Clueless newbie question

Thanks for the quick response. I have not tried printing any pictures yet.
I don't have a color printer here - just a b/w laser. I usually print
through ofoto.com. Assuming my photos print well, is there anything I can
do to get decent quality on-screen? People's faces look funky when viewing
the photos through one of the photo-sharing sites. Do I need to compress
the file size? Also, I want to take pictures of a few things to sell on
ebay, so I need to be able to post clear photos. Is this a matter of
adjusting the settings on my camera when I take a photo specifically for
this use, or do I need to compress the file after the photo is taken?


"mort" <mort RemoveThis @cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:4261C549.7F32C32E@cloud9.net...
 > Hi,
 >
 > There are two factors here. I have an S500, and my premium paper prints
are
 > sharp and colorful, from 4x6" on up to 8.5x11". Computer screens have a
limited
 > sharpness, and smallish images just do not have much detail. If an image
fills
 > the screen, then of course there will be more visible detail.
 >
 > Have you tried printing 4x6" prints on good paper, either on your printer
or
 > elsewhere? With your camera, assuming that your camera technique is
adequate,
 > prints should be nicely sharp and detailed from 4x6" up to 8.5x11".
 >
 > Good luck.
 >
 > Morton
 >
 >
 >
 > stars wrote:
 >
  > > I have had a Canon PowerShot S100 since 2001. By the end of 2004 the
  > > battery wouldn't really hold a charge and the pictures came out dark, so
I
  > > decided to get a new camera. As I had been happy with Canon & had
  > > accessories like extra Compact Flash Cards and a card reader that would
work
  > > with a newer model, I decided to stick with Canon. I went back and
forth
  > > between the A95 and the PowerShot s500. After being used to the small
size
  > > of the s100, handy for travel, etc., I couldn't get used to the size of
the
  > > A95, so I wound up with the s500.
  > >
  > > Anyway, I expected the same level of pictures as the s100, just better
  > > quality due to more megapixels. Apparently I am completely clueless
when it
  > > comes to this b/c now I am having the following issue:
  > > Photos taken on my s500 look funny when viewed at a normal size onscreen
  > > (doing a lot of photo sharing through ofoto.com, shutterfly, snapfish,
  > > etc.). If I increase the size of the photos the quality becomes nice
and
  > > clear - but how can I share a photo that is larger than my 17" screen??
Is
  > > there a setting I need to change on my camera, or is it something that I
  > > need to do once the file is downloaded onto my computer? Is it possible
to
  > > get nice sharp pics from a 5 megapixel that look clear at a 4X6 or 5X7
size
  > > onscreen?
  > >
  > > Can someone advise?
  > > Thank you in advance.
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Clueless newbie question 

Replying to my own post - I think I have it figured out. I fiddled with the
settings on my camera and I was able to shoot a photo that looks clear at a
small size. This should work for my ebay listings.

Thanks again for the help!

"stars" <stars.DeleteThis@vzavenue.net> wrote in message
news:3ce2ceF6lbmicU1@individual.net...
 > Thanks for the quick response. I have not tried printing any pictures
yet.
 > I don't have a color printer here - just a b/w laser. I usually print
 > through ofoto.com. Assuming my photos print well, is there anything I can
 > do to get decent quality on-screen? People's faces look funky when
viewing
 > the photos through one of the photo-sharing sites. Do I need to compress
 > the file size? Also, I want to take pictures of a few things to sell on
 > ebay, so I need to be able to post clear photos. Is this a matter of
 > adjusting the settings on my camera when I take a photo specifically for
 > this use, or do I need to compress the file after the photo is taken?
 >
 >
 > "mort" <mort.DeleteThis@cloud9.net> wrote in message
 > news:4261C549.7F32C32E@cloud9.net...
  > > Hi,
  > >
  > > There are two factors here. I have an S500, and my premium paper prints
 > are
  > > sharp and colorful, from 4x6" on up to 8.5x11". Computer screens have a
 > limited
  > > sharpness, and smallish images just do not have much detail. If an image
 > fills
  > > the screen, then of course there will be more visible detail.
  > >
  > > Have you tried printing 4x6" prints on good paper, either on your
printer
 > or
  > > elsewhere? With your camera, assuming that your camera technique is
 > adequate,
  > > prints should be nicely sharp and detailed from 4x6" up to 8.5x11".
  > >
  > > Good luck.
  > >
  > > Morton
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > stars wrote:
  > >
   > > > I have had a Canon PowerShot S100 since 2001. By the end of 2004 the
   > > > battery wouldn't really hold a charge and the pictures came out dark,
so
 > I
   > > > decided to get a new camera. As I had been happy with Canon & had
   > > > accessories like extra Compact Flash Cards and a card reader that
would
 > work
   > > > with a newer model, I decided to stick with Canon. I went back and
 > forth
   > > > between the A95 and the PowerShot s500. After being used to the small
 > size
   > > > of the s100, handy for travel, etc., I couldn't get used to the size
of
 > the
   > > > A95, so I wound up with the s500.
   > > >
   > > > Anyway, I expected the same level of pictures as the s100, just better
   > > > quality due to more megapixels. Apparently I am completely clueless
 > when it
   > > > comes to this b/c now I am having the following issue:
   > > > Photos taken on my s500 look funny when viewed at a normal size
onscreen
   > > > (doing a lot of photo sharing through ofoto.com, shutterfly, snapfish,
   > > > etc.). If I increase the size of the photos the quality becomes nice
 > and
   > > > clear - but how can I share a photo that is larger than my 17"
screen??
 > Is
   > > > there a setting I need to change on my camera, or is it something that
I
   > > > need to do once the file is downloaded onto my computer? Is it
possible
 > to
   > > > get nice sharp pics from a 5 megapixel that look clear at a 4X6 or 5X7
 > size
   > > > onscreen?
   > > >
   > > > Can someone advise?
   > > > Thank you in advance.
  > >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Clueless newbie question 

