home » forums » general interest » digital photography

the tools of digital photography

submitted by davidp on sun, 2006-06-04 06:31. terms: digital photography

Thanks, Daniel for responding so quickly to my request to set up a photography forum. Now I had better start using it and overcoming some of my self-consciousness about blogging. I have been a camera nut from the time my folks gave me a Brownie Box camera in the early '50s, 'learned darkroom techniques at school, but in later years became sensitive to the chemicals which really limited my activities until digital cameras came along at an almost affordable price. My first one, which I think I purchased in 1998, was a Panasonic that shot 640x480 pixels. (I thought it would be the only one I would ever have to purchase!). Photoshop and posting images electronically are the other side of the coin for me. I'm not terribly skilled on either side, and am interested mostly in getting the basics right so I can get the images I want. Anyway, I'm keen on sharing my limited experience, inviting critique and learning what cameras, lenses, settings etc. others have found satisfying (or not), how they process their images and some examples, e.g., as on the Syrinx Gallery. (I love the Gallery, images convey so much that words cannot. Sound too, now if we could only add smell and perhaps the feel of a fresh breeze or a little bit of N.S. fog!).

tags: gallery digitalphotography cameras photoshop novascotia

login to post comments | 721 reads | subscribe
what i use
submitted by daniel on sun, 2006-06-04 07:34.

Great idea, David! I'll start things off by sharing my digital photography tools, such as they are. I have a Canon EOS 300D, the so-called Digital Rebel, which captures images at 6.3 megapixels. That used to be high, but there are now many P&S cameras with much higher… megapixelage, so to speak. It had the distinction of being the first affordable non-professional digital SLR. Canon called it "the digital SLR for everyone". I've used SLR cameras since the early '80s, so this camera made me very happy. The only lens I have is the one that came with the camera, the EF-S 18-55mm zoom lens. And the only accessory I use (occasionally) is a tripod.

To process my photos I use Photoshop CS. The camera came with Photoshop Elements, but I've been using Photoshop for a very long time, so I already had CS.

Anyone else?

login to post comments
my photo tools
submitted by robertkamper on tue, 2006-06-06 23:56.

My high end stuff currently is an HP735 which has a few bells and whistles and gets about 3 or 4 megapixels. It has optical and digital zoom and a landscape-macro switch for the auto focus. This camera was used for the March and April entries. Also have a Sony digital 8 handycam. Both of them are on vacation in Florida at the moment.

I also have a little Cintar brand 2.1 mp snapshot cam, the nice thing is that can be set for 800x600 size output. The bad thing is that with my shaky hands, I have to delete a lot of the blurred shots. This is the one I used for the May photos.

Haven't really been doing much with software to enhance the photos - mostly just cropping from time to time. Usaually try to frame the composition in the camera. Software used to manipulate digital images depends on what's on the computer I'm using at the time. Sometimes PhotoShop, sometimes PaintShop Pro, etc.

I have a Canon EOS Rebel 35mm with a copyright date of 1990 on the manual...Have a Canon EF 75-300 zoom I sometimes used with it. Haven't really taken much with it since 1998, I think. I am holding out until the price of the Digital EOS Rebel gets down to where I can afford or justify it. Or maybe I'm frugal. Or cheap.

login to post comments
how many megapixels are enough?
submitted by davidp on tue, 2006-06-20 16:43.

Daniel def. gets some good shots with his 6.3 megapixel Canon EOS 300D! Here's a question: How many megapixels are enough?

I purchased a succession of digital cameras as the no. of megapixels increased (in a modest price range) but now that I am in the 6-7 MP range (a Nikon D70 and a just purchased Sony DSCH5) I think that is enough at least for most web/computer screen purposes which is my main use of images. My thinking is that a typical screen is 1024 x 820 pixels and a 6 MP image would be approx 3000 x 2000 pixels, i.e. 3 x that size, so even with a lot of cropping it still leaves a lot to play with. One would only need more MP to blow up very small parts of a photo, but then I think you start to get limited by lens quality and it would be better to shoot closer to desired subject.

That's something I don't understand very well - when does lens quality become more important than the number of megapixels?

In regard to printing... a 6 MP image of 2000 x 3000 pixels would allow a print size of 6.7 inches (2000/300) x 10 inches (3000/300) at 300 pixels/inch which at least for my purposes is quite adequate. I can see that a professional photographer might want more. e.g., for posters, or for blowing up small parts of the original image. But I think you could double the size of a 6 MP image and do some adjustments in Photoshop with the unsharp mask tool to increase the (apparent) print quality and get pretty well what you would get with a 12 MP camera. At least this should work fairly well where there is not a lot of fine detail in the image (as in a landscape image) should it not?

Something I haven't thought about is how this all relates to displaying images on the new high definition TV screens. Are 6 MP images sufficient to provide high quality images on such screens? (I hope so!)

login to post comments
exciting new feature
submitted by susanjillian on sun, 2006-06-04 14:22.

I'm really looking forward to this new featured section. I hope to learn from all you great photographers and maybe someday contribute.

login to post comments