| Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? | |
|
Author | Message |
---|
WirralScouse DE/Prophet of Doom
| Subject: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:40 pm | |
| My digi is Olympus FE-330 8.0 megapixels 5X Optical Zoom.On the screen the photos look fine but the prints are not sharp.My film camera is Nikon Lite Touch 130ED.The prints from that are excellent.Obviously the digi is more convenient/cheaper overall but what would the experts recommend for a digi at £150-ish?I fancy a Canon Sureshot.I only take people/scenery snaps. |
|
| |
Hayzer ALL ROUND DESTINATION EXPERT
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:59 pm | |
| Are you printing them yourself on a home printer or at a supermarket print station or loading them to a website for printing,
The images from the camera should be fine just the printing process that is not up to scratch. _________________ |
|
| |
WirralScouse DE/Prophet of Doom
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:40 pm | |
| First time prints were from Tesco photos kiosk 48 hrs turn around.That service now closed.Second time (the worst prints) I had to load the memory card into a new free standing all singing all dancing machine in Tesco,Heswall.Seemed to be all Hewlett Packard gear. |
|
| |
Mark Majorca Mad
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:38 am | |
| Did you load the pics onto your PC first, to peruse, and then selected the ones you wanted to print? Were they sharp and in focus? If so then it's the printers. If not then it's probably you sorry to say, camera shake could be a cause.
I take it you've checked the lens for smears? Sorry to address basic stuff, but sometimes it's easily overlooked.
Failing that the Kodak M575 @ around £65 will provide you with want you require, no need to spend £150 ish.
Have a look at my recent Correlejo reviews pictures, all of those where shot with the above Kodak camera. |
|
| |
Daryn Admin
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:17 am | |
| Dont know much about cameras to be honest but if its digital Im sure it will have a setting for best quality etc _________________ |
|
| |
WirralScouse DE/Prophet of Doom
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:22 pm | |
| I put the memory card in Tesco's HP machine and selected the exposures I wanted to print.Many times a message came up about the poor quality of my photos likely to produce unsatisfactory prints.But I printed them anyway.I also got a CD of my photos.When I see that CD on my laptop they nearly all look really sharp.A few were undoubtedly affected by camera shake especially distance shots.5X optical zoom is nothing special, right? The AF Zoom is 6.3-31.5mm 1:3.5-5.6 whatever that means.The lens is only exposed for shooting and looks fine to me now. I think I will change to a different digicamera and will look at the recommended Kodak.For the baby's christening tomorrow in Bristol I am taking my film camera as you only get the chance to take such photos once. Once I have had my tutorial I can post some of my Venice,Lido di Jesolo,Marbella shots on MF in my reviews then you will all be able to see if they are poor or if the printing process at Tescos let me down.We take prints because Mrs WS likes to put them in Nan's Bragging Album. |
|
| |
Daryn Admin
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:51 pm | |
| Im sure between us we will get you sorted ,and once you post some photos on here there will be no stopping you. Ive had Kodak digital cameras before and not found them to be very good. The samsung I have now has been a good one but when you look at some of the photos these guys are putting on here well I can see the difference. What type of camera would you like ws, a basic point and shoot or something a bit more techy _________________ |
|
| |
WirralScouse DE/Prophet of Doom
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:49 pm | |
| Defo point and press.Nothing tekkie.The reviews on Google of the Kodak Mark tipped look to be consistently good 4* out of 5.Could be a well priced compromise for me.I wish I had thought of checking online reviews of my Olympus FE -330 before I bought it.It doesn't review well not nearly as well as the Kodak which is £40 cheaper than what I paid. Naively I expected Olympus to be a quality product. |
|
| |
delboy Mad Destination Expert
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:09 pm | |
| I don't think it will be the camera Wirral, I have taken real good pictures on a 2m camera. I don't know yet until you load one or two on here but I would guess the camera is not being held still. Also that button you press needs to be half held down before you press for the picture, so that the camera can adjust itself to be in focus. |
|
| |
Daryn Admin
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:20 pm | |
| yes we have that system on our camera ,the half press and wait for the camera to focus itself first then press all the way. try that ws you will see the difference on the monitor _________________ |
|
| |
Mark Majorca Mad
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:22 pm | |
| Wirral, the quality of the pics that Hayzer takes on the Panasonic, versus the pics i take on the point and shoot Kodak, well, there's no contest. But to get the best pics from the Panasonic, you really need to have an understanding of when to use, for instance, High ISO, in low light conditions. So for you the suggested Kodak could well be the compromise. Sony Cyber Shot (various models) also have good user recommendations for not much more.
