Question about photo resolution

[ismith]

I have been using the "fine" setting on my Minolta Dimage 5 (~3.2 megapixels) which gives me 2048x1536. Each picture is just over a meg in size. But after looking at the pictures that the rest of you take, I'm thinking maybe I should bump it up to ultra-fine or even play around with camera raw. I thought my stuff was pretty good until I looked at what you're all producing.

What resolution do you use? Your photos are magnificant and seem to have much better quality than what my camera produces. Is it outmoded, or am I as untalented as I've been feeling the past few days?

[Dave]

Some of these guys have cameras you can only dream about (especially when you see the entry level price of them!) so yeah the playing field isn't a level one. I'm not an expert in the fleld by any means but the one comment I colud throw in (don't believe me though, I know not of what I speak) but 3.2mpx is at the bottom end of the scale these days isn't it? I know a camera that does only that would cost around £100
and upward here (say $150+?) then start doubling for each extra 1mpx (£200 for 4, £400 for 5 ....).

Now wait for one of our many experts ....

But never let anyone else put you off doing your camera thingy :)

[ismith]

[QUOTE=Dave]...3.2mpx is at the bottom end of the scale these days isn't it? ...[/QUOTE]

Yes, disgusting but true. My camera cost over $1,000 when I bought it back in 2001 but now it's less powerful than the $129 Mustek my husband bought to snap pictures with. I bought it because it gave me a choice between automatic and manual on almost all of its features. The strange thing is it seemed to take better pictures when I first had it than it does now and I can't seem to find anything I'm doing differently.

[Scott]

I think it may be a question of megapixels as well. 3.2 is decent, but it's not going to compare to 6 or 8 mp regardless of the camera settings.

[Dave]

But is it possible that something has caused the image quality to degrade over 5 years or just the improvements that have taken place in the digital camera market?

Perhaps the memory stick needs a good degaussing or something

/me scratches head

come on you expert clickers .... :)

[ismith]

[QUOTE=suemack]Do you refomat the memory card each time ismith?[/QUOTE]

Each time? I should know better but I don't think I've EVER reformatted it. You'd think after over 20 years as a programmer I would know better. That could be it. For some reason I don't think in terms of formatting with the compact flash. I'm going to try that and see if it makes a difference.

Irene

[graphixgeek]

When it comes down to picture quality, the more megapixels the better unfortunately...I use a digital rebel that has 6.1 MP which makes for some decent sized pictures: 3072 x 2048. 3.2MP is fine for snapshots and the like. As for the raw setting, that just means the picture is uncompressed and has no processing applied to it other than the settings of the camera...it's as close to film as we digital camera people get. As a comparison, I recently priced a medium-format digital camera from Hasselblad..$35,000!!! Talk about taking the wind out of your sails! We're talking 20MP....Don't give up though...with a little creativity, 3.2MP can get you some pretty decent shots!:) Also with digital cameras, the sensors that take the "picture" have been getting better and cheaper...So yeah, the Musetek is on the low end today because of its sensor, but the sensor is probably better than the ones they were putting out years ago...My camera cost $1000, and is 2 years old. The replacement that came out a year ago is the same price with 8 megapixels! So you can see the improvements and the price coming down...Nowadays you can get a pretty decent camera for around $200...5-6MP point and shoot...

[magic_fella]

I think I will just hang onto my Brownie until the prices on digital rigs go down.

It's not such a pain to get film...get it to the only lab that still develops and prints....and then scan the image and then get them into my puter....and onto PS.

Yup.

Film is the ONLY way to go.

[tuggie]

Since changing from my Fuji 3800 to a Pentax istdl I've noticed a big difference in picture quality, the Fuji is only about 4 years old.
I've found it's better to use the highest setting you can as it's better to down size than upsize!
If you want to use RAW, there is a free program called Rawshooter Essentials, from Pixmantic. As long as it recognizes your format the program works very well. The English magazine Digital Photo has a section on using it this month, which may be last month as it takes a month to cross the pond!

Hope this helps.

Tuggie

[graphixgeek]

Film is definitiely the way to go for any high resolution, high detail, super looking, (etc.) pictures. I fall back on film if I am doing some crazy large enlargements or for macro shots (though some of my latest digital macros look very good). I do save money on all the film I waste because I take a lot of action shots with the burst capability. So it's the lesser of two evils when choosing film or digital for me.

[Jaygre]

I know tha Minolta has gone out of the camera making business, and merged with Sony and Konica. In July, Sony showcases and offers their Alpha DSLR-A-100, a 10.2 megapixel CCD=shift Anti-Shake platform camera. It has (for action addicts) high--speed burst shooting at up to three frames per second continuously, at 10.2 megapxls. Lots lots more HERE at Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0606/06060501sonydslra100.asp). Body about $900, A pkg with Zeiss 18-70mm zoom lens makes it about $1000. This is Very exciting to me!