Rules
Terms of Use

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#347938 - Mon Feb 26 2007 01:21 PM Digital photography Q&A
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 37392
Loc: Jersey
Channel Islands    
A thread in which to ask questions in the hopes that someone will have the answers.
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#347939 - Mon Feb 26 2007 01:25 PM Re: Digital photography Q&A
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 37392
Loc: Jersey
Channel Islands    
I will start with a question.

I wear spectacles which change with light. Whether it is this or not I don't know, hence the question. I have great difficulty in viewing anything in bright sunlight. Even with my specs off I could see nothing but reflections in the viewing window.

How does one get around this problem, and could it also be something to do with my specs? Last summer I tried taking my laptop into the garden and couldn't see the screen on that either.
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#347940 - Mon Feb 26 2007 03:50 PM Re: Digital photography Q&A
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 37392
Loc: Jersey
Channel Islands    
I will answer myself, having done some research, it might help others.

Apparently the bright sun and LCD viewer/screen is a well-known problem. It would appear not to be anything to do with my reactor lens specs.

One suggestion I found is to use a empty toilet roll, perhaps covered in something black to made it look more attractive! Alternatively to wear a peaked cap might help.

There might well be professional products which do the same job but these might be made to fit certain cameras. I will pay a visit to a local camera shop to see if there are any products to help me there.


Edited by sue943 (Tue Feb 27 2007 03:15 AM)
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#347941 - Mon Feb 26 2007 07:52 PM Re: Digital photography Q&A
ren33 Offline
Moderator

Registered: Thu Sep 30 1999
Posts: 12428
Loc: Kowloon Tong  Hong Kong      
I am a complete novice. I have to buy a digital camera . I am going to Australia and will need a good, simple camera for general pictures of views, people, everything. Does a bigger screen mean better pictures? I really need a simple to use one. Which?
_________________________
Wandering aimlessly through FT since 1999.

Top
#347942 - Tue Feb 27 2007 03:30 AM Re: Digital photography Q&A
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 37392
Loc: Jersey
Channel Islands    
There I think I can help a little (thanks to QVC and their presentations on such things).

The LCD screen is nothing at all to do with the quality of the picture. What you need to consider is the resolution which is measured in pixels. The more pixels, the sharper the image. You might find it is measured in megapixels and these days it is not uncommon to find 5, 7 or even 10 megapixels.

Another thing to consider is the zoom. You really want some 'optical zoom' as well as digital zoom if possible. Optical zoom is when the lens moves, digtal zoom is just internal. A combination of both is excellent.

The LCD screen is great, no more holding the camara to your eye and peering through a small hole not knowing whether to shut one eye or not. Now you can hold the camera as near or as far from you as you like and still see. The drawback, as you will see from above is strong sunlight. I will be going into town later to a photography shop to try to find the solution to this problem. I will post it when I find out. It could be that some cameras have a hood which can be fitted to cure this problem.
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#347943 - Tue Feb 27 2007 07:07 AM Re: Digital photography Q&A
ren33 Offline
Moderator

Registered: Thu Sep 30 1999
Posts: 12428
Loc: Kowloon Tong  Hong Kong      
Thanks. Cousin who is coming to Oz with me has this one.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/W70/W70A.HTM
She takes nice pics. Does not mean to say I will too!
Does anyone know any drawbacks to that one?
_________________________
Wandering aimlessly through FT since 1999.

Top
#347944 - Tue Feb 27 2007 11:52 AM Re: Digital photography Q&A
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 37392
Loc: Jersey
Channel Islands    
Such a lovely day today, for ducks, but nevertheless I drove into town to find an answer to my problem. I decided to use a camera shop which is owned and run by an older man, instead of using a flashy placed staffed by people on commission.

I explained my problem and produced my camera, not purchased from him, and asked for his advice. He said that it is indeed possible to purchase hoods for the LCD window which would help but at present he was waiting for stock. He then said, of course the easiest thing to do would be to switch off the LCD and use the viewfinder instead!

Apparently the newer cameras don't have quite the same problem as the older cameras and the newer ones might not have a normal viewfinder as well as the LCD.

I did go into another camera shop further along the road, and staffed by young men on commission. They had some of the hoods, not that he knew much about them. I have purchased one which can be stuck (self-adhesive) to the camera, I think once it is on you just leave it on.
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#347945 - Tue Feb 27 2007 12:51 PM Re: Digital photography Q&A
Taesma Offline
Prolific

Registered: Fri Jun 20 2003
Posts: 1179
Loc: Bay Area California USA      
Oddly, using the viewfinder on my camera produces a different photo than using the LCD. I (used to)invariably chop the top of heads off even if it looks ok through the viewfinder. With the LCD, what you see is what you get. I suppose it was just a somewhat poorly designed placement for the viewfinder.
I've gotten used to it though, and can compensate. The camera is several years old and was really nice when I bought it, but technology marches on and now the camera is rather 'low rent' compared to the new ones. I'll have to upgrade soon.
_________________________
"A bookstore is one of the only pieces of evidence we have that people are still thinking." ~ Jerry Seinfeld

Top
#347946 - Tue Feb 27 2007 03:32 PM Re: Digital photography Q&A
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 37392
Loc: Jersey
Channel Islands    
I don't find it at all odd. When using a viewfinder I never know whether to shut one eye or not.
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#347947 - Tue Feb 27 2007 04:23 PM Re: Digital photography Q&A
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5442
Loc: South of England
Quote:

I suppose it was just a somewhat poorly designed placement for the viewfinder.



