i am just learning to use a digital camera-
the instructions are not very helpful as to the quality of photo settings.
i want a quality image that can be reproduced at 8 x 10, but that does not
take 3 years to download!!
my choices are:

3:2 1984x1312
shq 1984x1488
hq 1984x1488
sq 1600x1200

can anyone help me with what these settings might mean, or which one might make the most sense for what i am trying to do?
thanks!

 

8x10 and not long to download are completely opposite goals.

To reproduce decent 8x10 prints, you need to be around 2270x1750 at 240dpi give or take a few pixels. Images that size can easily run a few megabytes depending on how well the jpg can be compressed.

Also, once you save something for the web at 72dpi, it can completely destroy the image for printing (which needs at least 240 dpi for photo-quality).

 

thx ludedude...
the shq seems to work for 8x10s, but it is too large to view easily (i can change the image size, but i can see that it is a large file.)
any idea what the various settings mean?
i assume that hq is high quality, and maybe shq is super high quality??!!
and no idea what 3:2 is...

 

3:2 matches the image size of a 35mm camera! It's the aspect ratio of 35mm prints without any cropping. 35mm prints tend to be 6X4 (inches) 9X6, 12X8..... and so on.

What camera is it? You're probably right about the meanings of the pic sizes, but the terminilogy does tend to vary from one camera to another.

 

cedric- i make 8 x 10s from 35mm all the time...
with 35mm, i can go 8 x 10 as long as i use a low enough ASA film (to avoid grain). with the digital, if i go too low of quality of setting, i get image fade instead of grain.
would you think that the 3:2 setting would be similar to an ASA of 100?
maybe that is what i am looking for-
a conversion from the digital settings to ASA approximate equivalents.... (i wonder if such conversion table exists?)-
do you think that the 3:2 is the smallest file size (use of megabytes) setting that i can use to get to 8 x 10?
thanks everyone for all of your help with this!

 

what kind of camera are you using and what is the Megapixel rating. I am assuming if it claims it can do 8x10 it needs to be at least a 5 MP camera. I have a G3 Cannon and i you have the same I should be able to help you with your pictures. the 1600x1200 and so on determine the resolution of your images. The higher you go the better in terms of quality but that also includes an increase in file size but then when it comes time to print an 8x10 you need the higher resolution to avoid the grain which would occur with a lower resolution setting such as 1600x1200 which would be good with a 4 MP camera for a decent 4x5. Hope this helps and message me if you need more assistance.

 

wannabe.

You're gettin all muxed ip about this!!

ASA (or ISO) settings are a measurement of film speed or sensitivity. This has nothing to do with the 3:2 format which is the aspect ratio of the pic you're taking. I'd forget the 3:2 format for the time being unless you particularly want your prints to be the same size (proportions) as 35mm prints.

Some digital cameras enable you to choose an ASA setting or two which equates to 35mm film which is why it would be nice to know what camera you're using.

When you talk about 'Image Fade' I'm not sure what you mean? It sounds like over-exposure.

When you talk about download times are you meaning the times to download to your printer?

As Ludedude says, a 10X8 print is very demanding, so you should really be taking your pics the bigger the better if you want to print at that size.

Digital camera differ from conventional 35mm ones in that the user interfaces and menu screens can really be confusing till you get to grips with them. You really need to sit down with the manual and the camera and work your way through it.

Sing out if you need help

 

thanks guys...

zoeybadm- its a 3 megapixel olympus camedia; i have printed some 8 x 10s with excellent results as long as i use a setting that hogs memory!
it will go up to 1984 x 1488 with either high or low compression

cedric- i know, i called it the wrong thing (i called it "image fade")- with 35mm its called grain, and with digital its called "stair-stepping" (because when you blow up the picture, the transitions from different colors are blurred in a stair-step fashion.

i am looking at a 6 megapixel nikon (i did read somewhere that somewhere around 5 to 6 megapixels is required for full 35 mm comparability), but before i buy it i am wondering how my computer will deal with its images- maybe its just my editing software that needs upgrading, but when i use the 3 megapixel images, the machine takes forever to save or delete them in the image software program, no problem when using "explorer" or "my computer".

i can see that i have a whole lot to learn- the posts here have been great...

 

'Stair stepping' is properly called 'aliasing'. You've probably noticed that it shows itself most in lines at an angle to the vertical or horizontal, or in curved lines. Car wheels show it up nicely too! What you are actually seeing is the pixel construction of your image which is just a grid of squares covering your image, with each square being a pixel.

The answer as you've deduced, is.... more pixels. More pixels, means more processing power and longer processing times which you're now finding out the hard way. 3 mega pixels isn't enough for quality 8X10 prints. I know you say you've obtained satisfactory images, but you have to learn to look at your prints very critically if it's quality results you're after.

You do need a 5 or 6 mega pixel camera for the quality prints you're after. I'd avoid spending too much money on a full blown digital SLR just at the moment, if I were you. There are exciting changes in the offing with totally different sensor technology. There are a few 5 mega pixel cameras about which whilst not cheap, aren't blowing the price of a house. The Nikon 5000 and 5700, and the Canon G3 are examples of cameras that would suit your purposes well.

Quality digital images means processing time, whether it's in the camera, manipulating the images in your software package, or spooling to your printer. You do need a PC with a fast processor and loads of RAM to avoid staring at that hour glass all the while! The good news is that a fast games machine usually fits the bill nicely!

It's quite a transition from conventional film cameras to digital, but well worth it for the satisfaction of having complete control over what you want to achieve. You wont get there in 5 minutes, but keep pressing that shutter and learning as you go. You don't even have to buy film!

You need to start learning a photo editing package to get the best from your camera, and I highly recommend Paint Shop Pro. There are more expensive packages, Corel for example, and Photoshop is widely accepted to be the industry standard, but you'll do better with it once you've grasped some early principles with an easier package.

You can download a free evaluation version of Paint Shop Pro from The Jasc site.....

http://www.jasc.com/products/paintshoppro/

 

wow- thanks for all the info cedric...
i am off to check on paint shop pro and will hold off buying that nikon until i have more experience-
you just saved me lots of wasted time and probably plenty of $$$ too!