.dealram.com

 

Shoot at the highest resolution.

 

Delete the obviously bad photos at the end of the day. If you have the option, back up your photos to a computer or CD each day, just in case.

[znapdragon]

I've got a couple of memory cards for my camera. As there's a photo outlet on the ship (Coral Princess) I am wondering if they can lift off my pix and burn them on to a CD for me to take home?! Does anyone know - either that, or I'll be buying more memory cards and hope they don't get wiped clean by scanning at the airport (flying in from UK) !

 

 

:)

[Love Cruis'n]

Znap,

We're also on Coral. Good to hear that they have a photo shop on board - I did not know that.

I've heard that some ships offer the CD burning service, but I've also heard that they charge (something like $40) for that service.

Personally, I plan to buy a 1 GIG card to supplement my two 256 cards.

Let's see if some Coral folks can fill us in.

Personally, I've never worried about my cards getting messed up by the x-ray machine, but might ask the airport personnel to "hand examine" them in the future. (And that is no guarantee that they will, but it never hurts to ask nicely) :)

[JohnQ]

Most of the ships now can download a memory card onto a cd for you and usually only charge $10-20 max. Some also have the quiosks where you can order prints, edit, crop or whatever before you get prints. I did one on Summit last trip to see how it would come out as 8x10 and it was great.

[mommabean]

I just saw today in Best Buy that they have an 512 mb SD memory card on sale for $45 with a $10 rebate. Isn't $35 pretty cheap for a card that size? I know all the prices are going down but this one seemed unusually low. And I think there might even be free shipping on it from their web site.