«

I am still very green to digital photography. I still have an older Canon
A80 digital camera. I first noticed a pastely look to "some" prints a long
time ago after printing the prints at Costco. At the time, I thought it was
because I didn't use the maximum resolution of the camera. Since then, I
have noticed other people's prints do occasionally have this appearance as
well. Typically, this pastel look is on people's faces despite the MP
rating and image quality used.

Is this something common or do other cameras, like DSLRs have this problem
too? And why does it occur in the first place and how can one minimize or
fix that? BTW, I am considering getting an entry level DSLR, a Pentax K100D
because I still have a few older Pentax Zoom lenses. If the DSLR's have
this problem with "pastel" looks, I won't be buying one then.

Thanks for any suggestions or comments.

N

Newb wrote:
> I am still very green to digital photography. I still have an older Canon
> A80 digital camera. I first noticed a pastely look to "some" prints a long
> time ago after printing the prints at Costco. At the time, I thought it was
> because I didn't use the maximum resolution of the camera. Since then, I
> have noticed other people's prints do occasionally have this appearance as
> well. Typically, this pastel look is on people's faces despite the MP
> rating and image quality used.
>
> Is this something common or do other cameras, like DSLRs have this problem
> too? And why does it occur in the first place and how can one minimize or
> fix that? BTW, I am considering getting an entry level DSLR, a Pentax K100D
> because I still have a few older Pentax Zoom lenses. If the DSLR's have
> this problem with "pastel" looks, I won't be buying one then.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions or comments.
>
> N
>
The people who run the photo printing operations have some
control over the vividness of the prints, as you do if you
make the prints yourself.

For some photos, I deliberately make the colors pastel-like,
and print on watercolor paper. For photos of sunsets, I
make the colors more vivid.

With some cameras, you can set the vividness when you take
the photo. You can also make changes in an image editor,
and some printers let you control it as well.

"Pudentame" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:47def3a2$0$6497$(E-Mail Removed)...
> What is "pastely"?

Pastely, as I describe it is somewhat blotchy and also kindy of waxy. Very
fake looking. Kinda like coloring with pastels.

>
> Do you mean faded, washed out colors? Or are you talking about the image
> being kind of blocky/blotchy.
>
> The former is usually due to improper exposure; the latter is JPEG
> artifacts from using too much compression (low JPEG "quality") to get a
> smaller file size.

Hmm. You may be right. I just looked at the pics again, The camera is a
Fuji
Finepix S602 and the file is 309 KB, dimensions 1280x960. If not
mistaken, that equates to about 1.228 MP. The print is a 4x6. However,
looking at the pic on the monitor the resolution seems fine.
>
> FWIW, I'd suggest taking a look at Pentax's new K200D instead of the
> K100D.

Ok, thanks. Any particular reason?

"Pudentame" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:47def3a2$0$6497$(E-Mail Removed)...
> What is "pastely"?

Pastely, as I describe it is somewhat blotchy and also kindy of waxy. Very
fake looking.


> Do you mean faded, washed out colors? Or are you talking about the image
> being kind of blocky/blotchy.
>
> The former is usually due to improper exposure; the latter is JPEG
> artifacts from using too much compression (low JPEG "quality") to get a
> smaller file size.

Hmm. You may be right. I just looked at the pics, The camera is a Fuji
Finepix S602 and the file is around 309 KB, dimensions 1280x960. If not
mistaken, that equates to about 1.228 MP. The print is a 4x6. However,
looking at the pic on the monitor the resolution seems fine.
>
> FWIW, I'd suggest taking a look at Pentax's new K200D instead of the
> K100D.

Ok, thanks. Any particular reason?

In message <hDFDj.92711$w94.81796@pd7urf2no>, Newb <(E-Mail Removed)>
writes
>"Pudentame" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:47def3a2$0$6497$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> What is "pastely"?
>
>Pastely, as I describe it is somewhat blotchy and also kindy of waxy. Very
>fake looking. Kinda like coloring with pastels.
>
>>
>> Do you mean faded, washed out colors? Or are you talking about the image
>> being kind of blocky/blotchy.
>>
>> The former is usually due to improper exposure; the latter is JPEG
>> artifacts from using too much compression (low JPEG "quality") to get a
>> smaller file size.
>
>Hmm. You may be right. I just looked at the pics again, The camera is a
>Fuji
>Finepix S602 and the file is 309 KB, dimensions 1280x960. If not
>mistaken, that equates to about 1.228 MP. The print is a 4x6. However,
>looking at the pic on the monitor the resolution seems fine.

That is probably enough compression to produce some fairly visible
artefacts on a printed image already at such a low resolution to begin
with. Even if the image were in a lossless format you only have 200ppi
of resolution on a 6" print.

A rough guide is that a JPEG compressed image saved at 1byte per pixel
(or above) is almost indistinguishable from the original even for
experts. Your image is compressed to around 3 pixels per byte which is
enough to cause visible artefacts.

