Photographer's Corner - equipment

[seraphim]

"In the higher end DSLRs like the Nikon D800 pixel densities are now pushing up close to what used to be only for medium format cameras."

Which means the medium formats are pushing up even higher and better lol.

Again, I'm a bit out of date with which digital densities can produce what type of quality - but I will always accept bigger is better. Bigger may not always be necessary, but it's better to have the potential and not use it, than to not have it and need it.

IMO.

 

[meierlde]

"In the higher end DSLRs like the Nikon D800 pixel densities are now pushing up close to what used to be only for medium format cameras."

Which means the medium formats are pushing up even higher and better lol.

Again, I'm a bit out of date with which digital densities can produce what type of quality - but I will always accept bigger is better. Bigger may not always be necessary, but it's better to have the potential and not use it, than to not have it and need it.

IMO.

I believe the rule for pixel densities and printing is 300 dpi. thus 8 mp gives you essentially 8x11, and and 16 mp (5200 by 3400) gives about 18 by 12.

Interestingly I have read that the old Kodachrome was between 2400 and 3000 dpi in resolution.

 

[photoguy]

Not referring specially to landscape - just any shot where the subject is static. Could be commercial, fashion, etc.

Ok. I see what you are getting at. Your prior comments took me by surprise because there are quite a few photographers that have gallery pieces printed very large from 35mm film (e.g. 30x40, 40x60, etc.). But I guess they are mostly not what you would call "static" or controlled images.

Define 'quite reasonable'. Quite reasonable for an amateur, for a gallery or museum, a fine art shot? What you consider reasonable another may not. I tend to be extremely critical; 'quite reasonable' sounds like 'not as good as it could be'. Not meant to criticize others, just explaining my own personal outlook.

I think only pixel peepers would notice the difference. A 21MP camera will print 16x24 @ 234 dpi. This is not quite as good as 300 dpi but you have too look extremely closely to see the difference. I don't think I could tell the difference from a few feet away.

 

[Chuckanut]

No doubt a 36 mega pixel camera will take a better photo than my smaller sensor little guy IF it is carryable to where the photos are. However I have made 18 x 36 images from it and they look darn good hanging on the wall.

I remember reading years ago that the best camera is the one that gets least in the way of the photographers goal.

 

[explanade]

Best camera is the one that you have with you.

There are way more photos uploaded from iPhones than any other photo device.

 

[seraphim]

"Interestingly I have read that the old Kodachrome was between 2400 and 3000 dpi in resolution."

Never read a comparison, but analog and digital are two different worlds - you can't get get smooth transitions in digital as you can with film. It's comparing apples and oranges. Kodachrome's weakness was it's shorter tonal range - Cibachromes were expensive and contrasts, but archival quality.


Pixel peeper? Lol. Used to spend hours with a loupe examining negatives for minor flaws that would show up in a print. Depends on how critical one intends to be - IMO, if one wants to be professional level ( and not everyone does) you can't be too critical.

Getting it to the scene - serious photographers have been dragging large cameras on location for long time. Still do. When I mentioned shooting 6x7 at weddings, I was referring to a Mamiya RB67 - a studio camera and I was shooting it handheld using a stroboframe flash holder. Quality can be inconvenient. It depends what's important to you.

 

[seraphim]

Esplanade

+1

Haven't shot seriously for years because my gear was spread out around the house. Just got it organized again in quick grab cases. They're by the front door, now. No excuse but laziness... Lol

 

[seraphim]

"I remember reading years ago that the best camera is the one that gets least in the way of the photographers goal."

But it must also allow the photographer to ACHIEVE his goals. Whatever the photographer is comfortable with, can manipulate quickly and accurately when the need calls for, and produces a negative (positive) which will produce the desired results to the standards demanded by the photographer. For one, that might an iPhone; for another, a Hasselblad creating 50mb files, or a large format creating 100+ megabyte files.

To each their own.

 

[seraphim]

"There are way more photos uploaded from iPhones than any other photo device."

That's also because they're quick and easy to use; but let's also differentiate between quantity of photos uploaded and quality of the uploaded image. I love my iPhone - most of my posts here were taken with it. But it's uses as a camera are limited.

 

[seraphim]

And I think another question is the ability of a digital printer to produce an acceptable quality for every use.

"If you are not intending to use your printed images for anything professional, then a resolution of between 200ppi and 300ppi should be fine. Most tests show that humans can't see the individual pixels unless the image resolution is lower than 200ppi."

Individuals may not be able to see the individual pixels, but I've no doubt they can tell differences in the smoothness of tonal and color transitions.

Read more: http://www.webdesign.org/quality-images-in-print-and-web-formats.22213.html#ixzz2vDR7ihlp

 

[explanade]

iPhone photography is part of the "good enough" trend when moving from analog to digital.

MP3 is "good enough" tradeoff for the convenience of having tons of music in a little device.

Similarly, the iPhone camera is "good enough" for the portability, ease and ubiquity of the device for capturing photos.

 

[FIREd]

I love the panoramic mode on the iPhone. It's so easy to use and the photo quality is quite good!

 

[seraphim]

There's a nice app called 645 pro which offers some nice features for iPhone photography. Also an editing app called Photogene. Both worth the investment.

 

[photoguy]

And I think another question is the ability of a digital printer to produce an acceptable quality for every use.

"If you are not intending to use your printed images for anything professional, then a resolution of between 200ppi and 300ppi should be fine. Most tests show that humans can't see the individual pixels unless the image resolution is lower than 200ppi."

