Can 3MP Digicams create film-like 4x6 prints?

... with 35mm film. I scanned a negative, printed it on my S9000, and put it next to the Fuji print. The Canon print was better, period.

I routinely have digital files printed both ways ... and the inkjet is king. I've had several hundred Frontier prints made in the last 30 days, BTW.
Put them in the sun for a week, and then the Frontier shows its real stuff!
KP

Captain Obvious said:

I have NEVER seen a 4x6 inkjet print that even resembled 'good'.

David A. Melges said:

The Oly Stylus is such a great point and shoot film camera, I loved
mine...but film itself except through great effort and expense
can't compare with the newer 3mp and up digitals for clarity....and
in my opinion for film to surpass a 3mp digital at 4x6 print size
is impossible.

d

Chris Lukowski said:

Hi guys,

I know this is very subjective, but I was wondering if today's
newest digicams (such as upcoming the Fuji F700) can take pictures
that are practically indistinguishable from 35mm point-and-shoot
camera pictures on 4x6 prints. I'm looking to ditch my Olympus
Sylus Zoom entirely, and was wondering if a new 3MP digicam would
do the job good enough so that your average laymen can't tell them
apart on a 4x6 level. I've never seen them side by side so I was
wondering if you could lend some insight. What differences, if any
are noticable for a photographic novice, should I expect?

Thanks,
Chris Lukowski

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

29 lbs. of Canon stuff in a backpack that I carry everywhere. A closet full of things that are banned in Britain. A minivan and a Fender Stratocaster. A three bedroom ranch with three owls on an acre. An aversion to rumours. Also, absolutely no Canon 1200mm f/5.6. Yet.

Lin Evans said:

Captain Obvious said:

Because Frontier pics have been shown time and time again to be
superior to both the Epson 2200 and the Canon 9000. Yet, I have
Frontier pics, and they don't compare to the stuff I've had printed
at a lab from film.

I have NEVER seen a 4x6 inkjet print that even resembled 'good'.

Click to expand...

Then your experience with inkjet prints is severely limited....

Fuji Frontier pictures are not even close in quality to good injket
prints - I'm not sure where you are getting this information, but
you need to do some more research........ LightJet images are
another issue altogether....

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that inkjet quality was so high! Are you of the opinion that modern photo-inkjet technology produces 'better' prints than the Noritsu prints?

Thanks.

I thought I had read a few weeks ago about how much better the Frontier pics were, but doing some light research today, I see that isn't the case. Most examples I saw of the Frontier were soft.

Still, none of the inkjet prints I've seen match up to the prints I have from 35mm.

Ken Phillips said:

Captain Obvious said:

I have NEVER seen a 4x6 inkjet print that even resembled 'good'.

David A. Melges said:

The Oly Stylus is such a great point and shoot film camera, I loved
mine...but film itself except through great effort and expense
can't compare with the newer 3mp and up digitals for clarity....and
in my opinion for film to surpass a 3mp digital at 4x6 print size
is impossible.

d

Chris Lukowski said:

Hi guys,

I know this is very subjective, but I was wondering if today's
newest digicams (such as upcoming the Fuji F700) can take pictures
that are practically indistinguishable from 35mm point-and-shoot
camera pictures on 4x6 prints. I'm looking to ditch my Olympus
Sylus Zoom entirely, and was wondering if a new 3MP digicam would
do the job good enough so that your average laymen can't tell them
apart on a 4x6 level. I've never seen them side by side so I was
wondering if you could lend some insight. What differences, if any
are noticable for a photographic novice, should I expect?

Thanks,
Chris Lukowski

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
29 lbs. of Canon stuff in a backpack that I carry everywhere. A
closet full of things that are banned in Britain. A minivan and a
Fender Stratocaster. A three bedroom ranch with three owls on an
acre. An aversion to rumours. Also, absolutely no Canon 1200mm
f/5.6. Yet.

Click to expand...

...they are the choice of my current photofinisher, and I love the prints.

The Noritsu prints are so sharp, so smooth and the colors are very accurate....I have everything above 8x10 printed that way.

I print to 8x10 myself because the print I can generate for 1/3 the cost is indistinguishable by all but the most professional eye. My customers are overwhelmed at my prints, particularily since what they are most likely comparing them too is a film to kodak one hour machine! No contest.