The other possibility if you have pastel shades is that there is a
mismatch between your choice of colour space and the one expected by the
printer.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Newb wrote:
> "Pudentame" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:47def3a2$0$6497$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> What is "pastely"?
>
> Pastely, as I describe it is somewhat blotchy and also kindy of waxy. Very
> fake looking.
>
>
>> Do you mean faded, washed out colors? Or are you talking about the image
>> being kind of blocky/blotchy.
>>
>> The former is usually due to improper exposure; the latter is JPEG
>> artifacts from using too much compression (low JPEG "quality") to get a
>> smaller file size.
>
> Hmm. You may be right. I just looked at the pics, The camera is a Fuji
> Finepix S602 and the file is around 309 KB, dimensions 1280x960. If not
> mistaken, that equates to about 1.228 MP. The print is a 4x6. However,
> looking at the pic on the monitor the resolution seems fine.
>> FWIW, I'd suggest taking a look at Pentax's new K200D instead of the
>> K100D.
>
> Ok, thanks. Any particular reason?
>
>
If the dimensions are 1280 x 960 pixels, that is the LOWEST resolution
available on the Fuji S602.
Also, a 309 KB file size for a 1.228 MP image is a pretty highly
compressed image. Low resolution and High compression is a recipe for
poor image quality. That is why the print looks blotchy.
You should always shoot at highest resolution and lowest compression.
A monitor is a pretty low resolution device compared to a print, so
images that look OK on a monitor may not look OK in a print.
Bob Williams

Martin Brown wrote:

> The other possibility if you have pastel shades is that there is a
> mismatch between your choice of colour space and the one expected by the
> printer.

I'm wondering if the 'waxy' look is to do with agressive noise reduction.
My camera phone does something funny in the noise reduction - continuous
tone areas are smoothed over, they have too little detail. That might be
described as waxy.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Bob Williams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news1MDj.7125$(E-Mail Removed)...
:
:>> FWIW, I'd suggest taking a look at Pentax's new K200D instead of the
: >> K100D.
: >
: > Ok, thanks. Any particular reason?
: >
: >
: If the dimensions are 1280 x 960 pixels, that is the LOWEST resolution
: available on the Fuji S602.
: Also, a 309 KB file size for a 1.228 MP image is a pretty highly
: compressed image. Low resolution and High compression is a recipe for
: poor image quality. That is why the print looks blotchy.
: You should always shoot at highest resolution and lowest compression.
: A monitor is a pretty low resolution device compared to a print, so
: images that look OK on a monitor may not look OK in a print.

Those pics weren't taken by me, but by someone who "supposedly" was into
photography.

Going back to my own camera, the Canon A80. I should use the maxium
resolution or 2272 x 1704 and superfine mode?
Does the maximum resolution and lowest compression apply as well to
DSLRs too, even with 6, or 10 MP too?

"Newb" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:OUUDj.95014$pM4.32404@pd7urf1no...
>
> "Bob Williams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news1MDj.7125$(E-Mail Removed)...
> :
> :>> FWIW, I'd suggest taking a look at Pentax's new K200D instead of the
> : >> K100D.
> : >
> : > Ok, thanks. Any particular reason?
> : >
> : >
> : If the dimensions are 1280 x 960 pixels, that is the LOWEST resolution
> : available on the Fuji S602.
> : Also, a 309 KB file size for a 1.228 MP image is a pretty highly
> : compressed image. Low resolution and High compression is a recipe for
> : poor image quality. That is why the print looks blotchy.
> : You should always shoot at highest resolution and lowest compression.
> : A monitor is a pretty low resolution device compared to a print, so
> : images that look OK on a monitor may not look OK in a print.
>
> Those pics weren't taken by me, but by someone who "supposedly" was into
> photography.
>
> Going back to my own camera, the Canon A80. I should use the maxium
> resolution or 2272 x 1704 and superfine mode?
> Does the maximum resolution and lowest compression apply as well to
> DSLRs too, even with 6, or 10 MP too?
>
>

The way I look at it, it's better to get a bigger memory card (or multiple
cards) and use the largest image / lowest compression settings than it is to
cram inferior images into limited storage.
The odds of printing something you'll be proud of will be a lot better that
way...


Good Luck,
Dudley

"Pudentame" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:47e05e9a$0$1099$(E-Mail Removed)...
:
: Yes. Those other pictures were probably taken by someone who set their
: camera up to get the maximum number of images on the memory card that
: came when they bought the camera.
:
: You want maximum quality in your images. Spare memory cards are cheap.
: They're especially cheap compared to the cost of irreplaceable images
: ruined by excess compression and low quality.

In my A80,. I had previously bought a Sandisk 1 GB Compact Flash card
(non Ultra II) and my A80 didnt like it at all. I had considerable
corruption on the card. I got fed up with it one day while on vacation
that I took whatever images I had on it and had them burnt to a CD. I
havent had any issue with corruption with my 256 MB card by Sandisk.