Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 64 users online :: 3 registered, 0 hidden and 61 guests


Most users ever online was 218 on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

A short lesson in photography

All non-spudgun related discussion goes here such as projects, theories, serious questions, etc. All "off-topic" posts (aka useless posting, determined by moderators) will be removed.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: ramses » Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:32 pm

I vote wiki page, with a link from the section about forum etiquette, or rules.
  • 0

POLAND_SPUD wrote:even if there was no link I'd know it's a bot because of female name :D
User avatar
ramses
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 6:50 pm
Reputation: 3

Unread postAuthor: rcman50166 » Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:20 pm

Oh quick update if anyone cares. I thought I would share here instead of start a new thread. Good opportunity to take pictures. The Leonid Meteor Shower starts tonight.
  • 0

Image
User avatar
rcman50166
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bethel, CT
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: D_Hall » Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:56 pm

In defense of cell phone cameras....

How many people carry a dedicated camera everywhere?

How many people carry a cell phone (w/ camera) everywhere?

Point: In many cases a cell phone pic is not indicative that the person believes the cell phone takes great pictures, but rather is indicative that the cell phone was the only camera available at the time.

In other words, cell phone cams may be feature short, but they have one huge advantage in many situations: availability.
  • 0

Simulation geek (GGDT / HGDT) and designer of Vera.
User avatar
D_Hall
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: SoCal
Reputation: 6

Unread postAuthor: Technician1002 » Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:59 pm

D_Hall wrote:In defense of cell phone cameras....

How many people carry a dedicated camera everywhere?

How many people carry a cell phone (w/ camera) everywhere?

Point: In many cases a cell phone pic is not indicative that the person believes the cell phone takes great pictures, but rather is indicative that the cell phone was the only camera available at the time.

In other words, cell phone cams may be feature short, but they have one huge advantage in many situations: availability.


In defense of not using a cell phone camera, those who planned something worthy of photos and brought the cannon, ammo, etc, why not bring a decent camera? Plan ahead guys. :D I plan many of my photo sessions.
  • 0

User avatar
Technician1002
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5190
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:10 am
Reputation: 14

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:05 pm

D_Hall wrote:In defense of cell phone cameras....

How many people carry a dedicated camera everywhere?

How many people carry a cell phone (w/ camera) everywhere?

Point: In many cases a cell phone pic is not indicative that the person believes the cell phone takes great pictures, but rather is indicative that the cell phone was the only camera available at the time.

In other words, cell phone cams may be feature short, but they have one huge advantage in many situations: availability.

Plus a 3.2mp camera phone only cost me $160NZD, so a lot of people have decent camera phones these days.

This is using my cellphone camera (click to enlarge):
  • 0

Attachments
DSC00200.JPG
end of year prank
Last edited by MrCrowley on Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: D_Hall » Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:41 pm

Technician1002 wrote:In defense of not using a cell phone camera, those who planned something worthy of photos and brought the cannon, ammo, etc, why not bring a decent camera? Plan ahead guys. :D I plan many of my photo sessions.

Whereas I'm of the opinion that not ever session with a cannon is worthy of a camera. Most, in fact, are not. But sometimes something catches you by surprise.
  • 0

Simulation geek (GGDT / HGDT) and designer of Vera.
User avatar
D_Hall
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: SoCal
Reputation: 6

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:15 am

D_Hall wrote:In defense of cell phone cameras...

In offence against them, I seldom see a photo taken with a mobile phone camera that I couldn't guess had been taken with one.
Yes, camera phones are improving, but the thought of a newer phone camera won't have me rushing to update my somewhat elderly phone - they're not yet good enough to impress me.