Stars,

Can you tell us what setting on your camera gave you better results?

My suggestion was going to be that you use a photo editing software and
reduce the side of your image to a maximum width of 750 pixels. This
will make your photo viewable on 800 x 600 resolution screens.

By re-sizing your photo first, you get the compression algorithm in the
resizing feature of your software to make it look better at a small
size.

Charlie

Got digital photos? Show them off!
http://FlyingSamPhoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Clueless newbie question 

Hi Charlie,

I dug up the manual to the camera (I know, I know...should have done that
before bothering everyone here). Apparently for resolution I have 4
choices - Large, Medium1, Medium2, and Small. I set the camera to "Small"
which equates to 640 X 480 pixels. There was also a setting called
"Compression" which gave me three settings - Superfine, Fine, and Normal. I
set the camera on Superfine. I took a few pics of something I wanted to
sell on ebay and they came out nice and clear at a small size - perfect for
the purpose I was aiming for.

I have Adobe photoshop, but was not adept enough at reducing the image size
without sacrificing the quality. Maybe changing the settings on my camera
is "taking the long way around", but it got me where I needed to go!

-stars


"Charles Kerekes" <charleskerekes DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113755403.409971.148310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
 > Stars,
 >
 > Can you tell us what setting on your camera gave you better results?
 >
 > My suggestion was going to be that you use a photo editing software and
 > reduce the side of your image to a maximum width of 750 pixels. This
 > will make your photo viewable on 800 x 600 resolution screens.
 >
 > By re-sizing your photo first, you get the compression algorithm in the
 > resizing feature of your software to make it look better at a small
 > size.
 >
 > Charlie
 >
 > Got digital photos? Show them off!
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://FlyingSamPhoto.com</font" target="_blank">http://FlyingSamPhoto.com</font</a>>
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Clueless newbie question 

"stars" <stars.DeleteThis@vzavenue.net> wrote in message news:<3cjc5kF6oih05U1.DeleteThis@individual.net>...
 > Hi Charlie,
 >
 > I dug up the manual to the camera (I know, I know...should have done that
 > before bothering everyone here). Apparently for resolution I have 4
 > choices - Large, Medium1, Medium2, and Small. I set the camera to "Small"
 > which equates to 640 X 480 pixels. There was also a setting called
 > "Compression" which gave me three settings - Superfine, Fine, and Normal. I
 > set the camera on Superfine. I took a few pics of something I wanted to
 > sell on ebay and they came out nice and clear at a small size - perfect for
 > the purpose I was aiming for.
 >
 > I have Adobe photoshop, but was not adept enough at reducing the image size
 > without sacrificing the quality. Maybe changing the settings on my camera
 > is "taking the long way around", but it got me where I needed to go!
 >
 > -stars
 >
 >


Hi Stars...

When I first got my first digital camers (Nikon Coolpix 950), I
thought it would be best to take them all medium sized so that I'd get
more photos on my memory card and they were an ideal size for showing
on the net. But for printing them out they are just not good enough.

I soon changed my mind and now I take ALL my photos at fine quality
and then re-size them (BUT NEVER THE ORIGINAL) to send them to friends
or post them on the net.

JP
******
For a terrific place to meet, chat, share and learn, come to the
Photography Cafe! It's free! with 10MB space as well.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://photography-cafe.com" target="_blank">http://photography-cafe.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Clueless newbie question 

pat RemoveThis @photography-cafe.com (J P Scott) wrote:
 > "stars" <stars RemoveThis @vzavenue.net> wrote...
  >> Hi Charlie,
  >>
  >> I dug up the manual to the camera (I know, I know...should have
  >> done that before bothering everyone here). Apparently for
  >> resolution I have 4 choices - Large, Medium1, Medium2, and Small.
  >> I set the camera to "Small" which equates to 640 X 480 pixels.
  >> There was also a setting called "Compression" which gave me three
  >> settings - Superfine, Fine, and Normal. I set the camera on
  >> Superfine. I took a few pics of something I wanted to sell on ebay
  >> and they came out nice and clear at a small size - perfect for the
  >> purpose I was aiming for.
  >>
  >> I have Adobe photoshop, but was not adept enough at reducing the
  >> image size without sacrificing the quality. Maybe changing the
  >> settings on my camera is "taking the long way around", but it got
  >> me where I needed to go!
 >
 > Hi Stars...
 >
 > When I first got my first digital camers (Nikon Coolpix 950), I
 > thought it would be best to take them all medium sized so that I'd
 > get more photos on my memory card and they were an ideal size for
 > showing on the net. But for printing them out they are just not
 > good enough.
 >
 > I soon changed my mind and now I take ALL my photos at fine quality
 > and then re-size them (BUT NEVER THE ORIGINAL) to send them to
 > friends or post them on the net.

So do I - memory cards are cheap these days. I crop/edit images for
printing, saving at 90-95% jpg quality. For posting to the net, I
reduce them to something like 640x480.

The OP seems to have found something that works for his specific
purpose, but s/he doesn't seem to understand the basic mathematics of
number of pixels, resolution and physical image size.

--
Martin S.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Clueless newbie question 

"J P Scott" <pat DeleteThis @photography-cafe.com> wrote in message
news:5ae29b5d.0504190753.36cfa9c8@posting.google.com...
 > "stars" <stars DeleteThis @vzavenue.net> wrote in message
news:<3cjc5kF6oih05U1 DeleteThis @individual.net>...
  > > Hi Charlie,
  > >
  > > I dug up the manual to the camera (I know, I know...should have done
that
  > > before bothering everyone here). Apparently for resolution I have 4
  > > choices - Large, Medium1, Medium2, and Small. I set the camera to
"Small"
  > > which equates to 640 X 480 pixels. There was also a setting called
  > > "Compression" which gave me three settings - Superfine, Fine, and
Normal. I
  > > set the camera on Superfine. I took a few pics of something I wanted to
  > > sell on ebay and they came out nice and clear at a small size - perfect
for
  > > the purpose I was aiming for.
  > >
  > > I have Adobe photoshop, but was not adept enough at reducing the image
size
  > > without sacrificing the quality. Maybe changing the settings on my
camera
  > > is "taking the long way around", but it got me where I needed to go!
  > >
  > > -stars
  > >
  > >
 >
 >
 > Hi Stars...
 >
 > When I first got my first digital camers (Nikon Coolpix 950), I
 > thought it would be best to take them all medium sized so that I'd get
 > more photos on my memory card and they were an ideal size for showing
 > on the net. But for printing them out they are just not good enough.
 >
 > I soon changed my mind and now I take ALL my photos at fine quality
 > and then re-size them (BUT NEVER THE ORIGINAL) to send them to friends
 > or post them on the net.
 >
 > JP
 > ******
 > For a terrific place to meet, chat, share and learn, come to the
 > Photography Cafe! It's free! with 10MB space as well.
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://photography-cafe.com</font" target="_blank">http://photography-cafe.com</font</a>>

JP,

Changing the settings worked for pictures to use for Ebay purposes, but what
you are saying makes sense in terms of pictures of friends/family/trips,
etc. that I will want to print out. What program do you use for re-sizing
your photos? I think I just need to spend a bit more time learning some
software.

thanks,
stars<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Clueless newbie question 

"MartinS" <me RemoveThis @my.place> wrote in message
news:426543e4$0$7982$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
 > pat RemoveThis @photography-cafe.com (J P Scott) wrote:
<<snipped original message> >
  > > Hi Stars...
  > >
  > > When I first got my first digital camers (Nikon Coolpix 950), I
  > > thought it would be best to take them all medium sized so that I'd
  > > get more photos on my memory card and they were an ideal size for
  > > showing on the net. But for printing them out they are just not
  > > good enough.
  > >
  > > I soon changed my mind and now I take ALL my photos at fine quality
  > > and then re-size them (BUT NEVER THE ORIGINAL) to send them to
  > > friends or post them on the net.
 >
 > So do I - memory cards are cheap these days. I crop/edit images for
 > printing, saving at 90-95% jpg quality. For posting to the net, I
 > reduce them to something like 640x480.
 >
 > The OP seems to have found something that works for his specific
 > purpose, but s/he doesn't seem to understand the basic mathematics of
 > number of pixels, resolution and physical image size.
 >
 > --
 > Martin S.

