New to digital: Prints "Pastel like"

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Newb, Mar 17, 2008.

  1. Newb

    Newb Guest

    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, Mar 17, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Newb

    Marvin Guest

    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.
     
    Marvin, Mar 17, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Newb

    Newb Guest

    "Pudentame" <> wrote in message
    news:47def3a2$0$6497$...
    > 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?
     
    Newb, Mar 18, 2008
    #3
  4. Newb

    Newb Guest

    "Pudentame" <> wrote in message
    news:47def3a2$0$6497$...
    > 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?
     
    Newb, Mar 18, 2008
    #4
  5. Newb

    Martin Brown Guest

    In message <hDFDj.92711$w94.81796@pd7urf2no>, Newb <>
    writes
    >"Pudentame" <> wrote in message
    >news:47def3a2$0$6497$...
    >> 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
     
    Martin Brown, Mar 18, 2008
    #5
  6. Newb

    Bob Williams Guest

    Newb wrote:
    > "Pudentame" <> wrote in message
    > news:47def3a2$0$6497$...
    >> 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
     
    Bob Williams, Mar 18, 2008
    #6
  7. Newb

    Peter Chant Guest

    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
     
    Peter Chant, Mar 18, 2008
    #7
  8. Newb

    Newb Guest

    "Bob Williams" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:1MDj.7125$...
    :
    :>> 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, Mar 18, 2008
    #8
  9. Newb

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Newb" <> wrote in message
    news:OUUDj.95014$pM4.32404@pd7urf1no...
    >
    > "Bob Williams" <> wrote in message
    > news:eek:1MDj.7125$...
    > :
    > :>> 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
     
    Dudley Hanks, Mar 18, 2008
    #9
  10. Newb

    Newb Guest

    "Pudentame" <> wrote in message
    news:47e05e9a$0$1099$...
    :
    : 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.
     
    Newb, Mar 19, 2008
    #10
  11. Newb

    Newb Guest

    "Pudentame" <> wrote in message
    news:47e059ec$0$1097$...
    :
    :
    : More or less the same price (until the K100D starts going for
    clearance)
    : and the K200D is 10.2 Mpix instead of the K100D's 6.1 Mpix.
    :
    : The K200D has a lot in common with the K10D, which is also a bargain,
    : and probably will become more so, since the K20D [14 Mpx] has been
    : announced.

    Locally, the K100 with lens is selling for around $465 while the K200
    body only is around $700. That's why I am thinking of the K100, then
    again, even a brand new basic Pentax 50 mm F1.4 lens is now selling for
    around $170 compared to around $100 a few years ago. That's one lens I
    don't have in my analogue Pentax lens that I wished I had.
     
    Newb, Mar 19, 2008
    #11
  12. Newb

    Bob Williams Guest

    Newb wrote:
    > "Bob Williams" <> wrote in message
    > news:eek:1MDj.7125$...
    > :
    > :>> 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.

    The Fuji S602 is a 6 year old camera. In 2002, memory cards were very
    expensive In those days, many people who shot a lot of pictures or ONLY
    wanted to send the images to friends and family via e-mail, shot in low
    resolution and high compression to save valuable memory card space.
    Today, flash memory is extremely cheap and there is no compelling reason
    to shoot in anything but large/superfine format.
    Once the camera saves an image in low resolution/ high compression,
    there is NO way to recover high image quality.
    >
    > Going back to my own camera, the Canon A80. I should use the maximum
    > resolution or 2272 x 1704 and superfine mode?


    Absolutely!!

    > Does the maximum resolution and lowest compression apply as well to
    > DSLRs too, even with 6, or 10 MP too?


    Absolutely!!!

    If you ever want to reduce the resolution or increase the compression in
    order to reduce the file size of the image (usually to send an E-Mail or
    place the image on a website), you can do that with your photo editing
    program.
    When you pay big bucks for a fine camera, you should have a very good
    reason to NOT use it at its highest potential.
    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, Mar 19, 2008
    #12
  13. Newb

    Bob Williams Guest

    Newb wrote:
    > "Pudentame" <> wrote in message
    > news:47e05e9a$0$1099$...
    > :
    > : 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.
    >
    >

    When older cameras like the A80 (2003)came out, 1 GB cards were not
    readily available at reasonable prices so the manufacturer did not make
    allowances for compatibility with such high capacity cards. That is
    probably why your A80 does not play well with a 1GB card, but likes a
    256 MB card.
    Bob
     
    Bob Williams, Mar 19, 2008
    #13
  14. Newb

    Bob Williams Guest

    Pudentame wrote:
    > Bob Williams wrote:
    >> Newb wrote:
    >>> "Pudentame" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:47e05e9a$0$1099$...
    >>> :
    >>> : 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.
    >>>

    >> When older cameras like the A80 (2003)came out, 1 GB cards were not
    >> readily available at reasonable prices so the manufacturer did not
    >> make allowances for compatibility with such high capacity cards. That
    >> is probably why your A80 does not play well with a 1GB card, but likes
    >> a 256 MB card.
    >> Bob

    >
    > But, why then, would the A60 handle them with no problems?


    Don't Know....
    Maybe it is "Card Manufacturer Specific"
    I bought my wife a little Pentax Optio 30 about 4 years ago.
    Pentax support says the camera can use a max. of 512 MB.
    I tried a 1 GB anyway and it works fine, so far.
    I passed this info on to a friend who also had an Optio 30.
    She tried a 1 GB Card and it was erratic.
    Her 512 MB worked flawlessly.....Go figure?
    Bob
     
    Bob Williams, Mar 20, 2008
    #14
  15. Newb

    John Turco Guest

    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



    Hello, Newb:

    I own a K100D and use it with a Pentax 28mm F3.5-80mm F5.6, the kit lens
    borrowed from my ZX-60 (35mm film camera). This so-called "pastel look"
    has never reared its ugly head, around here. <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 21, 2008
    #15
  16. Newb

    John Turco Guest

    Newb wrote:
    >
    > "Pudentame" <> wrote in message
    > news:47e059ec$0$1097$...
    > :
    > :
    > : More or less the same price (until the K100D starts going for
    > clearance)
    > : and the K200D is 10.2 Mpix instead of the K100D's 6.1 Mpix.
    > :
    > : The K200D has a lot in common with the K10D, which is also a bargain,
    > : and probably will become more so, since the K20D [14 Mpx] has been
    > : announced.
    >
    > Locally, the K100 with lens is selling for around $465 while the K200
    > body only is around $700. That's why I am thinking of the K100, then
    > again, even a brand new basic Pentax 50 mm F1.4 lens is now selling for
    > around $170 compared to around $100 a few years ago. That's one lens I
    > don't have in my analogue Pentax lens that I wished I had.



    Hello, Newb:

    I ended up paying a mere $329 USD, for my K100D (body only), last year.
    That was after subtracting a $50 factory rebate, which Pentax promptly
    sent, within a month or so.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 21, 2008
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bill Tuthill

    Durability of inkjet prints, photo prints

    Bill Tuthill, Apr 23, 2004, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    783
    Lewis Lang
    Apr 27, 2004
  2. Replies:
    59
    Views:
    1,923
    Bob Hickey
    Dec 10, 2005
  3. Newb

    New to digital: Prints "Pastel like"

    Newb, Mar 17, 2008, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    397
    John Turco
    Mar 21, 2008
  4. Frankie
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    388
    Frankie
    Oct 31, 2008
  5. Morton Linder

    Machine Prints Versus Home Prints

    Morton Linder, Feb 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    178
    Stacey
    Feb 10, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page