I'll use frontier in a pinch, and its great that they are popping up everywhere for one hour stuff...its nice to be able to point my customers somewhere and say "you have this and that print option"

Good digital capture to Noritsu is what I put on my own wall though.

dave

mango said:

Lin Evans said:

Captain Obvious said:

Because Frontier pics have been shown time and time again to be
superior to both the Epson 2200 and the Canon 9000. Yet, I have
Frontier pics, and they don't compare to the stuff I've had printed
at a lab from film.

I have NEVER seen a 4x6 inkjet print that even resembled 'good'.

Click to expand...

Then your experience with inkjet prints is severely limited....

Fuji Frontier pictures are not even close in quality to good injket
prints - I'm not sure where you are getting this information, but
you need to do some more research........ LightJet images are
another issue altogether....

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that inkjet quality was so high! Are you of the
opinion that modern photo-inkjet technology produces 'better'
prints than the Noritsu prints?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

mango said:

Lin Evans said:

Captain Obvious said:

Because Frontier pics have been shown time and time again to be
superior to both the Epson 2200 and the Canon 9000. Yet, I have
Frontier pics, and they don't compare to the stuff I've had printed
at a lab from film.

I have NEVER seen a 4x6 inkjet print that even resembled 'good'.

Click to expand...

Then your experience with inkjet prints is severely limited....

Fuji Frontier pictures are not even close in quality to good injket
prints - I'm not sure where you are getting this information, but
you need to do some more research........ LightJet images are
another issue altogether....

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that inkjet quality was so high! Are you of the
opinion that modern photo-inkjet technology produces 'better'
prints than the Noritsu prints?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Can't comment on comparisons with Noritsu prints - but Epson inkjet far exceeds Fuji Frontier quality.

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

I'm new to this so I really don't know what your talking about. Is Frontier what developers like Ritz Camera use?

Ken Phillips said:

Captain Obvious said:

I have NEVER seen a 4x6 inkjet print that even resembled 'good'.

David A. Melges said:

The Oly Stylus is such a great point and shoot film camera, I loved
mine...but film itself except through great effort and expense
can't compare with the newer 3mp and up digitals for clarity....and
in my opinion for film to surpass a 3mp digital at 4x6 print size
is impossible.

d

Chris Lukowski said:

Hi guys,

I know this is very subjective, but I was wondering if today's
newest digicams (such as upcoming the Fuji F700) can take pictures
that are practically indistinguishable from 35mm point-and-shoot
camera pictures on 4x6 prints. I'm looking to ditch my Olympus
Sylus Zoom entirely, and was wondering if a new 3MP digicam would
do the job good enough so that your average laymen can't tell them
apart on a 4x6 level. I've never seen them side by side so I was
wondering if you could lend some insight. What differences, if any
are noticable for a photographic novice, should I expect?

Thanks,
Chris Lukowski

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
29 lbs. of Canon stuff in a backpack that I carry everywhere. A
closet full of things that are banned in Britain. A minivan and a
Fender Stratocaster. A three bedroom ranch with three owls on an
acre. An aversion to rumours. Also, absolutely no Canon 1200mm
f/5.6. Yet.

Click to expand...

... sometimes found withthe Aladdin kiosk front end, that lets you do the uploading. At Sam's club I pay under $2 for an 8 x 10.
KP

Chris Lukowski said:

Ken Phillips said:

Captain Obvious said:

I have NEVER seen a 4x6 inkjet print that even resembled 'good'.

David A. Melges said:

The Oly Stylus is such a great point and shoot film camera, I loved
mine...but film itself except through great effort and expense
can't compare with the newer 3mp and up digitals for clarity....and
in my opinion for film to surpass a 3mp digital at 4x6 print size
is impossible.

d

Chris Lukowski said:

Hi guys,

I know this is very subjective, but I was wondering if today's
newest digicams (such as upcoming the Fuji F700) can take pictures
that are practically indistinguishable from 35mm point-and-shoot
camera pictures on 4x6 prints. I'm looking to ditch my Olympus
Sylus Zoom entirely, and was wondering if a new 3MP digicam would
do the job good enough so that your average laymen can't tell them
apart on a 4x6 level. I've never seen them side by side so I was
wondering if you could lend some insight. What differences, if any
are noticable for a photographic novice, should I expect?

Thanks,
Chris Lukowski

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
29 lbs. of Canon stuff in a backpack that I carry everywhere. A
closet full of things that are banned in Britain. A minivan and a
Fender Stratocaster. A three bedroom ranch with three owls on an
acre. An aversion to rumours. Also, absolutely no Canon 1200mm
f/5.6. Yet.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

29 lbs. of Canon stuff in a backpack that I carry everywhere. A closet full of things that are banned in Britain. A minivan and a Fender Stratocaster. A three bedroom ranch with three owls on an acre. An aversion to rumours. Also, absolutely no Canon 1200mm f/5.6. Yet.

Give me your address and I'll mail pictures of my ENgland vacation taken with my 1.93 MP C2100UZ. See for yourself. They will blow your socks off

Chris Lukowski said:

Hi guys,

Click to expand...

,

Chris Lukowski said:

Chris Lukowski

Click to expand...

--
Ian Yates

I too tried the Fuji Frontier challenge, using my Fuji s602 pics as a test mule. I too was not impressed. I had them done at a local lab, and I tried the Kiosk approach too. My Canon s900 did better.

Whether the Frontier is a great printer or not, I just don't want NOBODY correcting my colors, brightness, etc. Can't stand that. Hey do-flocky, I got Photoshop for a reason. I got a calibrated monitor for a reason. What I put on the "media" for you to print better be what I see or you did a bad job. So, OFF with your assumptions and settings. Use mine or be gone with yourself.

Just my 2.2 cents worth...

--
Mr. Pickles

I mean c'mon, I'm planning on taking my camera down to Florida and coming back with about 500 pics (last time we went we went through 20 rolls of film)! Is there a real noticable difference between lab developed pics and home printed ones? I ask because the cost of a new photo printer (don't know if my HP Deskjet 932C is up to it), ink and enough photo paper to do the job (not to mention the time it'll take) is pretty intimidating considering the camera itself will cost about 600 bucks (500 if eBay traditions hold + 100 bucks for a big memory card). This is getting more costly by the minute! LOL!

Mr. Pickles said:

I too tried the Fuji Frontier challenge, using my Fuji s602 pics as
a test mule. I too was not impressed. I had them done at a local
lab, and I tried the Kiosk approach too. My Canon s900 did better.

Whether the Frontier is a great printer or not, I just don't want
NOBODY correcting my colors, brightness, etc. Can't stand that. Hey
do-flocky, I got Photoshop for a reason. I got a calibrated monitor
for a reason. What I put on the "media" for you to print better be
what I see or you did a bad job. So, OFF with your assumptions and
settings. Use mine or be gone with yourself.

Just my 2.2 cents worth...

--
Mr. Pickles

Click to expand...

Chris Lukowski said:

I mean c'mon, I'm planning on taking my camera down to Florida and
coming back with about 500 pics (last time we went we went through
20 rolls of film)! Is there a real noticable difference between lab
developed pics and home printed ones? I ask because the cost of a
new photo printer (don't know if my HP Deskjet 932C is up to it),
ink and enough photo paper to do the job (not to mention the time
it'll take) is pretty intimidating considering the camera itself
will cost about 600 bucks (500 if eBay traditions hold + 100 bucks
for a big memory card). This is getting more costly by the minute!
LOL!

Click to expand...

There is a definite qualatative difference between high quality inkjet prints and Fuji Frontier prints. All labs do not use Fuji Frontier printers - there are several other processes which render better results. The Fuji is made for speed and production at the expense of ultimate quality. You may be perfectly happy with the Fuji prints - many are - just don't compare them to quality inkjet prints and you may never know the difference - but if you are having more than snapshots done and you really do want quality - Fuji is not the best option.

Lin

Chris Lukowski said:

--

Click to expand...

http://208.56.82.71

From your other posts, it sounds like you may just want to take snapshots. There are a lot of drawbacks to digital if you are going to do your own printing:

1. Spend money on camera.
2. Buy a good size CF card
3. Buy recharable batteries.
4. Buy a good charger.
5. Charge your Nimh batteries every two weeks because they drain themselves.
6. Spend money on printer.
7. Spend money on printer supplies (over and over again).
8. Spend money on photo editing package.
9. Spend money on other photo cleanup tools like NeatImage.
10. Spend 300 hours or more learning your software.
11. Spend days trying to get your screen and printer remotely close in color.
12. Print.
13. Archive to a couple CDROMS.
14. Print again next year... your pics faded.
15. Buy new digital camera... the new one is 2 more megapixels.

