Digital camera question

mikemechanic · #1 05-09-2005, 10:46 PM

When you go to a model show/contest do you use the lowest quality setting to get the most pictures or do you have a large memory card and get the best quality pics? Got a new camera and there is a show coming up. Thanks.

white97ex · #2 05-09-2005, 10:48 PM

it spend the cash and get a memory card

JTRACING · #3 05-10-2005, 01:19 AM

definitly use a big memory card, i got 1gig card, can hold over 800 hi-res pics.

only about 70 bucks, definitly worth it if you got the money.

tardster · #4 05-10-2005, 01:57 AM

Gotta agree with the others, get the bigger card if you can...

MPWR · #5 05-10-2005, 08:26 AM

...and take plenty of batteries!

Vric · #6 05-10-2005, 08:29 AM

I have one 1Gb, one 512, one 256 and one 64

I always use RAW (biggest setting)

a 1Gb card hold 180 pictures for me

mikemechanic · #7 05-10-2005, 06:09 PM

So when you guys are taking pictures at a show you use the highest quality setting on your camera? Then do you resize them after they are loaded into your computer? Thanks.

JTRACING · #8 05-10-2005, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemechanic

So when you guys are taking pictures at a show you use the highest quality setting on your camera? Then do you resize them after they are loaded into your computer? Thanks.

if im posting photos on here i resize them to 640X480, so people with dial-up dont have to wait forever to see them.

mikemechanic · #9 05-10-2005, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTRACING

if im posting photos on here i resize them to 640X480, so people with dial-up dont have to wait forever to see them.

What program do you use to do that? I can only seem to adjust pixels to meet the max of 80Kb. Thanks.

pettercardoso · #10 05-10-2005, 06:53 PM

I usually use Photoshop. I have made an automatic "routine" that resizes all open pictures at the same time, so it's easier

.
I also find that 640x480 is more than enough and I set the .jpeg compression to around 6 or 7 (quality). That gets me pictures of about 100kb, wich is very good. Ah, I use photobucket. I think AF server is getting a little slow with all the information floating around here and I think that 80kb for a size limit is not enough..

My 2 cents

Best Regards,
Pedro.

bhop73 · #11 05-10-2005, 07:22 PM

I don't print mine out. It seems like a waste of card space to use RAW unless you plan to print. I also only have 512mb and 256mb cards (one of each) so I have to be thrifty with my shots at contests since I usually take more than 200 photos.

I use the lowest quality, which is still good enough at 6.1 mpxl for the web. Here's an example straight from the camera. (keep in mind, this is the lowest quality setting and it's before adjusting exposure and stuff in Photoshop) http://www.bhop73.com/models/DSC_4105.JPG

I resize and optimize for the web anyway, which drops the dpi to 72 (screen resolution) and usually around 600 650 pxls wide.

Here's the same pic resized:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/...36477247Kvpkcj

in case anyone's interested in the gallery those came from..
http://community.webshots.com/user/bhop73

drunken monkey · #12 05-10-2005, 07:55 PM

if you don't have photoshop, which is quite a big program and slightly over the top just for image fixing, then you can do the essentials in things like acdsee or whatever image viewer you got with your camera.

bhop73 · #13 05-10-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

if you don't have photoshop, which is quite a big program and slightly over the top just for image fixing, then you can do the essentials in things like acdsee or whatever image viewer you got with your camera.

I disagree that it's "over the top for image fixing", but I can understand where you're coming from. Although the program isn't big (mine says 43mb), it is expensive and the learning curve may be a little steep.. well, those are the only drawbacks I can think of. I can't imagine processing photos in anything else.

Although, if you don't have the money or don't want to buy photoshop, (or don't want to "get" it with other means) then another option is GIMP, which has many features similar to photoshop, but is free.

http://www.gimp.org/

drunken monkey · #14 05-10-2005, 08:35 PM

well, considering that photoshop really is an industry standard grade program, the average guy who is only going to be using it for re-sizing and adjusting white balance or saturation etc really isn't 'using' photoshop.
i equate it to using 3ds max to 'draw' a cube.

when i say 'big' i mean that is is a very powerful application and can and does eat up a hell of a lot of processor speed and memory.
of course, i guess not everyone has photoshop, 3ds max and autocad or vectorworks open at the same time....

bhop73 · #15 05-10-2005, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

well, considering that photoshop really is an industry standard grade program, the average guy who is only going to be using it for re-sizing and adjusting white balance or saturation etc really isn't 'using' photoshop.
i equate it to using 3ds max to 'draw' a cube.

when i say 'big' i mean that is is a very powerful application and can and does eat up a hell of a lot of processor speed and memory.
of course, i guess not everyone has photoshop, 3ds max and autocad or vectorworks open at the same time....

True.. i understand what you're saying. I guess i'm just used to its capabilities compared to "regular" photo adjustment programs. (i've used Photoshop since version 2)

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD