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

You've lost it. Seriously.

Every time I bring up a point, you have to alter the discussion by inserting a $5000 piece of equipment in place of a $300 piece of equipment.

Lin Evans said:

Captain Obvious said:

I'm glad you are confident. National Geographic has been using
scanned 35mm for their magazines for years (for full spread
pictures). I think you should write them and ask if they'd accept
3MP images from your digicrap, and what size they would print them
at.

Click to expand...

There you go again with you insults ( digicra ) and with less than
optimum knowledge.

Sports Illustrated has printed doubles from 2.66 megapixel D1
captures and routinely uses 4 megapixel "digicrap" from EOS-1D - in
fact, it's about all they use any more.

Photographer Melvin Sokolsky routinely shoots Vogue and numerous
other major fashion with a "digicrap" EOS-1D - and that includes
considerably larger prints than National Geographic.

National Geographic photographers shoot film because they
frequently work in isolated regions where computers and even
electricity are hard to come by.

Three megapixel digital may be "digicra*" to you, but then you are
not a professional photographer and have little or no experience
with this venue you so quickly dismiss....

Lin

--
http://208.56.82.71

Click to expand...

Captain Obvious said:

You've lost it. Seriously.

Every time I bring up a point, you have to alter the discussion by
inserting a $5000 piece of equipment in place of a $300 piece of
equipment.

Click to expand...

--

You don't think you might be exaggerating a bit here? You said, and I quote "3MP images from your digicrap.." Are you dissing the 3 megapixels or the camera? Have you used either? Actually, the S30 takes some incredibly clean low ISO images - certainly good enough for lots of full page applications, though it may not be presently used for that purpose by professionals.

The "point" is that you were offered a challenge to post some of your own 35mm film work to compare with the poster's S30 - so why not take the challenge and make your point with some concrete evidence rather than more talk?

Lin

http://208.56.82.71

I say his 3MP digicrap (a pet name for his cheap digicam) can't produce photos that are viable for publishing in National Geographic.

You argue that a $5000 pro SLR, presumably with a $1400 lens, can take pictures good enough for a magazine that has lower quality standards in favor of catching the action at the perfect moment.

I'm up for a challenge. Anyone in this forum who wants to come to Omaha, NE is welcome to. We'll go out together and take photos of the same subjects. Then we'll print, and see who has the best results. Make sure you bring along the $300 digicam that is going to spoil my victory.

Lin Evans said:

Captain Obvious said:

You've lost it. Seriously.

Every time I bring up a point, you have to alter the discussion by
inserting a $5000 piece of equipment in place of a $300 piece of
equipment.

Click to expand...

--

You don't think you might be exaggerating a bit here? You said, and
I quote "3MP images from your digicrap.." Are you dissing the 3
megapixels or the camera? Have you used either? Actually, the S30
takes some incredibly clean low ISO images - certainly good enough
for lots of full page applications, though it may not be presently
used for that purpose by professionals.

The "point" is that you were offered a challenge to post some of
your own 35mm film work to compare with the poster's S30 - so why
not take the challenge and make your point with some concrete
evidence rather than more talk?

Lin

http://208.56.82.71

Click to expand...

Captain Obvious said:

I say his 3MP digicrap (a pet name for his cheap digicam) can't
produce photos that are viable for publishing in National
Geographic.

You argue that a $5000 pro SLR, presumably with a $1400 lens, can
take pictures good enough for a magazine that has lower quality
standards in favor of catching the action at the perfect moment.

I'm up for a challenge. Anyone in this forum who wants to come to
Omaha, NE is welcome to. We'll go out together and take photos of
the same subjects. Then we'll print, and see who has the best
results. Make sure you bring along the $300 digicam that is going
to spoil my victory.

Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt that Vogue and other major fashion industry magazines have lower photographic standards than National Geographic. But it's a nice spin try to ignore that and use Sports Illustrated.

Since the forum allows anyone to post their work (you do have some photos, don't you?) it's not necessary to travel to Omaha, why don't you just put up some of the superior images and let the world see what they are missing by using these inexpensive "digicrap" cameras? Let's see, looking at all your former posts - I'm really having problems finding even one image from your Nikon. If you need assistance in learning how to post them, there are many helpful people here who will be glad to assist. Actually, I think someone offered you 10 megabyes of storage if you don't have a site or can't afford the overhead.

I suspect though that we won't be seeing any of these superior prints posted here since you've been given ample opportunity to do so and seemingly rather prefer to talk photography rather than actually do photography.....

Lin

--
http://208.56.82.71

Captain Obvious said:

I say his 3MP digicrap (a pet name for his cheap digicam) can't
produce photos that are viable for publishing in National
Geographic.

Click to expand...

First...I never said my 3MP digicrap ;-) produced images that are "viable for publishing in National Geographic". I simply said, show me your superior film images.

second, Have you ever looked at a high-quality 3MP image printed at 8 x 10? I have, and I don't think you would think that images in a magazine offer superior quality to a 3MP professional print on photographic paper.

I now see why Lin takes you to town...you are an obvious fool.

Captain Obvious said:

I say his 3MP digicrap (a pet name for his cheap digicam) can't
produce photos that are viable for publishing in National
Geographic.

Click to expand...

The question was about whether a 3 mpx digicam can make 4x6" prints that equal an Olympus Stylus; budget digital P&S compared to budget 35 mm P&S.

You smoke some hubbas and talk about National Geographic, then cry foul when Lin talks about "real" digital cameras...? This is either the logic of a six year old or a demented crackhead, if you ask me.

Chris Lukowski said:

Thanks for the VERY useful info. It's a good departure from the
catfight going on in the middle of the thread. Anyway, those
pictures are beautiful. What kind of camera are you using for them?
Also, did you manually tweak the camera before shooting (apeture,
shutter, ISO controls, etc.) or are any of them full auto?

Click to expand...

The first digital camera I had was a point and shoot in the truest sense of the word(s?). It would let me change the ISO speed ( like a film P&S would by putting different film in it ) and set exposure compensation ( like some film P&S cameras would ), but that's about it. I shot the reflection of the tree and the sunset with this camera, on full-auto.

The next camera I had was a little more SLR-like; it had semi-auto and fully-manual modes. I don't think I really ever used full-auto again after that, but 90% of the time I used semi-auto. ( You set the aperture you want and the camera sets the shutter speed. ) This is how I shot everything but the night scenes.

It doesn't really make a lot of difference whether you shoot in full or semi auto, or fully manual modes. What matters is whether the camera took the photo you wanted, and having a little screen on the back of the camera will tell you that. If whatever you tried didn't work, you can delete the picture and take it again, slightly differently.

I should say that with the two digital P&S cameras I had, I would almost never use anything but the lowest ISO setting they had ( 100 ). Anything else and the pictures get noisy, and loose their quality. This is the same in the film world ... except that if you have to use a lower-quality higher-speed setting in digital, you can use it for one or two shots and go back to high quality ... in film you lock a choice like that in for 24 or 36 shots. Now that I have a digital SLR ( Canon D60 ), I'll use higher ISO settings more often, but I still stick with the lowest setting ( still 100 ) whenever I possibly can.

You should have a look through my galleries -- a lot of what I have in my portfolio are from two 2 mpx digicams.

http://www.valhallaphotos.com

You'll argue with anyone who isn't stroking you. You guys need a serious reality check, or maybe a support forum.

Go join a support group.

Captain Obvious said:

You argue that a $5000 pro SLR, presumably with a $1400 lens, can
take pictures good enough for a magazine that has lower quality
standards in favor of catching the action at the perfect moment.

I'm up for a challenge. Anyone in this forum who wants to come to
Omaha, NE is welcome to. We'll go out together and take photos of
the same subjects. Then we'll print, and see who has the best
results. Make sure you bring along the $300 digicam that is going
to spoil my victory.

Lin Evans said:

Captain Obvious said:

You've lost it. Seriously.

Every time I bring up a point, you have to alter the discussion by
inserting a $5000 piece of equipment in place of a $300 piece of
equipment.

Click to expand...

--

You don't think you might be exaggerating a bit here? You said, and
I quote "3MP images from your digicrap.." Are you dissing the 3
megapixels or the camera? Have you used either? Actually, the S30
takes some incredibly clean low ISO images - certainly good enough
for lots of full page applications, though it may not be presently
used for that purpose by professionals.

The "point" is that you were offered a challenge to post some of
your own 35mm film work to compare with the poster's S30 - so why
not take the challenge and make your point with some concrete
evidence rather than more talk?

Lin

http://208.56.82.71

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Captain Obvious said:

You'll argue with anyone who isn't stroking you. You guys need a
serious reality check, or maybe a support forum.

Go join a support group.

Click to expand...

The reality check is definitely in order - but the question is which of us needs it..... If the world's wrong, right your own self.....

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

I responded that home printing add a completely new dimension in cost to digital photography. Furthermore, the original poster has apparently agreed with me as evidenced by his post in the printing forum.

You simply can't handle the truth, and you are a reactive baby.

Lin Evans said:

Captain Obvious said:

You'll argue with anyone who isn't stroking you. You guys need a
serious reality check, or maybe a support forum.

Go join a support group.

Click to expand...

The reality check is definitely in order - but the question is
which of us needs it..... If the world's wrong, right your own
self.....

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

Click to expand...

Captain Obvious said:

I responded that home printing add a completely new dimension in
cost to digital photography. Furthermore, the original poster has
apparently agreed with me as evidenced by his post in the printing
forum.

You simply can't handle the truth, and you are a reactive baby.

Click to expand...

How would you know the "truth"? Using your crystal ball? Obviously, Obvious, this is wasting bandwidth so I'll defer to you superior widsom and let you troll some more on your own....

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

Captain Obvious said:

I responded that home printing add a completely new dimension in
cost to digital photography. Furthermore, the original poster has
apparently agreed with me as evidenced by his post in the printing
forum.

You simply can't handle the truth, and you are a reactive baby.

Click to expand...

So...Captian Obvious...quit being a punk and post some pictures that support your position!!

I don't need to convert to digital to print. Converting to digital loses information. And I don't have a scanner, because I don't have a need for a scanner. I'm not going to buy one just to show how sub-par your cheap digitoy is.

mango said:

Captain Obvious said:

I responded that home printing add a completely new dimension in
cost to digital photography. Furthermore, the original poster has
apparently agreed with me as evidenced by his post in the printing
forum.

You simply can't handle the truth, and you are a reactive baby.

Click to expand...

So...Captian Obvious...quit being a punk and post some pictures
that support your position!!

Click to expand...

....we digital shooters get together and agree to stop responding to the "obvious one" until he puts up...

I'm sure most of us have figured out he's only here for the fun of a fight...For all we know the only camera he owns is an Olympus C-2020 he's perfectly happy with....

Please quit feeding his flames.

dave

mango said:

Captain Obvious said:

I responded that home printing add a completely new dimension in
cost to digital photography. Furthermore, the original poster has
apparently agreed with me as evidenced by his post in the printing
forum.

You simply can't handle the truth, and you are a reactive baby.

Click to expand...

So...Captian Obvious...quit being a punk and post some pictures
that support your position!!

Click to expand...

Captain Obvious said:

I don't need to convert to digital to print. Converting to digital
loses information. And I don't have a scanner, because I don't have
a need for a scanner. I'm not going to buy one just to show how
sub-par your cheap digitoy is.

Click to expand...

I thought so...you're an idiot.

Hi Chris,
get the pictures done at costo, they are great and they are printed on
real photo paper. 19 cent for 4x6. can't beat that.

they have a computer on the counter you stick your media card/cd into, and you chose the print size/quanity, 1 hour later you pick them up.
They print on fuji crystal archive paper so I know it's going to last.

The one negative thing I have is that the interface on their machine kind of sucks. you first chose the print size, then you go thru the whole cd or flash to end, then if you want another print size, you repeat the process.

Also there is no color correction or density correction, so it's best to do all the corrections at home, then just copy the pictures you want to print on the card, then bring it in.

I think Walmart also has a similar setup, prices at 29cent 4x6 and 2.99 for 8x10. I think it's the same system. I'm local to san jose, so this may not be
true elseware in the country.

I considered getting the olympus p-400(Dye Sub) but at the price costco is charging. there's no reason to print on inkjets. the few ink jets I have I always see the lines, the alignment has to be perfect. inkjets draw a few lines, then the paper moves alittle, then it draws a few lines.... well if they don't align perfectly, you'll see lines overlap/ or missing... really annoying.

Dye sub don't have this problem, but the sheets of color needs to align or else you'll get some misalignment too. the best system in my opinion is the one pass fuji pictrography, but dang it, cost way too much right now.

also my canon ink fades like crazy even after less then 6 months all the pictures I have on my fridge have faded. the ones that I put in frames with glass/plastic doesn't fade as much.

I think the Epson inkjets are better, but from my prospective, the cost to print your own VS going to costco, for me isn't worth the trouble.

If you have a big enough memory card, always take the picture at the highest resolution, in case you want to enlarge later, also gives you room to crop if you can't quite zoom in far enough. 3x is alittle limiting.
hope this helps.
Tuong

Chris Lukowski said:

I never planned on printing pics at home, but rather at a place
like Ritz Camera where they have Fuji Digital Photo Processing or
something similar. They said they even adjust the brightness
settings if pics come out too dark.

Click to expand...

When In doubt, whip it out.( the manual, that is)

And asking me to post a digital file is like me asking you to send me a piece of film from your D30, moron.

mango said:

Captain Obvious said:

I don't need to convert to digital to print. Converting to digital
loses information. And I don't have a scanner, because I don't have
a need for a scanner. I'm not going to buy one just to show how
sub-par your cheap digitoy is.

Click to expand...

I thought so...you're an idiot.

Click to expand...

Captain Obvious said:

mango said:

Captain Obvious said:

I don't need to convert to digital to print. Converting to digital
loses information. And I don't have a scanner, because I don't have
a need for a scanner. I'm not going to buy one just to show how
sub-par your cheap digitoy is.

Click to expand...

I thought so...you're an idiot.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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

If you can find me a 3MP digital camera that captures details as well as Fuji Velvia ISO50 film, I'll eat a roll for lunch.

Other than that, I think your response is a great one for this question. good to see some around here haven't lost their heads

Well as a want-to-be-pro photographer, and someone who is making some money off their digital photography, I use a Kodak DC4800 - a really nice 3.1mpixel camera. Admittedly its aging and the new Canon 10D is making me drool.

But as for print sizes, I shoot High-compression JPG 3.1 mpixel files (read: lower quality for more per card and faster shooting), and always print 8x10. In fact, I print and frame pieces at 13x19 too with NO photoshopping beyond color balancing and such.

Now very few of my pictures will be of the quality I want at the 13x19, but in reality, an image printed at that size is not supposed to be viewed from close-up, but from a few feet away. And from that distance, they are perfect.

Searle
aka. Farl
[email protected]
http://www.sketchwork.com

mango said:

Captain Obvious said:

I say his 3MP digicrap (a pet name for his cheap digicam) can't
produce photos that are viable for publishing in National
Geographic.

Click to expand...

First...I never said my 3MP digicrap ;-) produced images that are
"viable for publishing in National Geographic". I simply said,
show me your superior film images.

second, Have you ever looked at a high-quality 3MP image printed at
8 x 10? I have, and I don't think you would think that images in a
magazine offer superior quality to a 3MP professional print on
photographic paper.

I now see why Lin takes you to town...you are an obvious fool.

Click to expand...