Photo Quality

Discussion in 'Digital Point & Shoot Camera' started by Theodore Hewitt, Dec 27, 2004.

  1. I have just bought a FujiFilm S7000. I am new to this digital camera thing.
    I have the camera set on Auto & the setting on 6 mp. The pictures I take
    don't look too bad when I download them to my computer, but when I enlarge
    them to 100 % in Photo Elements 3, they look nasty. Very grainy & blotchy
    looking color. I've looked at other people's pictures enlarged & they look
    good. Can someone advise me how to properly set the settings on a digital
    camera?
     
    Theodore Hewitt, Dec 27, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Theodore Hewitt

    Bill Guest

    Are the photos indoors without the flash? If so, turn on the flash and
    try again. Or take a few daylight photos outside and compare.
     
    Bill, Dec 27, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Most of what I've taken has been indoors. I have tried with flash & without.
    I have only taken one outside so far. The weather here has been on the dark
    snowy side of things.
     
    Theodore Hewitt, Dec 27, 2004
    #3
  4. Theodore Hewitt

    Bill Guest

    If you've used flash, then something is wrong with the settings. You
    should be able to get a good grain-free shot on Auto without any
    problems.

    Perhaps it's a problem with Elements. Have you tried viewing the image
    in another viewer, like the Windows XP image viewer or Paint?
     
    Bill, Dec 27, 2004
    #4
  5. No, I haven't tried those.

     
    Theodore Hewitt, Dec 27, 2004
    #5
  6. I just tried 3 other programs I have & the quality results were all the
    same.
     
    Theodore Hewitt, Dec 27, 2004
    #6
  7. Theodore Hewitt

    Norman Guest

    If you are using the full 6 megapixel setting, the 100% view will be
    very large but should be sharp and dot free.
    Check to see that you are on 6 mp. Then try on lower mp settings. Try
    on the lower different ISO settings (160 – 800)
    Manual: Equivalent to ISO 200/400/800 (resolution is set at 1M /
    2M /3M for shots taken at ISO 800) Try the 200 ISO setting.
    If still poor take back to shop and exchange under warranty if dealer
    unable to rectify problem/fault.
    Norman
     
    Norman, Dec 27, 2004
    #7
  8. Theodore Hewitt

    DaveT Guest

    I'm not familiar with your camera (I have a Canon A80) but there's a
    couple of ideas come to mind. What size and format are your output
    files? My most detailed 4 MP files can run over 3 Mbytes as jpegs; 6
    MP should give you even larger files than that. I wonder if perhaps
    your settings weren't saved for some reason and have dropped to lower
    resolution defaults?

    Also, is there a "film speed" setting -- "ISO"? High values there
    (400, 800 and higher) speed up the camera but introduce more noise
    into the picture -- a sort of digital grain.

    DaveT
     
    DaveT, Dec 27, 2004
    #8
  9. Theodore Hewitt

    Bill Guest

    Then it's a problem with the settings, or the camera is defective.

    Is there a reset option to return the settings to their defaults? Out of
    the box the camera should take decent pictures at the normal settings.
     
    Bill, Dec 28, 2004
    #9
  10. Theodore Hewitt

    Jude Guest

    With digital cameras, you want the best pictures, so you have to set your
    camera settings to best resolution rather than default settings called the
    raw, and also use the biggest file saved, the bigger the file saved, the
    better the resolution, more pixels=quality when enlarge, be careful,
    sometime when viewing pictures with software, you only get part of the file,
    not full pixels..it looks pixelite when enlarging..That camera of yours is a
    wonderful piece of technology and complex also, I suggest you read the book
    and make a lot of same shots with different settings..practice makes
    perfect.
    People tend to compare old film camera with digital..not the same..ols film,
    the lower the ASA speed=the best results, here in digital its oposite, the
    more or best quality settings and bigger file saved= best pictures
    Wish I could buy one of this soon because I LOVED photography and am
    learning digital..wow, what a different world

    Good Luck my friend

    http://www.torontopics.com/digital/fuji7000.html lots of reviews here
     
    Jude, Jan 7, 2005
    #10
  11. Theodore Hewitt

    The PhAnToM Guest

    here

    The default on my Olympus C-755 something like 2048x1782 or
    something... jpg. There is one higher jpg setting, and then a tiff
    setting which even when taking dark images (dark=less data=smaller
    file) comes out to about 14Mb... this is a 4Mp camera.

