Digital picture tips

[digitalmorgan]

1. I strongly agree with using card readers v. hooking camera up to computer!

2. Picassa is good, but a STUNNINGLY good program for handling photos on your computer is Faststone Image Viewer. This is a RARE case where an excellent program is FREE! it browses, converts, edits, and more. I'd buy it if it weren't FREE. www.faststone.ORG

3. Shoot the best/biggest your camera can do! Folks buy a camera that claims '10 megabyte' photos, then are puzzled that the jpg files are only 4 megs. Its not just that they are compressed, (though jpg files do usually compress even at the camera's least-compressed setting) When shooting pics, if your camera allows it, shoot in a RAW format. Usually RAW (or TIFF) files use 32bit color and that largest-file-size possible for your camera is in that 32bit mode, non compression.

JPG files on the other hand are usually 24bit; loss of color and more (minimal, but hey)and therefor the files are smaller. JPG is a format useful for compressing files for uploading speed reasons, but you lose quality with jpg.

So; set your camera to take the biggest pics it can, set the file type to RAW or TIFF. THEN when you store them on your computer, you can use programs like Faststone Image Viewer to MAKE A DUPLICATE, then resize and convert your photo to a handier file. Keep your RAW/TIFF file, a jpg full screen and a thumbnail version of each picture.

* JPG is ok for online, onscreen... just avoid 'compressing' if you can. If you ever might want your photos used for offset press printing, they will insist on TIFF or RAW files to get good results.

 

[leehljp]

What is wrong with hooking the camera up to the computer for downloading?

I haven't had any problems in the past 5 years and three digital cameras. I have been using the Japanese version of the Digital Rebel XT for the past 2 years with no problems. Of course I have it set to the highest resolution. For photos and image editing, I have been using Photoshop since version 2.1 in the early '90s.

But always straight from the camera.

 

[gerryr]

Sorry, but for most people here, shooting photos of pens in RAW is an absolute waste of time. For posting to threads here, 100Kb is the limit. When I take a photo in RAW on my D40, the file size is 5.1Mb. By the time I compress that down in order to post it here, any advantage to be gained by shooting in RAW is totally lost. At the finest JPG resolution I get files that vary in size from about 2.1 to 2.3Mb. That still means a tremendous amount of compression in order to post here. I've discussed this with several pros and semi-pros and they have all agreed that for posting here and even to my website where I have restriction on how large a file I can upload, it does make any sense at all to shoot RAW. People making pens don't need the added distraction of dealing with RAW files, especially when there is nothing to be gained by doing it.

 

[Ron in Drums PA]

Reducing a file's size is a no brainer. You want a large image size in case you want to reproduce a quality hardcopy (photograph). You can alway reduce a file's resolution but you can never increase it. For many reasons a raw format is also the best format to use.

If you don't understand why, don't worry about it, you don't need that type of quality. There are always people who think an Instamatic gives as good a picture as a Hasselblad, and there is no convincing this type of person otherwise.

Photo Resizer
PIXresizer

 

[gerryr]

Ron,
I shoot RAW for everything except pens because there's no advantage. Sure, RAW will give me more tonal scale than JPG, but by the time I compress the file by 80-90% for posting here, I've lost all of that and more. The issue is not that I don't understand the difference, it's that for what we do here, the difference doesn't matter. If I could see any reason why I needed to make prints from my pen photos, I would shoot RAW.

I see that I mis-typed part of my post. It should read, "I've discussed this with several pros and semi-pros and they have all agreed that for posting here and even to my website where I have NO restriction on how large a file I can upload, it does NOT make any sense at all to shoot RAW." A very large part of their reasoning is because I'm shooting in a very controlled environment, I control the lighting, the exposure and the white balance.

And I do know the difference between an Instamatic and a Hasselblad. I've used Hasselblads and owned a Bronica for several years.

 

[dbriski]

I just wanted to correct one thing in the first post. You stated "Folks buy a camera that claims '10 megabyte' photos, then are puzzled that the jpg files are only 4 megs." But the camera is clamin that it takes 10 Mega Pixles, not mega bytes. This is the number of pixles in the sensor. This can be seen by looking at the dimesnsions of your resulting image. Ie 3008x2000 = 6016000 or 6 Million/Mega Pixels (Mine doesn't do 10 so I don't know the numbers off hand).