That is the reason Taesma but even up-market cameras can suffer from it. The effect has a name: 'Parallax error'. This is usually corrected for somewhat in the camera design but generally, the closer you get to the subject the worse the error is likely to be.
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top
#347948 - Mon Dec 03 2007 10:24 AM Re: Digital photography Q&A
ClaraSue Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sun May 18 2003
Posts: 7837
Loc: Arizona USA
I don't know what I did wrong, but a few of my pictures came out noticeably "digitalized". I took a bunch of photos and when I downloaded to my computer, they look fine. But when I download to Photobucket, a few look like THIS.

Is there anything that I did wrong, and is there any way to correct this problem?
_________________________
May the tail of the elephant never have to swat the flies from your face.

Top
#347949 - Mon Dec 03 2007 10:39 AM Re: Digital photography Q&A
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 37392
Loc: Jersey
Channel Islands    
You need to set the resolution to high, it is possibly set to take LOTS of photos on the card, to be able to take less is best. Much better to only be able to take a few high resolution photos than to take lots of low resolution. Could someone have changed the settings? Are the file sizes suddenly small? Another possibility is that you have 'played' with them then saved them with a small file size.
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#347950 - Mon Dec 03 2007 10:49 AM Re: Digital photography Q&A
ClaraSue Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sun May 18 2003
Posts: 7837
Loc: Arizona USA
I was under the impression that I was supposed to set my resolution so that I DO take more photos per card. When I first got the camera, I had it set to 'high' but my dad complained that anytime I sent him photos, it took too long to download because the size was too big. I am still so ignorant when it comes to file size, but when I did a comparison of sizes, the bad photos are the same size as the good photos. I am the only one who plays with this camera and I don't remember changing anything, but anything's possible.
_________________________
May the tail of the elephant never have to swat the flies from your face.

Top
#347951 - Mon Dec 03 2007 11:09 AM Re: Digital photography Q&A
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5442
Loc: South of England
Quote:

I don't know what I did wrong, but a few of my pictures came out noticeably "digitalized". I took a bunch of photos and when I downloaded to my computer, they look fine. But when I download to Photobucket, a few look like THIS.

Is there anything that I did wrong, and is there any way to correct this problem?



When you download them from the camera to the computer, what file size are they? Right-click on the image and go to 'Properties' to find out.
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top
#347952 - Mon Dec 03 2007 01:57 PM Re: Digital photography Q&A
ClaraSue Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sun May 18 2003
Posts: 7837
Loc: Arizona USA
Each photo, good and bad, show a size between 360 and 400 KB.
_________________________
May the tail of the elephant never have to swat the flies from your face.

Top
#347953 - Mon Dec 03 2007 02:18 PM Re: Digital photography Q&A
Copago Offline
Moderator

Registered: Tue May 15 2001
Posts: 14384
Loc: Australia
ClaraSue: I have my camera set up to take the highest resolution I can. Each photo is over 2mb and this means I can crop out or blow up the photo and still have a good clear image if I want to.

If I want to email the photos I copy them and then resize the image in the photo software I have to a more managable emailing size. It's only a cheapjack programme so I'd imagine that most programmes would have a similar feature.

Top
#347954 - Mon Dec 03 2007 02:24 PM Re: Digital photography Q&A
Copago Offline
Moderator

Registered: Tue May 15 2001
Posts: 14384
Loc: Australia
Oh meant to say - yes it will take up lots more space on the memory card but unless you can't download the pics often then it shouldn't really be a problem. I have a one gig card that will hold hundreds of photos even at the higher size.

Top
#347955 - Mon Dec 03 2007 03:50 PM Re: Digital photography Q&A
ClaraSue Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sun May 18 2003
Posts: 7837
Loc: Arizona USA
I should go ahead and change the setting to the highest resolution and do some more experimenting again. Since I usually download the card before it's filled anyway, that would probably be a better idea. Thanks.

But after looking through that one set of photos, out of all of them, only the ones of that one subject came through looking different. What I can't figure out is all of them were taken the same afternoon within minutes of one another. THIS one is better, but you can still see that it's digital (mostly on the wood). Whereas, THIS ONE was taken next and within five minutes with NO changes to the camera.
I'm beginning to think those antique field sprayers are just haunted.
_________________________
May the tail of the elephant never have to swat the flies from your face.

