Can a 4.1 Take a 8" x 10" Portrait?
mut...@yahoo.com
two unbelievably good digital photos from my HP 4.1. The lab tells me
a 4.1 can't take anything larger than a 4 x 6. Is this true? All the
online digital camera primers say with 4,000,000 pixels, you should be
able to take a *11 x 14* picture?
If this isn't true, what size MP camera do you have to buy in order to
take a 8 x 10 where the head is not cropped to the size of a watermelon
(IOW, fills up the entire frame and even loses some of its hair)?
Thank you.
Jeremy
<mut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150974899....@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
IF you apply the 300 PPI standard as your guide, then a 2.3 MP can take
"excellent" 4x6 and an 8 MP can take "perfect" 8x10.
In practice, many photographers get fine prints from less megapixels.
KodakGallery (formerly OFOTO) claims they can produce 20x30 prints from 2MP
cameras. It all depends on how high you set your standards.
tomm42
My 1.3mp Fuji can do a nice 4x6, my 3.3mp Nikon 995 does nice 8x10s.
You should be able to do 8x10s from a 4.1, 11x14 in a pinch.
Good photos also depend on your skill, the larger you go the less
chance for errors. Don't judge just from the LCD on the camera, use a
photo editor/viewer and look at the picture at 100% ie fully laid out
on the screen at what size your images are at 100ppi. Watermelon heads
often come from using WA settings for portraits, that can work but not
if you are filling the frame with the subject. Make sure you're in a
mid range to short telephoto to do portraits. Some P&S cameras don't
have great lenses, if you have been happy with your images previously
this is probably not the case.
It also sounds like your processor is giving you faulty info, time to
use someone else.
Tom
m Ransley
it look on your screen.
Roy G
> take a 8 x 10 where the head is not cropped to the size of a watermelon
> (IOW, fills up the entire frame and even loses some of its hair)?
>
> Thank you.
>
Hi.
First of all the cropped content of the 8 x 10, ( the Big Head), has nothing
to do with the pixel count of the Camera.
It has to do with the proportions of the Sensor. Most digicams are in the
proportions of 12 to 9, which is a different shape fom 10 x 8. So, in order
to produce a 10 x 8 without Empty Space at the sides, some of the length
needs to be cropped off, hence your loss of hairline.
If you had asked the lab to print to 10 x 7.5 all of the picture would have
been included.
That size actually gives a very nice result if printed onto an A4 piece of
paper, especially if a nice little border is applied.
You could Edit the image by changing its size, (in inches not pixels), to 10
x 7.5 or to 9.3 x 7. Then add a nice little border of say .1 or .2 inch in
a toning colour. Then increase the "Canvas" size, which adds white round
about, but does not change the image size, to 10 x 8.
Send that off for printing at 10 x 8.
If you are not able to Edit the image sufficiently well, then you should
think about leaving more space round the subject when taking the picture.
Pointing the Camera and pressing the button is the easy part of photography,
whether Digital or Film. The processors only do what you ask, they don't
have time to care what the result looks like.
Roy G
Joseph Meehan
> I've gotten two unbelievably bad, watermelon-head size portraits from
> two unbelievably good digital photos from my HP 4.1. The lab tells me
> a 4.1 can't take anything larger than a 4 x 6. Is this true? All the
> online digital camera primers say with 4,000,000 pixels, you should be
> able to take a *11 x 14* picture?
Time for a new lab.
While 4.1 might not be the ideal size, it is large enough to produce
same very good results. In the hands of a skilled photographer I would
expect better results than I would produce with a much finer camera.
>
> If this isn't true, what size MP camera do you have to buy in order to
> take a 8 x 10 where the head is not cropped to the size of a
> watermelon (IOW, fills up the entire frame and even loses some of its
> hair)?
>
> Thank you.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
[BnH]
=bob=
<mut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150974899....@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jeremy
news:Nnvmg.13696$nS5.6826@trnddc07...
I neglected to mention that you can often see marked improvements in the
sharpness of your photos by shooting with a tripod and using your remote
control to fire the shutter. If your camera does not have a remote control,
use the self timer to trip the shutter, rather than pressing the shutter
button and causing vibrations.
My commitment to digital is not very great, and I continue to use my 2.3 MP
Ricoh RDC-5300 camera. Since I normally use that camera only for 4x6
prints, I am quite happy with the results (it also happens to have a 3:2
aspect ratio, so no cropping is required to produce 4x6). It also has a
9-element optical glass lens, including 2 aspherical elements. When I
bought it, in 2000, it was close to state of the art.
I have found that by using the tripod and remote control, and by not
introducing any camera shake from manually holding the camera or tripping
the shutter, my shots are much sharper. It is especially noticeable with
foliage--shrubbery doesn't have that "fuzzy" look, and distant tree branches
are sharp and well defined.