As for the RAW thing, if your just using them to post here or even just viewing on computer screen, its more touble than their worth, if you want the images for other uses (mostly print work) there are many advantages.

 

[digitalmorgan]

Wow.. stepped in an anthill didn't I?

My point, as someone understood, is that its better GENERALLY SPEAKING, to have a high quality file on disk that you can render down to lower quality copies. Considering how cheap the 'film' is in digital photography (hard drives, CDs, DVDs) its nuts to not save the BEST pic you can. Unless of course you KNOW you'll Never Ever Ever need a higher quality pic.

Not everyone understands this point about digital pix, jpg, raw, etc. and I was just trying to help.

Anyone try the Faststone software?

 

[digitalmorgan]

Oh.. as for hooking the camera up to the computer.... easy answer: batteries! If your cam uses the battery for power whilst hooked up to your computer - why do it? If not - no problem!

I've just met a lot of people who don't understand they can slip that SD chip into the computer... (shrug)

Also, generally speaking, its faster file transfers as well.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Couple points of minor disagreement to consider.
I leave my card in the camera and connect to the computer. I do this because I consider it much more convenient than removing the disk. Also, my camera uses a proprietary card that requires an adapter to get in a standard SD reader. Lotsa fuss finding it and inserting card. I don't like fuss. I am able to remember to turn off the camera and also I use rechargeable batteries. That's not a big deal, it's not even a little deal.
Like many (most?) people, I got lazy when I got my new digi cam (Sony DSC-H2) and leave on auto setting. That means all pictures are RAW. I adjust with software, usually PhotoShop Elements. Sometimes with Picassa for non-important pictures.
Another reason for shooting with RAW is that a card holds many pictures. I'll often shoot ten or twenty wildlife pictures a day plus other 'stuff'. A pen picture, for me, is not a special project. When I need the pic, I just take it even though there might be other work already on the card.
That's a lot of explanation to say, I keep it simple. Why fuss?
For serious editing, I'll use the software. As said, file sizes can be reduced but not increased.

 

[gerryr]

I hate to tell you this Frank, but according to the specs, your camera will not shoot in RAW, only JPG. As far as I can tell, only Sony's DSLRs have that capability. RAW images are uncompressed and take up at least 2x the space of a JPG fine image. I haven't tried it but I would also seriously doubt that Picasa can handle RAW images.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Originally posted by gerryr
<br />I hate to tell you this Frank, but according to the specs, your camera will not shoot in RAW, only JPG. As far as I can tell, only Sony's DSLRs have that capability. RAW images are uncompressed and take up at least 2x the space of a JPG fine image. I haven't tried it but I would also seriously doubt that Picasa can handle RAW images.

I have to convert everything if I want .jpg. Original files are grossly larger than the .jpgs.

 

[gerryr]

According to Sony's own specifications, the DSC-H2 only records in JPEG and MPEG1.
http://www.sony.co.uk/view/ShowProduct.action?product=DSC-H2&site=odw_en_GB&pageType=TechnicalSpecs&imageType=3D&category=DCC+Digital+Still+Cameras

 

[Ron in Drums PA]

Take a deep breath Gerry and relax

 

[digitalmorgan]

wow. some of you guys are wound a little tight!

A suggestion or tip that someone shares is nothing more than that; take it in the spirit its offered! If it don't apply to you then move on...holy cow! If having the highest quality picture saved somewhere means nothing to you.. ok!

I was just bringing it to the attention of saps like me that don't always know I have options like this. I'm still using a 3.2 meg camera, and with a pair of 1-gig SD cards, I can't fill them in a days shooting, so I'm perplexed at this need to 'save space'.

As for handling file types including RAW... here's overview on FastStone Image Viewer. BTW note 'lossless' turning of pictures.. you dont hear about that much.