Memory is not my issue - have plenty of memory cards around here. Yes, I
found something that worked for my specific purpose of posting a picture to
ebay (and my item sold right away - an added bonus of that nice picture).
Is my little solution the answer to all of my hopes & dreams for my dig
photo taking? Nope.

At first I was a bit insulted by your post - who is Martin to claim I don't
have an understanding of basic mathematics? He has no idea that my job
requires me to perform advanced calculations on my fancy calculator all day
long! : ) However, before getting all defensive I re-read your post and
decided, that hey, you're right - I haven't bothered to learn the basics of
photography. Call me lazy - I was looking for a quick answer. Yes yes, I
understand that the higher the number of pixels, the clearer the image.
Monet and pointillism are not lost on me. Yes yes, I know there is math
involved. Feel free to point me to a good resource to read up a bit more
about digital photography & photo-editing, and rest assured I will learn all
the necessary math!

: )

-stars
(a "she")<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Clueless newbie question 

"stars" <stars.TakeThisOut@vzavenue.net> wrote:
 > "MartinS" <me.TakeThisOut@my.place> wrote...
  >> pat.TakeThisOut@photography-cafe.com (J P Scott) wrote:
<<snipped original message> >
   >> > Hi Stars...
   >> >
   >> > When I first got my first digital camers (Nikon Coolpix 950), I
   >> > thought it would be best to take them all medium sized so that
   >> > I'd get more photos on my memory card and they were an ideal size
   >> > for showing on the net. But for printing them out they are just
   >> > not good enough.
   >> >
   >> > I soon changed my mind and now I take ALL my photos at fine
   >> > quality and then re-size them (BUT NEVER THE ORIGINAL) to send
   >> > them to friends or post them on the net.
  >>
  >> So do I - memory cards are cheap these days. I crop/edit images for
  >> printing, saving at 90-95% jpg quality. For posting to the net, I
  >> reduce them to something like 640x480.
  >>
  >> The OP seems to have found something that works for his specific
  >> purpose, but s/he doesn't seem to understand the basic mathematics
  >> of number of pixels, resolution and physical image size.
 >
 > Memory is not my issue - have plenty of memory cards around here.
 > Yes, I found something that worked for my specific purpose of
 > posting a picture to ebay (and my item sold right away - an added
 > bonus of that nice picture). Is my little solution the answer to all
 > of my hopes & dreams for my dig photo taking? Nope.
 >
 > At first I was a bit insulted by your post - who is Martin to claim
 > I don't have an understanding of basic mathematics? He has no idea
 > that my job requires me to perform advanced calculations on my fancy
 > calculator all day long! : ) However, before getting all
 > defensive I re-read your post and decided, that hey, you're right -
 > I haven't bothered to learn the basics of photography. Call me lazy
 > - I was looking for a quick answer. Yes yes, I understand that the
 > higher the number of pixels, the clearer the image. Monet and
 > pointillism are not lost on me. Yes yes, I know there is math
 > involved. Feel free to point me to a good resource to read up a
 > bit more about digital photography & photo-editing, and rest assured
 > I will learn all the necessary math!

Sorry if you felt insulted, and granted it does take a bit of time to
get the hang of it. I'm sure there are websites that will help you, but
I don't know any off-hand. Maybe others can make a recommendation, or
you could try Google, or even read the manuals for Photoshop, etc.

Irfanview is a simple, free but versatile program for doing basic
manipulation of digital images, such as cropping and resizing.

Think of the camera image as an original 35mm negative - you want to
preserve it. Do any editing, cropping and resizing from the original,
and save the result only once, especially if you want the best quality
print. Since jpeg is a "lossy" compression format, each time you edit
and re-save a file, you lose some quality. Whenever you "Save As.." a
jpeg file, there is a "quality" option which adjusts the amount of
compression (and the size of the saved file). The "fine" or "best
quality" setting on a digital camera equates to about 95% quality. For
files to be printed, use a high quality setting; for e-mail or website
display, where the file size you can send may be limited, a lower
setting of 75 or 80% will give you a smaller file with reasonable
quality. Experiment!

--
Martin S.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Clueless newbie question