Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Fujifilm

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 20, 2007, 10:22 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20
Default

I agree with what jp is saying. it is quite easy to become a "pixel peeper" as an amateur photographer after being hit over the head by all the review sites and advertising from manufacturers.

As a case in point, still doing a fair amount of "pixel peeping" myself, I decided to quit looking at the image files on my computer and blowing them up for inspection, and took some pictures at ISO 400 and printed them out. First I printed 5x7 and when I could not see any noise I printed them out 8x10.

As opposed to the 19" LCD monitor that I have, where I enlarged the files so I could see the noise at 400 ISO, in the pictures you could not see a thing. And in the end that's really what we are after isn't it? Like J.P. said its enjoying the moment caught for posterity that we can see in the pictures.

And if you do have an image that is quite noisey you can use one of the noise reducing programs to make it printable.
eagle2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2007, 11:37 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

I have come to the conclusion that working with digital images has generally made us more critical of the quality of our work. Back when we were all using film, the way we looked at our images, whether they were prints or projected slide images, it was more difficult to detect flaws in the image quality. Digital photography allows us to scrutinize our images much more closely. Consequently, it is much easier for us to see what we consider to be "problems."

Back when I first got my scanner I was so excited because I now had the capability to digitize all my old photographs. Some of them were quite well preserved and I thought scanning them was going to be a fairly easy process. But it seems that many of those good images, after they were scanned, displayed little areas where the emulsion was gone, leaving little white spots that had to be fixed. Scanning, for me, quickly became a chore that I did not enjoy.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that, with digital photography, we are able to see things (some of them problems) that we were totally unaware of before. And that motivates us to strive for even higher standards of image quality. The 9000 series cameras produce extremely good quality images. They are not the best images. But we are able to see the problems more clearly and correct many of them if we are willing to do that. Again, thinking back to the days of film, unless we invested in a lot of darkroom equipment, there was very little that could be done to improve our images. I think this was especially so with slide images. What we shot was what we got. Yes, there was push processing and other techniques. But now, with digital photography, there are image editors in every price range that give us a lot more control than we ever had with film. I have seen comments from people wondering why it is so much more difficult to get a "good image" from a digital camera than it was back in the days of film. And I suggest that it isn't more difficult. It's just that we can now see, with the aid of the computer, what our eyes could not possibly detect from printed images or projected slides. There's an article on the Radiant Vista web site that talks about sharpness. The writer explains how little the eye can see compared to what the camera is capturing. It's too technical to even try to summarize beyond what I have written here. But I have taken a series of images with my old S9000 lately that when they are printed they almost startle me. Yes, I know that if I zoom in on them on the computer I will be able to find all sorts of flaws. But I just don't care anymore. It isn't worth it because the images are very good. None of them are worth showing because they are only interesting to me. But they have convinced me that I have a camera than suits my needs.
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2007, 12:04 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,063
Default

To illustrate the point I was trying to make in my previous comment, I am reluctantly sharing a recent image. This is not a particularly good image. You have to remember that I took it in RAW and it has been scaled way down so that it can be shared on this website. I only wish you could see one of the prints that I have made of this image. The quality, the clarity, the depth of the image is almost unbelievable in the print.
Attached Images
 
jphess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2007, 2:19 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20
Default

Nice shot JP!

I completely agree with everything you said.

Happy photographing to you.
eagle2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2007, 6:56 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5
Default

After reading the replies to this thread I have to say I agree 100% with the remarks regarding enjoying your pictures instead of getting involved in all the technical junk.

One thing 25 yrs as a Wedding Photographer taught me was the most important thing was to provide the client with a set of prints that were sharp, well exposed and more importantly pleasing to the eye, if I had worried about grain in films instead of concentraing on what I was doing I would have gone nuts or broke.

Sadly the internet seems to be full of fanatics that worry about what their camera is doing instead of composition, a bit like the knob twiddlers that get involved with home theatre or hifi.

The camera manufacturers love em, they change their cameras like some people change their socks or underpants, whilst on the subject of fanatics I have never been involved in camera clubs, the idea of having some old nutcase pawing over my photos with a magifying glass or loupe makes me want to throw up, that is not what photography is about, photography is about capturing a moment in time, it doesnt have to be perfect to have impact, I always think of the naked Vietmanese girl running away from the bombs, that picture was powerful enough to stop a war.

Cheers

Dave.
stillshooting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2007, 12:54 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 734
Default

stillshooting wrote:
Quote:
One thing 25 yrs as a Wedding Photographer taught me was the most important thing was to provide the client with a set of prints that were sharp, well exposed and more importantly pleasing to the eye, if I had worried about grain in films instead of concentraing on what I was doing I would have gone nuts or broke.

Sadly the internet seems to be full of fanatics that worry about what their camera is doing instead of composition, a bit like the knob twiddlers that get involved with home theatre or hifi.

The camera manufacturers love em, they change their cameras like some people change their socks or underpants, whilst on the subject of fanatics I have never been involved in camera clubs, the idea of having some old nutcase pawing over my photos with a magifying glass or loupe makes me want to throw up, that is not what photography is about, photography is about capturing a moment in time, it doesnt have to be perfect to have impact, I always think of the naked Vietmanese girl running away from the bombs, that picture was powerful enough to stop a war.

Cheers

Dave.

:-)You have a good sense of humour Dave. I kept coming back and read your post a few times before I jump in. You are not a professional photographer, not an amateur, you are a true photographer. Yes I saw that powerful picture long time ago, probably on Times magazine.

Here is a shot I took has similar impact, you can see more at Canon dslr under "400D" thread.

BTW I still have the Fuji S9000 and love it, not alot of people can handle it.



Attached Images
 
coldshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2007, 6:21 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5
Default

Hi coldshot, thanks for the kind remarks, I believe many folks out there think the same way about photography, they just wanna get out there and use the camera, I think part of the fun is pushing your knowledge and the camera to its limits, we are all learning all the time, even though I have used most film formats digital is a new challenge for me, lots of fun, very pleased with the results and for me I still use my digitals as though they are film cameras, I believe the method of capture may have changed but the basics are pretty much the same, I never worried about what my camera was doing 30 odd years ago and sure as hell aint gonna start now, I like to think I can make my cameras do what I want them to do, the day I stop being a thinking photographer will be the day they put me in a straight jacket.

OK on your picture, yep lots going on and with lots of atmosphere, no doubt about those Canon DSLRs they take great pictures.

Cheers

Dave.
stillshooting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2007, 7:46 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 734
Default

I agree with your phylosophy of taking pictures, I never have in my mind I'm using a digital camera, I use it as a film one like the good old days, I just pick up my camera go out on a field set the shutter speed/lens aperture and fire away, just keep thing simple.

I just entered dslr world, what I am looking in a Canon is it's reliability, the direction of the company, good lenses support from Canon and other third parties, I've heard they have good customer service.
coldshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2007, 9:37 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

This reminds me of and old debate. For years third party lenes for companies like tamronm and sigma were looked down apon becuase they were not as sharp. But in reallity most people never enlarged the pictures enough to notice the diferance. It was the same for printer, a higher DPI does not mean a better looking print. It's all too easy to get cuaght up in technical crap and forget what really counts. Do you like what you see?
tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2007, 11:27 AM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3
Default

You have the ISO too Low,This should be shot at 200 Speed FINE
drsacco is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:27 PM.