    Anyway, I have been reducing the images sizes (they default to
    something like 31"x... something) and you only notice pixelation when
    you zoom in higher than 200%. My images typically default to around
    100Kb.

    One other thing, I have only been using the 10x optical zoom (it
    mechanically zooms... but said "seamless" zoom, so I assumed it was
    always on). I was playing with it at a party over the holiday (taking
    some cool B&W photos) and I noticed that the default is digital zoon
    _off_. Heh. I thought my mile-away shots across some canyons up in the
    forest were pretty good. Now I will have to get out there and make sure
    I am getting 40x, not 10x.

    As for ISO and such... mine defaults to ISO 50, but it is adjustable in
    manual mode for 100, 200 and 400. You notice the added gain as a
    brighter preview image on-the-fly by scrolling through the ISO
    settings... very handy for previewing the proper setting (again, if you
    are in manual mode) if it is dark or at night (even in manual mode, the
    exposure time tries to adjust, which I kind of don't like).

    I have been getting what I think are nice pictures from it. I'll post
    weblinks maybe later tonight when I get home (everybody wants to see
    pictures, that's why we're here, right?).

    Zach
     
    The PhAnToM, Jan 7, 2005
    #11
  12. Theodore Hewitt

    MartinS Guest

    I believe most digital cameras have a higher jpg setting which is the
    same resolution but less compressed (comparable to selecting 95% quality
    when saving in an editing program). All jpg files are compressed to some
    extent, while tiff files are not, hence the larger size. On my 4Mp HP,
    the default image size is approx. 1.2Mb, and at the higher quality
    setting it's 2.0Mb. It all depends what you want to do with the pics; if
    you want to print them full frame at 4x6, a 2Mp (1200x1800) image at
    about 800Kb is perfectly adequate. If you want to edit and crop, you
    need to start with a higher quality. Every time you save a jpg, you lose
    some quality, so try to do all your edits on the original image before
    saving, and select a low compression setting. For ultimate quality, do
    all your edits in an uncompressed format such as bmp or tiff.
     
    MartinS, Jan 7, 2005
    #12
  13. Theodore Hewitt

    Donald Link Guest

    I thought that if you captured in raw format (a lot of digital cameras
    do not allow) that you would get the greatest possible image quality.
    I know a lot of the Photoshop experts recommend that you use this raw
    image to get the best possible editing results in Photoshop. I quess
    if you were not going to do editing it may not be helpful.
     
    Donald Link, Jan 7, 2005
    #13
  14. Not necessarily --- it means the greatest tweakability, but
    it also means a longer workflow and postprocessing.
    I *vastly* prefer getting the shot right in the first place.


    I averaged >135 shots/day in December, I have taken 1500 pics on
    a weekend (3-5 per object, I *love* continuous shooting).
    No, I am not a professional.

    Even with rigorous weeding I simply can not see me slogging through
    nearly one thousand pictures (and 5+ cd ROMs worth of RAW data)
    a week, converting them from RAW and tweaking the conversion
    settings ...

    I use JPEG and first weed, weed, weed out: not sharp? OUT!
    Not interesting? OUT! Not best in series? OUT! The rest
    gets some touching up, where needed: red eye removal, trimming,
    selective sharpening[1], sometimes white balance.

    I don't have the time to routinely do curve adjustments, correct
    light levels or other such stuff. I may do that when I need a
    picture but have no good one. But it really is better to spend 10
    or 30 minutes for a few more shots than more than 1 hour touching
    up the single mediocre one.

    Oh, RAW takes up _much_ more space than JPEG, and I don't fancy
    20+ GB a month in data (30+ cd roms) --- especially as I *do*
    backup my data.


