[at-l] Digital Cameras - What Kind of Pics do you like to look at?

[icw@xxxxxxxxxxx (Clark Wright)]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
the biggest question re digital versus film that often gets glossed over
[or is that matted over? :)] is whether you really like to hold a
genuine picture, printed on photographic paper, in your hot little
hands; if the answer is "yes," then make sure you take into account the
following issues:

1)  You gotta have a good color printer;
2)  you gotta buy expensive, photo quality paper;
3)  you gotta buy a lot of refill color ink cartridges; and
4)  the jury is still out on whether inkjet printed color pics - even on
the "best" equipment - will or will not color fade after "x" years.

the last item raises issues that cut both ways, however; one good reason
to "digitize" old pics is to save them from further paper deterioration,
for [we hope] there always will be a way to convert a digital computer
file into a photo in the future, but paper does inevitably fade and then
crumble . . .

summing it all up - if you primarily plan to enjoy your pics on a
computer screen, and share them with others via the web, e-mail and/or a
computer projection system, then digital makes real good sense; if, on
the other hand, you want a tangible photo album, or need to share with
others who are not plugged in to the digital age, or want real photo
slides, then old fashioned photo and film/slide processing can make real
good sense [and, as I've often noted, you then can get a photo CD made
of any roll of pics you've taken the old fashioned way].

one final point - i think it is fair to say that the major trend is
towards digital, and that future technological improvements in the
printing process will continue to bring print costs down and quality up
. . .

thru-thinker

Papa Bear wrote:

>Jan Leitschuh wrote:
>
>>Okay, my Trail camera should come next week, my first digital. With
>>any luck, I'll bring it to the Ruck and "practice." Watch out!
>>
>
>>I'm ready to buy Compact Flash cards.
>>So...
>>1) Is 128 a decent size? How many pix might it hold on best resolution
>>(3MP camera)
>>
><cut>
>
>Jan
>
>I would suggest you consider a lesser resolution.  I also have a 3 Mpix
>camera but I have set the resolution to 1024x768.  With this resolution I
>would get about 400 shots on the 128 Meg card (of course use JPEG).
>(Actually I have 64 Meg cards since I have last year's model and I get 200
>shots on them).  Check the Gallery on Ryan's site.  Most pictures are taken
>at somewhere between 1024x768 and 1600x1200.  Photos scanned on home type
>(i.e. cheap) scanners are usually worse than any of these settings.
>
>For example I use 1024x768 (0.8 Mpix)
>http://gallery.backcountry.net/papabear_section_2
>
>Mrs. Gorp uses 1200 x 800 (1 Mpix)
>http://gallery.backcountry.net/Damascus-HarpersFerry2002
>
>Chase uses 1280x960 (1.2 Mpix)
>http://gallery.backcountry.net/roan
>
>Chomp uses 1600x1200 (1.9 Mpix)
>http://gallery.backcountry.net/chompwindriver
>
>(How can you tell?  If it was taken with a digital camera there will be a
>link in the upper right labeled "Photo Properties" after you click on an
>image.  This will tell all.)
>
>See if you can tell the difference between any of these.  Bet you can't!
>
>The reason being many folks (not all) display and share photos primarily via
>email and the web.  Higher resolution is wasted.  Takes longer to write on
>the card, longer to upload, download, more space on your hard drive etc.
>
>OTOH, if you will primarily be printing your pictures (make sure you use
>good quality photo paper and hopefully you have a good quality ink-jet),
>then sure, go with the max resolution.
>
>I suggest when you get your new toy, take a variety of pictures at each
>resolution setting it has.  Print them. Eemail them.  Put them up on the
>gallery (or just display them on your computer).  It's going to be a trade
>off between higher resolution (which you may not even see) and slower,
>bigger files.  If I used the full 3 Mpix on my web based stuff, people would
>grow old and die while waiting for my web pages to download.
>
>And of course you can take some shots lower res, some higher.
>
>Have fun and report back.
>
>Pb
>
>(bet this is not really your last question)
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>>From the AT-L mailing list         est. 1995
>Need help?  http://www.at-l.org
>Archives: http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/
>Change your options or unsubscribe:
>http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>
>Stay on topic!
>
>

--