The Olympus has a name, that basically goes back to the tv ads of 2 decades ago featuring 'David Bailey, - who's he?' fame. The best part of Olympus is undoubtedly the lens, made by Zeiko. The rest is only as good as what else is out there.
The holding the 'shoot' button half way down momentarily before pressing it down all the way is a good tip Del has pointed out too. |
|
| |
WirralScouse DE/Prophet of Doom
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:55 pm | |
| Think you're right.I will get around to buying that Kodak when the dust settles after tomorrow's christening.I did know about the half-press until the light shows then "go for it".Think it is a handshake problem.Hope it's not the first stages of Parkinsons.I started too many sombre stories on here about dementia to add to the depression. |
|
| |
delboy Mad Destination Expert
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:04 pm | |
| I initially had a similiar problem went i bought an SLR, in those days it was 32 photos printed at Boots and 30 of them could have been thrown away. Now it's much easier deep breath, half click and fire. |
|
| |
Hayzer ALL ROUND DESTINATION EXPERT
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:27 am | |
| I would agree that the camera is very unlikely to be the problem. I have had 3 of my own and one supplied by work and all have been able to take very good quality pictures. My main gripe with our Casio camera was that it tended to quite often make it look like it was overcast when it was a mainly sunny day. I still have my first digital camera from 9 years ago, a Pentax Optio S it was a 3MP camera and worked very well the only problem with it was the screen was the size of a postage stamp and the battery tended to go flat on it. I bought a new battery but it drained very quickly as well. A picture taken with my Pentax My company supplied a Kodak camera for work use and it was about 8 MP and took decent pics as well on a par with my Pentax I bought a Casio camera 8MP for Mrs H/our use and had used it for quite a while and it has been very good apart from the occasional tendency to make some pics look as if it is overcast when it is actually a very nice day. Now this could be down to me selecting the wrong picture mode but I am not too sure. I mostly use the easy(idiot) mode which is point and shoot. The main reason I chose the Panasonic TZ 6 was it had a good quality 25mm lens which I found useful, I have found it to give better results than any of my previous cameras. _________________ |
|
| |
Mark Majorca Mad
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:09 am | |
| A great set of comparison pics H. I'll also confirm that the amount of megapixels on offer aren't the be all and end all of a camera's good bits. I took this: with one of the original Kodak Easyshare cameras, model DX6340, only 3.1 mega pixels. I still have it and it works fine, but all of the above reasons that H cites are in play, ie small viewing screen, low battery life. Wirral, a 'megapixel' is the scale on which the 'grain' of a picture is measured. Basically it's how many pin pricks of colour can be squeezed into a square inch of a photo. The above picture has 3.1 million pin pricks of colour per square inch. More modern cameras offer up to 14 million of the same thing. The more megapixels are only of use if you want to stretch the picture out, up to poster size, as the 'square inch' reference I used above becomes stretched out in that case, so it becomes, say, 3.1 million pixels for every four iches of photo/poster. Hope that makes sense. |
|
| |
Mark Majorca Mad
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:28 pm | |
| Just to follow up, I took this picture on the recent Correlejo trip, with my mobile phone camera, around 3.2 mega pixels. |
|
| |
Sponsored content
| Subject: Re: Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? | |
| |
|
| |
| Why are the prints taken from my digital worse than from my film camera? | |
|