    -Wolfgang

    [1] wrote my own extended GIMP plugin for that, so it does
    things as _I_ want it
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 7, 2005
    #14
  15. Theodore Hewitt

    The PhAnToM Guest

    Snow, raw images:
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637QAipZb
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006962rvTqCf

    Snow, auto-level with PS:
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637QAipZb
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244007641lNxEEw

    Rainbow, using PS to remove rain drops from camera lens (the trained
    eye can probably spot the area on the rainbow where I did a quick and
    dirty PS removal):
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/245445623/245457680XCKblD

    Raw image:
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232536553TtuqCA

    Auto-level with PS removes the fog:

    http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232536909hwlRfn

    No fog removal:
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232532067PwGPnZ

    Fog removed with PS:
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232531302PuRLGh

    (would have looked similarly washed out like previous photo, taken
    within 20 mins of each other)

    Now, I used to think that manipulation of digital images is cheating.
    When you think about it, however, that is exactly what darkroom work is
    with film. Taking contact prints to get the proper exposure time for
    final prints. Doging and burning when doing enlargements. A little
    alteration of data is sometimes not unwarrented. This is hobbyist
    photography after all. If the final result is a good picture, without
    comprimising the spirit of the subject, then it is all good, no?

    That being said, I am honest enough to say when I did some alterations.


    Zach

    My whole sailing (one day a few weeks ago) album, if anyone is
    interested.

    http://community.webshots.com/album/232530461CmUhdu/0
     
    The PhAnToM, Jan 7, 2005
    #15
  16. Theodore Hewitt

    The PhAnToM Guest

    Snow, raw images:
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637QAipZb
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006962rvTqCf

    Snow, auto-level with PS:
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637QAipZb
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244007641lNxEEw

    Rainbow, using PS to remove rain drops from camera lens (the trained
    eye can probably spot the area on the rainbow where I did a quick and
    dirty PS removal):
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/245445623/245457680XCKblD

    Raw image:
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232536553TtuqCA

    Auto-level with PS removes the fog:

    http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232536909hwlRfn

    No fog removal:
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232532067PwGPnZ

    Fog removed with PS:
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232531302PuRLGh

    (would have looked similarly washed out like previous photo, taken
    within 20 mins of each other)

    Now, I used to think that manipulation of digital images is cheating.
    When you think about it, however, that is exactly what darkroom work is
    with film. Taking contact prints to get the proper exposure time for
    final prints. Doging and burning when doing enlargements. A little
    alteration of data is sometimes not unwarrented. This is hobbyist
    photography after all. If the final result is a good picture, without
    comprimising the spirit of the subject, then it is all good, no?

    That being said, I am honest enough to say when I did some alterations.


    Zach

    My whole sailing (one day a few weeks ago) album, if anyone is
    interested.

    http://community.webshots.com/album/232530461CmUhdu/0
     
    The PhAnToM, Jan 7, 2005
    #16
  17. Theodore Hewitt

    The PhAnToM Guest

    In retrospect, the auto mode from the camera was probably not good
    enough. I should have switched to manual mode and increased ISO and
    maybe the aperture, or put it into "night" mode to compare. These were
    taken quick and dirty because we had a little kid and a worried mother
    with who didn't want us to stay out too long (it was just about dark,
    to be fair to her).

    Zach
     
    The PhAnToM, Jan 7, 2005
    #17
  18. raw, as in "RAW format" or rather as in 'as it came out of
    the camera'?
    Identical URL to 'raw' image, sorry, no difference.
    Obviously your camera was fooled: it delivered the pictures with a
    very blue cast. So you did a colour correction. But I think you
    removed _too_ much colour here. It almost looks like a b/w photo.
    Easy enough, it looks damaged. Without the raw image, there
    is no telling if/how the picture improved by rain drop
    removal.
    Yes, but does it improve the image? Haze _is_ one of the things
    the eye uses to see distance, and the result looks --- while the
    sky is much more dramatic --- much later in the day. Ok, it
    depends a lot on 'artistic' vs. 'documentary' photographing.
    It depends.
    Tell that to the judge. :)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 8, 2005
    #18
  19. I thought that if you captured in raw format (a lot of digital cameras
    You absolutely get the potential for better image quality, if for no
    other reason than the fact that you don't get JPEG artifacting. I
    find that the output of my Canon S30 (3MP) is fine even for 8x10 (and,
    actually, pretty good at 12x18), but I can't stand the JPEG-look even
    at 5x7.

    I wish more cameras offered compressed TIFF, or some other lossless
    compression.

    -Joel
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Mar 6, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.