Also I use KodakGallery for all my prints (I don't own an inkjet or dye
sublimation printer) and I believe that Kodak may utilize sophisticated
technology to bring out the best in terms of sharpness. I've only gone as
big as 8x10 with that camera, but I was quite pleased with the results from
Kodak. I don't know if I would have gotten prints as good if I had done
them at home.
Your camera store was dead wrong when they said that you "could not" make
larger prints. You certainly can, but they may not be as crisp as they
would have been had you used a camera with more megapixels. But you should
try to maximize the results from those factors that you CAN control with the
camera that you do have:
1: Use a tripod if possible
2: Fire the shutter using a remote control or the self-timer.
3: Try an online printing service to see how their prints compare with
whatever you use now.
4: Be aware that flare and veiling glare reduce contrast, and that results
in less "apparent sharpness." (Like trying to see in a fog). Try to shield
the lens front element from direct sunlight beating on it. Use the old
technique of shooting with the sun to your back, if practical.
5: Be sure that your camera is set for maximum file size and lowest
compression. If your camera has "economy" settings, don't ever use them.
If your camera allows you to set the defaults, always go with "Fine"
resolution, not "Normal" or "Economy" (or whatever your camera calls it).
The rule of thumb that I use is to toggle through the settings until your
image count indicates the LOWEST number of remaining images--that means
you're set to produce the largest file size (and to capture the most
detail). Be sure you are doing that, because you might not be taking full
advantage of your camera's capabilities, and not even know it.
6: Experiment with exposure settings to be sure that you are not blowing out
too many highlights. I have found that by shooting 1 stop darker, and then
increasing the gamma in my editing software, I avoid losing the highlights.
Admittedly its a pain to have to do this, but the results are worth it.
7: If this is too much to bother with, just buy a good DSLR . . . :-)
David Dyer-Bennet
> I've gotten two unbelievably bad, watermelon-head size portraits from
> two unbelievably good digital photos from my HP 4.1. The lab tells me
> a 4.1 can't take anything larger than a 4 x 6. Is this true? All the
> online digital camera primers say with 4,000,000 pixels, you should be
> able to take a *11 x 14* picture?
I've got at least 4 8x10 prints framed up on the walls made from 2
megapixel images. They look great! But you can't always *count* on
getting results that good, it's subject dependent and shot dependent
-- everything has to be right. Because 2 megapixels really isn't
enough; you can just get away with it sometimes.
4 megapixels is a lot better; if they're decent pictures they *ought*
to work out okay.
> If this isn't true, what size MP camera do you have to buy in order to
> take a 8 x 10 where the head is not cropped to the size of a watermelon
> (IOW, fills up the entire frame and even loses some of its hair)?
I don't understand how you think the MP interacts with the cropping
there.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Steve Wolfe
If you take a good, sharp picture to begin with, it will make an
acceptable 8x10. If the image isn't very sharp to begin with, then it's
going to be a lot more obvious at 8x10 than at smaller sizes.
steve
John McWilliams
That assumes sharpness is critical, which it may be, but sometimes is
even counter to a good image. Except if you're strictly ƒ.64, that is.
--
John McWilliams
Ron Hunter
adequate for good quality 8x10 prints.
Nerv...@gmail.com
> > acceptable 8x10. If the image isn't very sharp to begin with, then it's
> > going to be a lot more obvious at 8x10 than at smaller sizes.
> >
>
> That assumes sharpness is critical, which it may be, but sometimes is
> even counter to a good image. Except if you're strictly ƒ.64, that is.
If sharpness were critical, I would have said "No, 4 megapixels is
not enough."
steve
Ron Hunter
between an 8x10 from a 4 mp camera, and one from an 8 mp camera, but at
a normal viewing distance, I doubt it. Sometimes 'good enough' is good
enough.
mut...@yahoo.com
> >
> I am sure that if you used a loupe, you could tell the difference
> between an 8x10 from a 4 mp camera, and one from an 8 mp camera, but at
> a normal viewing distance, I doubt it. Sometimes 'good enough' is good
> enough.
Well, I just want to thank everyone for the great responses. Some are
conflicting, but as always on this group, I got more information than I
ever anticipated.
Randy Berbaum
: I've gotten two unbelievably bad, watermelon-head size portraits from
: Thank you.
Once again the answer is a firm Maybe. :)
It depends on what you are expecting and what will satisfy you.
Many years ago I used a 1.2mp camera to take my family portrait. I then
printed the image as an 8x10 and this photo is still proudly displayed in
a frame on my parent's piano. I suspect that if I took a magnifier and
examined the image I would be disapointed in comparison with my more
recent 6mp images. But for me and my family this image is perfectly fine.
