I still love my old Canon 100s digital. The immediacy of viewing and publishing with this camera is a real thrill. I had considered recently buying an expensive digital camera, perhaps a Canon 10D or a Sony, but after spending time recently using my film cameras I see no need to spend so much money. I get great results from film - interesting colour and textures. And the photolab puts the images on cd anyway the results of which are good enough for email and the web.
Thanks AJ. . . I think.
I hate to belabor the point, and I admit that a cheapo digital won’t take National Geographic quality photos. But here’s another reason I like it. In my mind the most important factors in being able to take good photos of most types are (1) do you have your camera with you (2) can you whip it out and take the picture fast enough and (3) for portraits, is your camera such a giant piece of technology that it will scare the subjects.
On all three of those points a cheap digital or Olympus compact zoom scores high – so small and light I’ll always bring it and often hike with it in my hand. I did buy a Nikon N70 at one point, hoping to take better quality photos, but I feel like I’m making a public display of unwrapping my giant penis when I use it. . . so I’ve barely used the Nikon and go with the small cameras instead. They may be grainier but. . .
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]A couple of people have said that magazines won’t print from less than a 3 megapix camera, but I know for a fact they’re wrong. I’m looking right now at a full page photo published in a magazine that I shot with my Sony 2.0 megapix Cybershot. I agree, monkey, it’s not fine resolution, but it’s really not a bad looking photo, even at that size.
[/quote]
Did we say won’t? I thought we said that it would be best starting from 3 megpix. You can print from any digpic and of course it depends on the mags art director or photo editor what goes in. If they can find a nice pic worth of printing and it’s a 2 megpix than they probably will forsake on sharpness and resolution and try to bring it the best way to print.
I also said before they screen it at 150-200 lpi, actually some magazines start at 135 lpi and art magazines go over 200 lpi.
But let’s face it, a 1-2, or even 3 megpix cam won’t have the best optics and this is what you need to get sharpness and resolution in the first place. The next thing to consider is the CCD sensor. Than the way you save your pics, jpeg (lowest quality for mag. publish), tif or raw.
But hey, if you have a good eye and/or you are lucky than why shouldn’t they publish a 2 megpix image if it contributes to an article and improves the look.
[quote=“bottleneck”][quote]
monkey
Here’s the math:
A magazine A4 page is 8.5 x 11.7 inches. All modern glossy magazines output to 4-color film at 300dpi or higher. So, to get an A4 size image (ignoring bleed mind you) means you need need 2550 x 3510 dots or 8,950,500 dots = approx 9 megapixels. Sure a magazine could output a 2 megapixel image and interpolate it to fit a 9 megapixel space, but it’s going to look crap. Whether you’d be proud of the printed result (assuming you had a photo-credit) would be entirely down to your vanity I guess.[/quote]
Actually they screen (raster) it at between 150 and 200 lpi, depending on the quality of the paper they use to print it on.
300 dpi is printer output.
And interpolation is absolutely not the way to go as this are “invented pixels” pulled out of thin air.
But you’re close.
I could even print a 60x90 cm poster at 90 dpi and it would look wonderful if viewed at a distance.
I think we are getting of topic here.[/quote]
Look, to get 200 lpi at output, you need 1.5 to 2.5 that number as the pixels per inch at input (this is a well-known rule of thumb in the publishing industry). Which means your jpeg needs to be 300 pixels per inch or more to get a sharp image.
Could you post this in the thread? I’d be interested in this info too.
It seems to me (at least for amateurs) that there are basically two types of photography; one that emphasizes speed and convenience and snaps away at anything and everything that looks interesting, and one where shots are set up with a bit more care and more attention is paid to things like depth of field, and filters.
Very generally, cameras are geared towards one or other of these styles. Of course there are some compact cameras that can take very professional-looking pictures, and on the other side there are SLR cameras that have very sophisticated automatic functions that enable you to snap away without too much setting up. Also, I believe that experienced photographers can shorten the time needed to set up a shot properly, even when using manual functions.
But an SLR will never be quite as light, convenient and unobtrusive as a compact, and a compact will never have the full range of features nor perhaps quite the image quality of a decent SLR.
It’s purely a matter of personal choice (if you’re an amateur). I tend towards the snap happy model.
One thing that helps people get ‘lucky’ when taking photos is just taking lots and lots of them. While travelling, it’s easier and more convenient to do that with a compact, and you have a better chance of not disturbing the subjects in candid shots as well. As I said before, I throw away more than two-thirds of the shots I take.
I have never had anything published, but I have always believed that if a photo was really intrinsically interesting enough, then regardless of absolute image quality someone might still want to publish it.
Good on anyone who enjoys this creative pastime; my point is really that there is nothing to be arguing about and each to their own.
I knew I’d posted the address and tel. no. of the camera repair place before, so here it is.
In fact, to save you a click, [quote]No. 60 Boai Rd., on the corner of Boai Rd. and Hankou St. Tel: 2381-1412.
[/quote]
Thank you Generalissimo. I will check them out.
I predicted earlier in this thread that film cameras will go the way of record players, quaint artifacts from the past (although like records, their advocates will swear by their superiority in certain respects). From today’s news:
Kodak to Stop Selling Traditional Cameras in U.S.
By REUTERS
January 13, 2004
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Eastman Kodak Co. on Tuesday said it will stop selling traditional film cameras in the United States, Canada and Western Europe, another move by the photography company to cut lines with declining appeal in favor of fast-growing digital products. . .
nytimes.com/reuters/technolo … kodak.html
Well… Kodak are hardly one of the most dominat/reputable film based camera makers in the world are they? The day Canon, Nikon, Hass, and the like stop making film cameras I will eat my words, but Kodak dropping off in favour of digital is hardly industry destroying news.
Are Kodak going to stop making film itself? I dont think so… they just dont make $ out of film camera but they make a shite load out of film.
[quote=“AWOL”]Well… Kodak are hardly one of the most dominat/reputable film based camera makers in the world are they? The day Canon, Nikon, Hass, and the like stop making film cameras I will eat my words, but Kodak dropping off in favour of digital is hardly industry destroying news.
Are Kodak going to stop making film itself? I don’t think so… they just dont make $ out of film camera but they make a shite load out of film.[/quote]
I was thinking the exact same thing. Kodak is no longer a dominant player in the film camera market, and hasn’t been for a number of years. Once any one of Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Leica, Contax, Olympus stop making film cameras, maybe the end is near. But, in that case, I would predict resale values on certain models to go up.
The other thing, is that all the high end digital cameras are still based off film camera bodies.
And, there are still some places (and always will be) where you want or need a camera that is cheap/expendable, can run without batteries, deliver multi megapixel equivalent quality, and stand up to abuse and harsh environments that wreak havoc on electronics. No digital camera on the market fits that bill yet. 