16. Replace your printer. It is acting up, and the new ones are nicer with archival inks.
17. Upgrade your software
18. Test old archives and make copies 5 years later.

19. Realize you only printed 10% as many photos as you did with film, and that you wish you would have saved and printed more.

Here is what I do.

1. Buy film.
2. Pay to have it developed with double prints.
3. GOTO 1

Images are archived.. on film. Prints last over 20 years. Enlargements are done at a pro lab.

If you just want some 4x6 prints, film is a pretty good deal.

As soon as you get into doing your own printing, digital will become a money pit. For snapshots, buy a digicam and go to Walmart for prints, or buy film and take that to Walmart. If your prints don't look as nice as the ones your neighbor printed on his inkjet, wait a few months and compare again. His will probably fade. You can always have your favorite pics printed from an online service that will produce a better pic than any inkjet provides anyway.

Yes, if you spend all the money and time mentioned above, you can produce better prints than what you would get from Walmart. If you don't spend all that time editing and calibrating, your prints may not be that great.

The great thing about digital is the instant feedback and the assurance that an important shot was reasonably well exposed.

You have to decide how much time, money, and effort you really want to put into photography, image editing, and printing. I don't think home printing is the right solution for a snapshot shooter.

Chris Lukowski said:

Hi guys,

I know this is very subjective, but I was wondering if today's
newest digicams (such as upcoming the Fuji F700) can take pictures
that are practically indistinguishable from 35mm point-and-shoot
camera pictures on 4x6 prints. I'm looking to ditch my Olympus
Sylus Zoom entirely, and was wondering if a new 3MP digicam would
do the job good enough so that your average laymen can't tell them
apart on a 4x6 level. I've never seen them side by side so I was
wondering if you could lend some insight. What differences, if any
are noticable for a photographic novice, should I expect?

Thanks,
Chris Lukowski

Click to expand...

Chris Lukowski said:

I mean c'mon, I'm planning on taking my camera down to Florida and
coming back with about 500 pics (last time we went we went through
20 rolls of film)! Is there a real noticable difference between lab
developed pics and home printed ones? I ask because the cost of a
new photo printer (don't know if my HP Deskjet 932C is up to it),
ink and enough photo paper to do the job (not to mention the time
it'll take) is pretty intimidating considering the camera itself
will cost about 600 bucks (500 if eBay traditions hold + 100 bucks
for a big memory card). This is getting more costly by the minute!
LOL!

Click to expand...

Chris, I'm no expert on printing, digicams, or...really anything. However, I may be able to shed some light on your questions.

I got my first digicam almost a year ago...a Canon S30. I had an old Konica SLR that I would occationally use, and my wife had an Olympus Stylus point-n-shoot that we used as the family camera.

I had prints made at a local shop that uses a Noritsu system about a week after I got the camera. The prints were 4x6 glossy. I went through the photos I had taken and had about 6 printed...I was totally impressed. The results were so much better than what we would typically get with the Olympus...I was very pleasantly surprised. I think the reasons are several-fold.

1) You don't print the bad/marginal photos, since you know what the outcome will be like. So...when you return from your trip, rather than having 500 prints made, you will print 30 of the best ones....and they will all be great photos.

2) You reshoot your bad shots, since you get instant feedback.

3) The colors/exposure are better. I believe this is because you control the white balance & ISO rather than being stuck with whatever film is in the camera.

I've printed on Noritsu & on Frontiers. I was pleased with both. However, I did a test where I had a color test pattern printed with both systems. The Noritsu was clearly a bit sharper. Here's the results when I took photos of the prints:
http://www.pbase.com/mango/frontiers_vs_noritsu_print_test

You should lay your fears to rest. A good quality 3MP camera will, based on my experience, produce better results than a film point & shoot camera.

I've since printed 5x7 and 8x10. For the larger size, you need to start with a good-quality photo. However, the results were very good. I don't think that anyone would be able to say whether the prints were digital or film.

You should lay your fears to rest and make the switch to the digital. One thing to be aware of...make some prints before going on vacation, and evaluate them with a critical eye. On my first batch of prints I could see some "sharpening artifacts" which screamed, "Digital". Since then, I've always turned in-camera sharpening off, and I apply this filter more moderately from my computer.

...I just spent two hours with a young lady who per my recommendation bought a Canon S230, and an Epson 820 printer. She also bought 256 mg of CF memory. She went out and shot 220 images for practice and we sat down and I taught her how to upload, save, rename, crop, resize, color correct, burn to a CD,print and email her pictures. 2 hours.