My phone may be approaching 5 years old, but it will ring/text people as well as any other phone, and as it lacks all the wonderful battery draining features of modern phones, it scarcely needs to be shown a photo of a charger every couple of weeks to keep it going. I'd also note because they hadn't got around to compressing phones into matchboxes by then, that the keypad is large enough to use comfortably.
For those reasons, I see little incentive to change it - it works brilliantly as, well, you know, a phone. I'd sooner have something that does one thing well, rather than two things badly.

~~~~~

Yes, while camera phones are often more easily available away from the house, if people are are planning to take photos (taking pictures of a cannon they've made or perhaps a "range day"), surely they've got a proper digital camera rather than just taking pictures on their camera phone.

MrCrowley wrote:Plus a 3.2mp camera phone only cost me $160NZD, so a lot of people have decent camera phones these days.

And that's one of the common mistakes - thinking of Megapixels as quality. Megapixels tell you how large you can print out a photo. They don't tell you what quality that photo will be.

100 megapixels that are out of focus mean nothing compared to 2 megapixels that are in focus with proper brightness/contrast/colour.
  • 0

Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
User avatar
Ragnarok
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:23 am
Location: The UK
Reputation: 8

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: rcman50166 » Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:43 am

Did someone say cell phone pic. I'd say this would be the average cell phone photo. I took it just now with my Samsung Alias.
  • 0

Attachments
1117091137.jpg
Yay high quality
1117091137_546.jpg
*Beep Beep Beeeeeeee....* I couldn't save it with Adobe Photoshop CS4
Image
User avatar
rcman50166
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bethel, CT
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Technician1002 » Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:59 pm

Wow, nothing near the edges are sharp.

In comparison, here is a shot of the same screen with an older 2.1 MP camera I use most of the time. It has a good lens. For comparison I took a shot of the same post. No problems reading that one. It was nice the post mentions a 2 megapixel camera. This shot is with a 2.1 megapixel camera.

For anyone interested it is this decade old camera.
http://www.creativemac.com/HTM/Features/2000/Reviews/olympusc2100/olympusc2100-page1.htm
  • 0

Attachments
screen.jpg
Screenshot with a camera.
Last edited by Technician1002 on Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Technician1002
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5190
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:10 am
Reputation: 14

Unread postAuthor: jimmy101 » Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:06 pm

One thing to remember about taking photos for a web page is that anything over 1 or 2 Megapixel is overkill. Chances are you'll end up deleting most of that info anyway. Standard screen resolution is 100 DPI. Standard print resolution is 300 DPI. That photo for a web page only needs ~1/9th the number of pixels.

With cell phones, even cheap ones, the problem isn't the sensor, it's the controls, optics and user.
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3130
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:53 pm

jimmy101 wrote:One thing to remember about taking photos for a web page is that anything over 1 or 2 Megapixel is overkill.

That really depends. If you're going to crop it down or do any digital tweaks, it doesn't hurt to have a greater resolution to start with.

For the "general use" file, I tend to export my art at resolutions like 1600x1200, but when I'm actually working on the pictures in Photoshop, I tend to use resolutions of about three times that (which works out at about 17 megapixels) just so I've got the detail to work with.
  • 0

Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
User avatar
Ragnarok
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:23 am
Location: The UK
Reputation: 8

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:39 pm

And that's one of the common mistakes - thinking of Megapixels as quality. Megapixels tell you how large you can print out a photo. They don't tell you what quality that photo will be

Well generally this 3.2mp camera is far better than the two previous phones I had with 2mp. So I think it is quite safe to assume that a 3.2mp phone camera is most likely better than one with 2mp.

As for the rant about your phone, I have no problems with my phone at all (SE K770i). As for charging, I sleep in my bed at home most nights so I charge it then, if I forget, the phone will still last 3 days with moderate use (not using mp3 or video player, not taking photos). Older phones also have problems like trouble with reception, slow interface, faulty parts from use, numbers wearing down on the keypad and bad batteries (from extended use).

__________

To be honest, if a member complained that someone used a 3.2mp cellphone to take pictures of their cannon, and the pictures came out similar to my one above (which was simply point and shoot with no adjusting), then I will be very disappointed with that member.

Remember, not every member owns a camera anyway. How many times have we heard "I just need to get it off my brother/uncle/friend"? A photo taken with a cellphone can be perfectly acceptable, if you criticize someone because you can't zoom in and see what the pressure gauge goes up to you're just nit-picking and being a bit of a jerk.

You can even see the number on the house behind the car in my photo. If something like that isn't good enough, then that's just ridiculous. Sure, if the photo is taken with anything less than a 2mp cell phone camera it will probably be crap, and in my experience 2mp cell phone camera take decent photos. Though if you're taking a photo that requires macro, a cellphone probably isn't a good idea, though my cellphone even has a macro function :wink:
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: ramses » Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:43 pm

the sensor actually does impact photo quality. The larger it is, the bigger each pixel is, therefor the more light it captures. so less noise!
  • 0

POLAND_SPUD wrote:even if there was no link I'd know it's a bot because of female name :D
User avatar
ramses
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 6:50 pm
Reputation: 3

Unread postAuthor: jeepkahn » Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:11 pm

@MrCrowley= Make sure your batteries are fresh...

I can't believe no one beat me to it...
  • 0

My Cannons can be found by clicking the following link.
http://www.spudfiles.com/forums/viewtop ... tml#256896

jeepkahn
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:11 pm
Location: Triad, NC, USA
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:39 pm

MrCrowley wrote:Well generally this 3.2mp camera is far better than the two previous phones I had with 2mp. So I think it is quite safe to assume that a 3.2mp phone camera is most likely better than one with 2mp.

Comparing phone cameras to phone cameras, yes, probably.

Comparing a completely state of the art phone cam to even a (dedicated) camera that was entry level two years ago... it might have twice the megapixel size, but the photos it offers will almost certainly fall short.

Older phones also have problems like...

Never had any problems. It's got signal whenever anyone else (on the same network) has, it doesn't lag, and the battery life is still genuinely measured in weeks.

...and the pictures came out similar to my one above...

And that's the crux of the matter. Many camera phone pictures will not come out that well.

The rule should really be "Avoid camera phones where possible".
If it really is someone's only option, then try and get it well lit, and take several shots. However, if someone genuinely hasn't easy access to any decent digital camera, then I suggest entering the 21st century.
  • 0

Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
User avatar
Ragnarok
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:23 am
Location: The UK
Reputation: 8

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'