What does it mean Kodak Cameras over process

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Ken, Jun 18, 2006.

  1. Ken

    Ken Guest

    What exactly does this mean?

    I had a Kodak 280 zoom and never seemed to need to have to do much tweaking
    once on the PC. However I now own an Olympus 5060 and seem to need to do a
    lot more tweaking. So I have set the camera so the saturation, sharpness and
    contrast are all increased a little but wonder if I would be better, for my
    next camera, going back to a Kodak as I really just want to take the shot
    and have minimal fuss afterwards?

    Ken, Jun 18, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. At least early Kodak P&S were known to have a high level of jpg compression
    at even there best quality setting. Don't know about current models.
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Jun 18, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. As I recall, there were no settings on this camera for resolution
    (compression) except "high" and "standard". Using the high setting gave you
    uncompressed jpegs, and combining this with the "quality" setting on "high"
    gave you a 2.2 megapixel uncompressed image.

    The lens was a superb Ektanar zoom lens which combined with the settings
    above gave very good results up to about A4 size, or 10" by 8"

    I still have my DC280, it cost £299 and was better than many modern plastic
    fantastics. Built like a tank too!
    Dennis Pogson, Jun 18, 2006
  4. Ken

    Ken Guest

    This NG over a long period of time

    Ken, Jun 18, 2006
  5. Ken

    Ken Guest

    I suspect I have used the wrong term for which I am sorry. By over process I
    wasn't meaning compression but the other adjustments such as saturation,
    sharpness, etc.

    Ken, Jun 18, 2006
  6. Ken

    Stacey Guest

    if the current camera can have the settings adjusted to get the look you
    want, what is the problem? There is nothing wrong deviating from the
    "default" settings. I have my E1 set for +1 on saturation and +2 on
    sharpening when shooting jpegs.
    Stacey, Jun 18, 2006
  7. Ken

    Ken Guest

    I Loved my Kodak until it went slightly wrong and lost my confidence in it.
    But had served me well for a number of years.

    Ken, Jun 19, 2006
  8. Ken

    Ken Guest

    I have my camera set sat +3 & sharpness +2 and fairly happy with end results
    but seems a mystery why I have read that ALL digital images need adjustment
    on software.

    Ken, Jun 19, 2006
  9. Ken

    Walter Banks Guest


    I have a Kodak DX7590 I found that the detail on bright objects was lost in the
    images taken with this camera. The DX7590 has an electronic eyepiece that
    I could see detail that was missing from the JPG image. For example the small black
    feathers that are mixed in the white area's on Downy or Hairy woodpeckers
    were missing but visible in the electronic eyepiece.

    Most of the problems I have seen with this camera would have been fixable
    with software changes.

    The one thing I applaud Kodak for is making Ron Baird <>
    available to answer questions on this group often in the face of unwarranted
    criticism. I haven't seen a post from Ron for a month or two but he followed
    up often with private email answers to a lot of questions on Kodak's

    Walter Banks, Jun 19, 2006
  10. Ken

    Stacey Guest

    Many people digitally edit their images and sharpening should be done as the
    LAST step for optimum image quality. Also people's taste varies and the
    output devices vary so to get optimum end user quality, you have to play
    with the settings. Kodak probably assumed people buying their cameras are
    less likely to play with settings or digital editing so they cranked up the
    default settings towards direct printing? Given they sell lots of
    camera/printer combos, that makes sense.
    Stacey, Jun 20, 2006
  11. Ken

    Walter Banks Guest


    I agree. This was a software problem in the DX7590. There were two problems
    1) A design issue of not having an option for less compression or RAW mode
    2) The image was over compressed and there were bugs in the compression
    implementation where more of the image detail was lost in bright (not saturated
    white) areas than in other area's.

    I have a lot of good things to say about the camera, I just wasn't too impressed
    with the finish and choices made in the firmware.


    Walter Banks, Jun 20, 2006
  12. Ken

    Ken Guest

    Despite my moaning I have to say the shots I can turn out with my Olympus
    5060 and before the Kodak 280 are far far better than the old fashioned
    method using film with no choice on the adjustments and being reliant on the
    quality of the photo lab on the day my films were in for processing. However
    I am thinking of looking for my next camera but that is for another

    Ken, Jun 20, 2006
    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.