FastStone Image Viewer is a fast, stable, user-friendly image browser, converter and editor. It has a nice array of features that include image viewing, management, comparison, red-eye removal, emailing, resizing, cropping and color adjustments. Its innovative but intuitive full-screen mode provides quick access to EXIF information, thumbnail browser and major functionalities via hidden toolbars that pop up when your mouse touch the four edges of the screen. Other features include a high quality magnifier and a musical slideshow with 150+ transitional effects, as well as lossless JPEG transitions, drop shadow effects, image annotation, scanner support, histogram and much more. It supports all major graphic formats (BMP, JPEG, JPEG 2000, animated GIF, PNG, PCX, TIFF, WMF, ICO and TGA) and popular digital camera RAW formats (CRW, CR2, NEF, PEF, RAF, MRW, ORF, SRF and DNG).

 

[Rifleman1776]

Originally posted by Ron in Drums PA
<br />Take a deep breath Gerry and relax

Thanks Ron. I don't understand why anyone would be so sensitive about this. The link he referred to was for U.K. and the page did say specs varied from country to country. Under the "camera" listings it did say this model is "Clear RAW NR". I don't know what that means. Under recording, it does say ".jpg or .MPEG".
But, what I do know is that my 'raw' files are huge, averaging 2.7mb and are shown in PhotoShop as .rgb. I'm not much of a digi-geek to explain that. But what I do know is that I must convert to .jpg and reduce file size to be workable. If Gerry wants to have a heart attack over this, that's his business.

 

[gerryr]

Heart attack, I doubt it. If you're going to give out information it should at least be correct. The files you claim to be RAW are JPG files, plain and simple. Check the specs at DPReview or Steve's digicams or your own manual. If your camera shot true RAW images, they would be at least 2x the size of the files you get. Photoshop Elements converts them to its own format and then has to convert them back to jpg in order for you to use them because ".rgb" extension is not something that any other program will recognize. You can call them "raw" files if you like, but you are using the term incorrectly because they are not true RAW files.

 

[digitalmorgan]

Frank - Adobe is owned by Satan! lol... if i remember right, .rgb is like photoshop's 'way' of working with .jpg... as a file type, .rgb is old and i dont remember any advantage to it... guessing no compression involved with it.. I use an older version of Corel Paint for editing photos. Most graphic programs, on saving a .jpg file, ask/allow compression rates; I always use 00 compression unless its for emailing or a thumbnail copy...

Another thing to be aware of is if you compress a .jpg, then reopen it, edit, compress again when saved, it can fugg up your picture.

 

[DCBluesman]

<b>RGB defined</b>: Stands for "Red Green Blue." It refers to the three hues of light (red, green, and blue, for those of you that are a little slow), that can mix together to form any color. When the highest intensity of each color is mixed together, white light is created. When each hue is set to zero intensity, the result is black. TVs and computer monitors use RGB to create the colorful images you see on the screen. In print, however, the 4 colors -- cyan, yellow, magenta, and black (CYMK) -- are used to create color images. See http://www.techterms.com/definition/rgb

<b>.RGB File Extension defined</b>: <b>1)</b> File Type 1 RGB Bitmap (Most common)
Category Raster Image Files
Common? No
File Description Color bitmap image format created by Silicon Graphics (SGI); generic format used for saving RGB color images on SGI workstations; recognized by various image viewing programs.

<b>2)</b> File Type 2 Q0 Image File
Category Raster Image Files
Common? No
File Description 24-bit color bitmap image format used by Japanese software; often saved with a .FAL file, which includes header information that describes the RGB image file. See http://www.fileinfo.net/extension/rgb

<b>Raw file format defined:</b> File Type 1 Raw Image Data (Most common)
Category Image Files
Common? No
File Description 24-bit RGB graphic containing uncompressed, raw image data; settings such as exposure and white balance can be edited with software after saving the image to a computer.

For an in-depth review of the raw format, check out http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-format.htm , a project of the University of Cambridge. It's an interesting read.

The site also has some interesting tutorials at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/bit-depth.htm .

 

[Ron in Drums PA]

RGB (Red Green Blue) is the most common color gamut for JPGs. Every program that can open JPGs will recognize this format. Another gamut for JPGs is CMYK (Cyan Magenta Yellow Black), many programs (including browsers) can not open this file.

All computer monitors (and TVs) are RGB. All color printers are CMYK. Most programs can either simulate CYMK or convert to CMYK before printing. This is why the color from your printer never looks like the color on your screen.