Top
#347956 - Mon Dec 03 2007 04:52 PM Re: Digital photography Q&A
Taesma Offline
Prolific

Registered: Fri Jun 20 2003
Posts: 1179
Loc: Bay Area California USA      
Hmm, to me that doesn't really look like a resolution problem. The only time I've had anything similar to that is when there was a fault in the chip, it got scrambled somehow (got inserted into the wrong reader) and some of the pictures appeared with chunks missing like that. I reformatted the card, and everything was hunky dory again.
_________________________
"A bookstore is one of the only pieces of evidence we have that people are still thinking." ~ Jerry Seinfeld

Top
#347957 - Mon Dec 03 2007 05:52 PM Re: Digital photography Q&A
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5442
Loc: South of England
ClaraSue says they look OK on the computer though. It's only when uploaded to Photobucket that some photos look peculiar. I know that Photobucket applies compression to large file sizes as they are being uploaded but I thought it was only to those above 1 megabyte (hence the question about file sizes).

The effect shown looks to be the result of a very high amount of jpeg compression. Perhaps what could be tried is to take one of the photos that went distorted when uploaded, downsize it in an editing program first and then upload it. See what the results are.

ClaraSue, do you know how much of your Photobucket free space is used? To find out, go into your Photobucket account and look in 'account options' (link at top right of page).

Edit: Have a read of this.


Edited by tellywellies (Mon Dec 03 2007 06:15 PM)
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top
#347958 - Mon Dec 03 2007 07:39 PM Re: Digital photography Q&A
ClaraSue Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sun May 18 2003
Posts: 7837
Loc: Arizona USA
Oh, wow! Thanks TW, it worked! I have never re-sized a photo like that, but after some work, I finally got it right. Take a look. TA DA! So now, I get to post it (or another like it) for my photo of the day.

I still don't understand why I had to re-size those and not the others, but as long as it worked, I'm happy. And now I know what to do.

TW, it says I have used only 1GB of my free 25GB, so I'm assuming that I have lots of free space left. I guess I need to watch that, too, because I didn't know about it either.

Thanks to everybody!
_________________________
May the tail of the elephant never have to swat the flies from your face.

Top
#347959 - Mon Dec 03 2007 09:18 PM Re: Digital photography Q&A
Copago Offline
Moderator

Registered: Tue May 15 2001
Posts: 14384
Loc: Australia
oops, sorry, looks like I was jumping ahead of myself there

Glad you got it sorted out!

Top
#347960 - Tue Dec 04 2007 01:17 AM Re: Digital photography Q&A
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5442
Loc: South of England
Quote:

TW, it says I have used only 1GB of my free 25GB, so I'm assuming that I have lots of free space left. I guess I need to watch that, too, because I didn't know about it either.

Thanks to everybody!



There are two figures shown in Photobucket's 'account options'. One is how much the photos in the account thave been viewed and therefore used some of Photobucket's 'Monthly Bandwidth' allowance (25GB maximum). The other is the 'Album Size' showing how much of your free storage space has been used up (1GB maximum).

1 gigabyte is quite a size and I can't really see it would be used up very quickly. One day it will happen I suppose. How quickly would depend on the number of photos stored there of course. Another significant factor will the the file sizes of them. If many large file sized photos are uploaded, the free allowance limit will be reached sooner.

I just wondered what the 'Album Size' figure reads in your account. It would be an interesting figure to look at now that Photo-a-Day has been running for a while. The reading would give an idea of how long the free storage allowance will last before people either have to pay for extra space or think about removing some photos to free up existing space.

It's hard to judge from the number of photos we see in Photo-a-Day. It may be that you have photos stored there that aren't for display here. Just general storage or a place for sharing family photos perhaps.


Edited by tellywellies (Tue Dec 04 2007 01:55 AM)
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top
#347961 - Tue Dec 04 2007 06:54 AM Re: Digital photography Q&A
ClaraSue Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sun May 18 2003
Posts: 7837
Loc: Arizona USA
Oh, sorry I misunderstood, TW. As I've said before, I'm not very computer literate. Of the two figures, my album size is 9MB. And of all the pictures that I have on Photobucket, only a few are for general storage.

Thanks again.
_________________________
May the tail of the elephant never have to swat the flies from your face.

Top
#347962 - Tue Dec 04 2007 07:25 AM Re: Digital photography Q&A
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 37392
Loc: Jersey
Channel Islands    
I just checked mine, never looked before and the number of hits shocked me.

Account Dashboard

Total Pictures and Videos: 719
Monthly Hits: 20420
Album Size:

65 MB (6%)
1 GB

Monthly Bandwidth:

346 MB (1%)
25 GB
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Moderator:  flopsymopsy