Individuals may not be able to see the individual pixels, but I've no doubt they can tell differences in the smoothness of tonal and color transitions.

Read more: Quality Images in Print and Web Formats | Web Design Principles

This is a very odd article in the link and I think the author is confused and mixing up the dpi of the printer with the ppi of the input file.

For example, they write "Typically, most publishers require that the resolutions of their images be at least 600 ppi." No publisher I've ever worked with has asked for more than 300 ppi. Even 300 ppi is probably overkill for most publishing mediums (e.g. magazine).

Also they write that 300 ppi "is not typically an acceptable resolution for professional grade prints.". This is way off the mark -- 300 ppi on the input file is a great input resolution. If you look at professional labs like westcoastimaging, they state that you can get "superb" quality starting at a little more than 200 dpi.

https://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/faqprintlab.html
(click on the megapixel to print size chart link on the left)

Now if the article meant that the printer resolution had to be at least 600 dpi, then I would agree with it.

 

[seraphim]

This is a very odd article in the link and I think the author is confused and mixing up the dpi of the printer with the ppi of the input file.

For example, they write "Typically, most publishers require that the resolutions of their images be at least 600 ppi." No publisher I've ever worked with has asked for more than 300 ppi. Even 300 ppi is probably overkill for most publishing mediums (e.g. magazine).

Also they write that 300 ppi "is not typically an acceptable resolution for professional grade prints.". This is way off the mark -- 300 ppi on the input file is a great input resolution. If you look at professional labs like westcoastimaging, they state that you can get "superb" quality starting at a little more than 200 dpi.

https://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/faqprintlab.html
(click on the megapixel to print size chart link on the left)

Now if the article meant that the printer resolution had to be at least 600 dpi, then I would agree with it.

"
Chromira
The Chromira produces excellent prints at both 200 dpi and 300 dpi. You do not have to set the dpi of a file for us to make a print, but experienced photographers can increase the quality of their prints by following the following recommendations:

For digital camera files:
We recommend using the interpolation method outlined in our Photoshop Tips.

For prints from film:
We suggest setting your resolution to either 200 dpi or 300 dpi. We have noticed that prints 24x30 and larger look sharpest when printed at 200 dpi.



Epson Printers
360 dpi is the optimal resolution for Epson printers, although many photographers are satisfied when using lower resolutions. Resolutions other than 360 dpi can cause aliasing in your print.

If your file is smaller than 360 dpi and you want to avoid aliasing, you can up-res your file to 360 dpi. You can up-res a 240 dpi file to 360 dpi (150% up-res) with no noticeable loss of resolution. In general, our testing reveals that small files up-resed to 360 dpi look better than printing them as-is at a lower resolution.

For digital camera files, we recommend using the interpolation method outlined here."

 

[seraphim]

Researching .edu sites, it seems the input file is generally configured to 600 dpi for use on a higher dpi printer. It was never specifically stated, but all the examples - and I searched for 'fine art' - showed 600 dpi in the file size box.

The West Coast site used terms like 'excellent' and 'look good' or for 'most photographers'. It did mention, I think when referring to files made from film, that a slightly lower dpi produced a sharper image - but I'm assuming that's from a scanner, and sharpness may not always be the main goal. Mostly subjective, it seems.

Time to pull my old Epson wide format printer out of storage, if I can still find ink for it. Mostly been shooting for the web lately, and displaying images on the iPad. Haven't tried printing from the iPad onto a nice printer, just an air printer which only does 4x6.

An interesting article:

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/workflow/the-right-resolution.html

The article is 3 years old, so info on the specific printers may be dated, but the rest isn't.

 

[photoguy]

Time to pull my old Epson wide format printer out of storage, if I can still find ink for it.

I just had to sell my beautiful hp 24" printer (Z3200) due to moving . It was like my precious and made wonderful prints (although a bit slow).

 

[2soon2tell]

Photo Editing program

Can anyone recommend an inexpensive easy to use photo editing program? I am using Picasa 3.9 but would like more capability.

Thanks

 

[meierlde]

Can anyone recommend an inexpensive easy to use photo editing program? I am using Picasa 3.9 but would like more capability.

Thanks

I am not sure about the easy to use part, but there is allways GIMP:GIMP - The GNU Image Manipulation Program
Tried it once and it was not to bad to use but I had already gotten use to Photoshop Elements, which is a good program but I am not sure if $79 is inexpensive. (GIMP is free)

 

[walkinwood]

Try paint.net and see if you like it. Also free & a much easier learning curve than GIMP.
I use Lightroom & PSE - works for me.

 

[Nodak]

I use Corel's Paintshop Pro; it's about $80.

 

[Ronstar]

Try paint.net and see if you like it. Also free & a much easier learning curve than GIMP.
I use Lightroom & PSE - works for me.

I second Lightroom. But I do use GIMP and agree that it has a longer learning curve than most software. Maybe because support and help files are nonexistent. But after I got the basics down, its not that bad

 

[frayne]

Picassa, is free and will do 99% of what you need.

 

[2soon2tell]

Thanks for all of the responses. For now I will keep using Picasa.

 

[Chuckanut]

I am trying to learn Lightroom v.5, but since I don't use it frequently, I find it hard to remember what I have learned. I am looking for a good book that will help me learn LR and serve as a reference for when I forget how to do something. Watching the online tutorials takes a lot of time compared to simply looking up an example in a book.

What LR v.5 books do you recommend?