An CMYK JGB file is larger than an RGB JPG. But when exact color matters, a CMYK TIFF (even larger yet) is need. RGB JPGs convert easily to a CMYK TIFF . But every change in format and or color gamut loses image quality (sometimes the lose is hardly noticed). This is where RAW files become important because it has not been manipulated in any way, it is a raw image.

Every camera manufacturer has a different format for their raw images, it all depends on the software that is used in the canera. Many times different cameras from the same manufacturer will have different raw formats. This is why it is so confusing to most people.

.rgb file extension is only used by Silicon Graphics and is a generic format used for saving RGB color bitmapped images on SGI workstations.

If a picture is worth taking, it is worth taking right.
But sometimes a snapshot is only a snapshot, who cares what it looks like. Kodak made billions because people like snapshots. And they like to make them quick and easy.

Something to ponder...
I have thousands of photographs and negatives from my family, some dating back 80 years. (Ken Burns would love the photos my father took at Normady and The Bulge during WWII).

How are we going to view today's digital images 80 years from now? Or even 10 years from now?

 

[DCBluesman]

Originally posted by Ron in Drums PA
<br />How are we going to view today's digital images 80 years from now?

I won't have that problem. I'll be dead. []

 

[digitalmorgan]

good stuff Ron -

Hey that rminds me of a great tip (least it was to me years ago)

If you want to sharpen a picture, but when you do it looks 'edgy'......

IF your software supports LAB format, convert your pic to it.
your picture is now 4 pictures, a yellow, a magenta, a cyan (blue) and a greyscale.
Go to the greyscale and 'sharpen' the snot out of it.
Recombine the LAB seperations back into your jpg format.

Try it.. it works!

 

[Rifleman1776]

"Doctor, the pain started when I quit using film and went digital. And, it keeps getting worse. Can't you just shoot me and end it?"

Oh, well. I'm usually pleased with the results. []

<br />

 

[wdcav1952]

Crap, I was hoping this discussion would be conducted in English!!!! [] I'm not even sure how to access the manual features of my camera. [:I]

 

[Ron in Drums PA]

Originally posted by wdcav1952
<br />Crap, I was hoping this discussion would be conducted in English!!!! [] I'm not even sure how to access the manual features of my camera. [:I]

I was trying to keep it simple Cav, I can get more technical if you are interested.[][8D]

 

[wdcav1952]

Thanks, Ron, but I think I'll just go re-read War and Peace before bed! []

 

[Ligget]

Whats a camera? We don`t have them over here yet! []

 

[leehljp]

Crap, I was hoping this discussion would be conducted in English!!!!

If yall want another language, will Japanese do? []

Oh well, FYI, CMYK and RGB (as it relates to colors) represent the two different media in which color are viewed. CYMK relates to the "primary" colors that we see in print and out in the tangible world. We used to call this Red Yellow and Blue. RGB (Red Green and Blue) represent the "primary" colors of the light spectrum, or that which comes out of a TV, computer screen.

Computers must interpret light spectrum colors that you see on the screen and change them into the colors that a printer will print. That is the simple explanation and there is a lot more left unsaid.

 

[digitalmorgan]

(pardon broad generalities here - shooting from the hip) Actually, RGB, CYMK, etc are ‘ways’ of constructing color; there a several ‘systems’ out there for analyzing/constructing/representing color. A significant fact about RGB and digital photography is that your camera has sensors for each of those areas of the visual spectrum, one for red, one for green, one for blue. When you push that button, those sensors read the light in their specific spectrums and then a computer in the camera combines those into that file you get. Then it does its compression thing according to our settings, etc. A lot of work going on there!