She spent just under $500....camera/printer/memory and photo paper.

Out of those 220 images she printed 16 as 4x6s...the rest she can still use for free, on the computer, in emails etc.

She now is fully functional after $500 and two hours.

And she took the equivalent of almost 10 rolls of film....

Or $4 a roll, plus $12 a roll developing....she's 33% of the way to paying for her new equipment vs film and developing.

Now she's not going to shoot 220 frames tomorrow, so it may take her as long as 3 months to recover the entire cost vs film....but then she's goes into the black, and with film YOU NEVER DO!

Oh, and her pictures are better!

dave

Captain Obvious said:

1. Spend money on camera
2. Buy a good size CF card
3. Buy recharable batteries.
4. Buy a good charger.
5. Charge your Nimh batteries every two weeks because they drain
themselves.
6. Spend money on printer.
7. Spend money on printer supplies (over and over again).
8. Spend money on photo editing package.
9. Spend money on other photo cleanup tools like NeatImage.
10. Spend 300 hours or more learning your software.
11. Spend days trying to get your screen and printer remotely close
in color.
12. Print.
13. Archive to a couple CDROMS.
14. Print again next year... your pics faded.
15. Buy new digital camera... the new one is 2 more megapixels.
16. Replace your printer. It is acting up, and the new ones are
nicer with archival inks.
17. Upgrade your software
18. Test old archives and make copies 5 years later.
19. Realize you only printed 10% as many photos as you did with
film, and that you wish you would have saved and printed more.

Here is what I do.

1. Buy film.
2. Pay to have it developed with double prints.
3. GOTO 1

Images are archived.. on film. Prints last over 20 years.
Enlargements are done at a pro lab.

If you just want some 4x6 prints, film is a pretty good deal.

As soon as you get into doing your own printing, digital will
become a money pit. For snapshots, buy a digicam and go to Walmart
for prints, or buy film and take that to Walmart. If your prints
don't look as nice as the ones your neighbor printed on his inkjet,
wait a few months and compare again. His will probably fade. You
can always have your favorite pics printed from an online service
that will produce a better pic than any inkjet provides anyway.

Yes, if you spend all the money and time mentioned above, you can
produce better prints than what you would get from Walmart. If you
don't spend all that time editing and calibrating, your prints may
not be that great.

The great thing about digital is the instant feedback and the
assurance that an important shot was reasonably well exposed.

You have to decide how much time, money, and effort you really want
to put into photography, image editing, and printing. I don't think
home printing is the right solution for a snapshot shooter.

Chris Lukowski said:

Hi guys,

I know this is very subjective, but I was wondering if today's
newest digicams (such as upcoming the Fuji F700) can take pictures
that are practically indistinguishable from 35mm point-and-shoot
camera pictures on 4x6 prints. I'm looking to ditch my Olympus
Sylus Zoom entirely, and was wondering if a new 3MP digicam would
do the job good enough so that your average laymen can't tell them
apart on a 4x6 level. I've never seen them side by side so I was
wondering if you could lend some insight. What differences, if any
are noticable for a photographic novice, should I expect?

Thanks,
Chris Lukowski

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Captain Obvious said:

From your other posts, it sounds like you may just want to take
snapshots. There are a lot of drawbacks to digital if you are going
to do your own printing:

1. Spend money on camera.
2. Buy a good size CF card
3. Buy recharable batteries.
4. Buy a good charger.
5. Charge your Nimh batteries every two weeks because they drain
themselves.
6. Spend money on printer.
7. Spend money on printer supplies (over and over again).
8. Spend money on photo editing package.
9. Spend money on other photo cleanup tools like NeatImage.
10. Spend 300 hours or more learning your software.
11. Spend days trying to get your screen and printer remotely close
in color.
12. Print.
13. Archive to a couple CDROMS.
14. Print again next year... your pics faded.
15. Buy new digital camera... the new one is 2 more megapixels.
16. Replace your printer. It is acting up, and the new ones are
nicer with archival inks.
17. Upgrade your software
18. Test old archives and make copies 5 years later.
19. Realize you only printed 10% as many photos as you did with
film, and that you wish you would have saved and printed more.

Here is what I do.