So if the criteria for acceptability matches the one for this photo (only
you can decide that) your 4.1 would give you nearly 4 times the detail I
had and thus be nearly 4 times as acceptable.
One question. I don't fully understand your "watermelon head" description.
Are you saying that some photos you took and had printed showed elongation
along the horizontal to resemble an oval? If this is what you are saying
you need to find a photo printer that is much better at their business.
Randy
==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
k-man
very nice 8 X 10's and even 12 X 18's (used PhotoShop to enlarge it).
So, with 4.1MP, you should be good.
Kevin
Jeremy
>
> Many years ago I used a 1.2mp camera to take my family portrait. I then
> printed the image as an 8x10 and this photo is still proudly displayed in
> a frame on my parent's piano.
There is an interesting article on the Ken Rockwell web site that discusses
what he describes as the "Megapixel Myth." He says:
"Forget the silly debate over pixel counts among digital cameras. There is
little visible difference between cameras with seemingly different ratings.
For instance, a 3 MP camera pretty much looks the same as a 6 MP camera,
even when blown up to 12 x 18!" I know because I've done this. Have you?
Resolution has little to do with image quality. Color and tone are far more
important technically. Even Consumer Reports in their November 2002 issue
noted some lower resolution digital cameras made better images than some
higher resolution ones."
But here is the part that most caught my attention:
"Camera makers use the number of megapixels a camera has to hoodwink you
into thinking it has something to do with camera quality. They use it
because even a tiny linear resolution increase results in a huge total pixel
increase, since the total pixel count varies as the total area of the image,
which varies as the square of the linear resolution. In other words, an
almost invisible 40% increase in the number of pixels in any one direction
results in a doubling of the total number of pixels in the image."
Here is the URL for the complete article:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
Nerv...@gmail.com
> > If sharpness were critical, I would have said "No, 4 megapixels is
> > not enough."
> >
> > steve
> >
> I am sure that if you used a loupe, you could tell the difference
> between an 8x10 from a 4 mp camera, and one from an 8 mp camera, but at
> a normal viewing distance, I doubt it. Sometimes 'good enough' is good
> enough.
Go try it.
Having printed 8x10s from 3 or 4 megapixels, if the original image is
nicely sharp, then they turn out accceptable - but visibly different
from those printed from, say, 8 megapixels.
However, if the original image is less than nicely sharp, the
4-megapixel print gets really ugly in a hurry.
steve
k-man
K.
Olin K. McDaniel
Without having gone to read the referenced article, I'll throw out my
comments and observations. I've used 2.1 MP and 3.2 MP CoolPix by
Nikon that produced better images overall than 5 and 6 MP cameras of
some other brands. That includes sharpness, color balance, and
general quality. Perhaps it comes from better quality lenses, and
some other not so well known features - but regardless I don't feel
judging a camera's worth by MPs alone very useful.
Olin McDaniel
>
Brad Sims
> Without having gone to read the referenced article, I'll throw out my
> comments and observations. I've used 2.1 MP and 3.2 MP CoolPix by
> Nikon that produced better images overall than 5 and 6 MP cameras of
> some other brands. That includes sharpness, color balance, and
> general quality. Perhaps it comes from better quality lenses, and
> some other not so well known features - but regardless I don't feel
> judging a camera's worth by MPs alone very useful.
Another thing to consider is actual sensor size. The more sensors
you try to cram into a given space the more noise.
I have seen this for my self, my elderly Olympus C3000Z (3.3MP) produces
less noise at night than my Canon IS2 (5.0MP).
Now which is better, depends. The Canon has more zoom, more res. and
better manual settings; the Oly is smaller and simpler to use.
--
Usenet is a co-operative venture, backed by nasty people - follow the
standards.
- Chris Rovers in a.s.r
Bern
I'm new to this group but thought I'd give my 2 cents.
I say go to a better photo shop. There are several different
technologies for doing graphic printing of which the best is Dye Sub,
whereas the standard home user has Ink Jet or Bubble Jet. Don't get me
wrong, there are pros that print large format using Epson Photo
printers but I rarely see these in the in the photo shops. With a good
Dye Sub printer, a nice clean photo from a 2 MP digital camera can
produce a photo quality 8 x 10. The downside is the cost, about $10 per
print whereas I print 4 x 6 pictures on photopaper at home for 30 cents
each. If I feel like taking a 20 minute drive, I can print a 4 x 6 for
17 cents each.
Note: For those that are now thinking about a Dye Sub, they cost around
$1,000 which is alot more than the $30, including rebates, Epson
Photomate that I use at home. BTW, not all printers are the same. If
you decide to get a Photo printer for home use, take your memory card
with you and try to print out a picture on a display printer at the
store. Many of the newer printer have slots that can accept a memory
card. Just make sure to bring your memory card adapter with you if you
have a Memory stick Duo.
Happy 4th of July - Bern