A significant thing to know about CYMK is that it is the dominant process for off-set printing. If you look closely at offset printing you can see the little dots of cyan (blue), yellow, magenta (red) and black (K) printed in patterns, various sizes in proximity to each other. An easy to see example is the junk mail color ads from your grocery store. The tighter the pattern and the smaller the dots, the better the picture. There are now other color systems for offset press â€" I’ve seen work done on 6 and 8 color systems. The important thing to know is that the more info your photo file has the better in printing CYMK. (see my previous tip about LAB separations)

Oh â€" and if you’re thinking about offset printing of digital pics, eventually the issue comes up about resolution. We in the computer/inkjet word think in terms of ‘dots per inch’ or ‘dpi’. In the printing world, they go by ‘lines per inch’ and they are not the same for some reason. My understanding is that 300 dpi is roughly 150 lpi â€" a very acceptable resolution for offset color print. Generally speaking, if your photo looks ok at 300 dpi on your printer, it will do well at 150 lpi.

(I’m not an ‘expert’ at this stuff â€" but I’ve done desktop publishing, offset presswork and general digital image work for 20 years or so. I never let the fact that I don’t know about something keep me from trying it â€" or talking about it! Lol)

 

[Ron in Drums PA]

Originally posted by digitalmorgan
<br />Oh â€" and if you’re thinking about offset printing of digital pics, eventually the issue comes up about resolution. We in the computer/inkjet word think in terms of ‘dots per inch’ or ‘dpi’. In the printing world, they go by ‘lines per inch’ and they are not the same for some reason. My understanding is that 300 dpi is roughly 150 lpi â€" a very acceptable resolution for offset color print. Generally speaking, if your photo looks ok at 300 dpi on your printer, it will do well at 150 lpi.

(I’m not an ‘expert’ at this stuff â€" but I’ve done desktop publishing, offset presswork and general digital image work for 20 years or so. I never let the fact that I don’t know about something keep me from trying it â€" or talking about it! Lol)

Don't get me started on resolution.
You can get away with 300dpi, I usually work with 2400dpi. Files are rarely under 20meg for each image.

It seems that we may be in the same field.

 

[digitalmorgan]

um you seem more informed than I -


I thought that:

The picture file does not have a 'dpi'.. its just X wide and Y high.
The dpi refers to your output; e.g. 300 dpi inkjet printer
If I send a 1024x768 pic to a 72dpi device (monitor) = 14.22" x 10.67"
If I send a 1024x768 pic to a 300dpi device (printer) = 3.40" x 2.55"

Your 20 meg file... from a CAMERA? I could see a 20 megger from a laser scanned photo
(because you can tell the scanner to use that 'dpi' rate)

but then again, the file don't know dpi from shinola so

when you output it to screen its
just gunna be one bigazz picture
(unless Windows or software resizes 'to fit')

when you out put it to 300dpi it wont fit on 8.5x11 unless software resizes it...

Are you outputting to film? slides? Direct-to-plate? Thats all I can think of where 20 meg files are needed.. Do you have a 2400 dpi printer???

 

[Ron in Drums PA]

Originally posted by digitalmorgan
<br />
Are you outputting to film? slides? Direct-to-plate? Thats all I can think of where 20 meg files are needed.. Do you have a 2400 dpi printer???

Quickmaster DI 46-4 Pro

 

[Ron Mc]

LOL....Ron after taking a look at the Quickmaster DI 46-4 Pro I hope that thing cleans the house, feeds the pets, does the laundry, and gets darn good gas mileage!

 

[digitalmorgan]

duh ok... yeah, not gunna find those sitting on many desks..lol.... at 11x17 full bleed @ 1270 dpi, you should have 20 meg files!

nice machine.. what kind of run you get off one set of plates?

 

[digitalmorgan]

Looks lke you should be able to put logs in one end and pens come out the other... at 1800 per minute.

 

[GBusardo]

This thread is one of the huge reason's I do not care if my pen pictures are blurry
[]
Well, not the tread, but my idea that it's harder to take a decent digital picture than turn and finish a pen

 

[gerryr]

Actually it isn't hard at all once you figure it all out and you're satisfied. I have my light box set up all the time so I only have to turn on the lights, put the camera on tripod, put the right lens on the camera, put the pen in the box, compose, focus and shoot. I know exactly what aperture, shutterspeed, ISO and white balance to use, because it's all written down next to the light box. That all takes less than 5 minutes. I can't turn and finish a pen in 5 minutes.

 

[GBusardo]

Maybe for you Gerry, but not for me. [] I don't need another hobby and photography is another (expensive) hobby. Thanks for the reply tho, maybe when I am retired.....