1. Buy film.
2. Pay to have it developed with double prints.
3. GOTO 1

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/agent2099

Or, you can take your card to wallmart/costco etc.

1. Buy CF card
2. Pay to have it printed
3. GOTO 1

Can eliminate steps 3-6 with most cameras nowadays, which come with batteries/charger in the package.

Interesting you didn't mention the batteries issue with one of your steps in the film process. I assume your cameras run off air?

Hi dave,

Just wondering, about that Epson 820, do you think it prints better 4x6's than the Frontier system? Also, about how many 4x6's can you print out before the ink cartridge goes dry? Epson has no idea.

Thanks!

David A. Melges said:

She spent just under $500....camera/printer/memory and photo paper.
Out of those 220 images she printed 16 as 4x6s...the rest she can
still use for free, on the computer, in emails etc.

She now is fully functional after $500 and two hours.

And she took the equivalent of almost 10 rolls of film....
Or $4 a roll, plus $12 a roll developing....she's 33% of the way to
paying for her new equipment vs film and developing.

Now she's not going to shoot 220 frames tomorrow, so it may take
her as long as 3 months to recover the entire cost vs film....but
then she's goes into the black, and with film YOU NEVER DO!

Oh, and her pictures are better!

dave

Captain Obvious said:

1. Spend money on camera
2. Buy a good size CF card
3. Buy recharable batteries.
4. Buy a good charger.
5. Charge your Nimh batteries every two weeks because they drain
themselves.
6. Spend money on printer.
7. Spend money on printer supplies (over and over again).
8. Spend money on photo editing package.
9. Spend money on other photo cleanup tools like NeatImage.
10. Spend 300 hours or more learning your software.
11. Spend days trying to get your screen and printer remotely close
in color.
12. Print.
13. Archive to a couple CDROMS.
14. Print again next year... your pics faded.
15. Buy new digital camera... the new one is 2 more megapixels.
16. Replace your printer. It is acting up, and the new ones are
nicer with archival inks.
17. Upgrade your software
18. Test old archives and make copies 5 years later.
19. Realize you only printed 10% as many photos as you did with
film, and that you wish you would have saved and printed more.

Here is what I do.

1. Buy film.
2. Pay to have it developed with double prints.
3. GOTO 1

Images are archived.. on film. Prints last over 20 years.
Enlargements are done at a pro lab.

If you just want some 4x6 prints, film is a pretty good deal.

As soon as you get into doing your own printing, digital will
become a money pit. For snapshots, buy a digicam and go to Walmart
for prints, or buy film and take that to Walmart. If your prints
don't look as nice as the ones your neighbor printed on his inkjet,
wait a few months and compare again. His will probably fade. You
can always have your favorite pics printed from an online service
that will produce a better pic than any inkjet provides anyway.

Yes, if you spend all the money and time mentioned above, you can
produce better prints than what you would get from Walmart. If you
don't spend all that time editing and calibrating, your prints may
not be that great.

The great thing about digital is the instant feedback and the
assurance that an important shot was reasonably well exposed.

You have to decide how much time, money, and effort you really want
to put into photography, image editing, and printing. I don't think
home printing is the right solution for a snapshot shooter.

Chris Lukowski said:

Hi guys,

I know this is very subjective, but I was wondering if today's
newest digicams (such as upcoming the Fuji F700) can take pictures
that are practically indistinguishable from 35mm point-and-shoot
camera pictures on 4x6 prints. I'm looking to ditch my Olympus
Sylus Zoom entirely, and was wondering if a new 3MP digicam would
do the job good enough so that your average laymen can't tell them
apart on a 4x6 level. I've never seen them side by side so I was
wondering if you could lend some insight. What differences, if any
are noticable for a photographic novice, should I expect?

Thanks,
Chris Lukowski

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yeah, if her pictures are better, all pros would have gone to $300 digicams.

David A. Melges said:

She spent just under $500....camera/printer/memory and photo paper.
Out of those 220 images she printed 16 as 4x6s...the rest she can
still use for free, on the computer, in emails etc.

She now is fully functional after $500 and two hours.

And she took the equivalent of almost 10 rolls of film....
Or $4 a roll, plus $12 a roll developing....she's 33% of the way to
paying for her new equipment vs film and developing.

Now she's not going to shoot 220 frames tomorrow, so it may take
her as long as 3 months to recover the entire cost vs film....but
then she's goes into the black, and with film YOU NEVER DO!

Oh, and her pictures are better!

dave

Captain Obvious said:

1. Spend money on camera
2. Buy a good size CF card
3. Buy recharable batteries.
4. Buy a good charger.
5. Charge your Nimh batteries every two weeks because they drain
themselves.
6. Spend money on printer.
7. Spend money on printer supplies (over and over again).
8. Spend money on photo editing package.
9. Spend money on other photo cleanup tools like NeatImage.
10. Spend 300 hours or more learning your software.
11. Spend days trying to get your screen and printer remotely close
in color.
12. Print.
13. Archive to a couple CDROMS.
14. Print again next year... your pics faded.
15. Buy new digital camera... the new one is 2 more megapixels.
16. Replace your printer. It is acting up, and the new ones are
nicer with archival inks.
17. Upgrade your software
18. Test old archives and make copies 5 years later.
19. Realize you only printed 10% as many photos as you did with
film, and that you wish you would have saved and printed more.

Here is what I do.

1. Buy film.
2. Pay to have it developed with double prints.
3. GOTO 1

Images are archived.. on film. Prints last over 20 years.
Enlargements are done at a pro lab.

If you just want some 4x6 prints, film is a pretty good deal.

As soon as you get into doing your own printing, digital will
become a money pit. For snapshots, buy a digicam and go to Walmart
for prints, or buy film and take that to Walmart. If your prints
don't look as nice as the ones your neighbor printed on his inkjet,
wait a few months and compare again. His will probably fade. You
can always have your favorite pics printed from an online service
that will produce a better pic than any inkjet provides anyway.

Yes, if you spend all the money and time mentioned above, you can
produce better prints than what you would get from Walmart. If you
don't spend all that time editing and calibrating, your prints may
not be that great.

The great thing about digital is the instant feedback and the
assurance that an important shot was reasonably well exposed.

You have to decide how much time, money, and effort you really want
to put into photography, image editing, and printing. I don't think
home printing is the right solution for a snapshot shooter.

Chris Lukowski said:

Hi guys,

I know this is very subjective, but I was wondering if today's
newest digicams (such as upcoming the Fuji F700) can take pictures
that are practically indistinguishable from 35mm point-and-shoot
camera pictures on 4x6 prints. I'm looking to ditch my Olympus
Sylus Zoom entirely, and was wondering if a new 3MP digicam would
do the job good enough so that your average laymen can't tell them
apart on a 4x6 level. I've never seen them side by side so I was
wondering if you could lend some insight. What differences, if any
are noticable for a photographic novice, should I expect?

Thanks,
Chris Lukowski

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You will see I suggested that.

Agent said:

Captain Obvious said:

From your other posts, it sounds like you may just want to take
snapshots. There are a lot of drawbacks to digital if you are going
to do your own printing:

1. Spend money on camera.
2. Buy a good size CF card
3. Buy recharable batteries.
4. Buy a good charger.
5. Charge your Nimh batteries every two weeks because they drain
themselves.
6. Spend money on printer.
7. Spend money on printer supplies (over and over again).
8. Spend money on photo editing package.
9. Spend money on other photo cleanup tools like NeatImage.
10. Spend 300 hours or more learning your software.
11. Spend days trying to get your screen and printer remotely close
in color.
12. Print.
13. Archive to a couple CDROMS.
14. Print again next year... your pics faded.
15. Buy new digital camera... the new one is 2 more megapixels.
16. Replace your printer. It is acting up, and the new ones are
nicer with archival inks.
17. Upgrade your software
18. Test old archives and make copies 5 years later.
19. Realize you only printed 10% as many photos as you did with
film, and that you wish you would have saved and printed more.

Here is what I do.

1. Buy film.
2. Pay to have it developed with double prints.
3. GOTO 1

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/agent2099

Or, you can take your card to wallmart/costco etc.

1. Buy CF card
2. Pay to have it printed
3. GOTO 1

Click to expand...

No, you can't. Everyone has more than one set of batteries unless they have one of the models that have lithium. Otherwise, you need multiple sets of Nimh batteries.

Yes, sometimes I spend $10 per year on batteries. That is lot cheaper than the $600 a year fools on this site spend on a new camera every year.

Agent said:

Can eliminate steps 3-6 with most cameras nowadays, which come with
batteries/charger in the package.

Interesting you didn't mention the batteries issue with one of your
steps in the film process. I assume your cameras run off air?

Click to expand...