Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Kodak 6490 - Redeye Central

Reply
Thread Tools

Kodak 6490 - Redeye Central

 
 
bd@ola.moc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-26-2003
I've had this camera for a couple of weeks and it has taken some
really nice landscape photos. I finally shot about 80 photos inside
(of a party) and nearly every photo has glaring redeye - even with the
redeye reduction turned on. Also, I noticed that the area closest to
the flash is usually washed out.

Is this a camera issue or a photographer issue?

TIA
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
JK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-26-2003
A camera issue. Next time pay more, and get a camera with a
more sensitive sensor and a lens that lets more light through,
so you don't need to use the flash. The other choice is to use
an off camera flash.

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> I've had this camera for a couple of weeks and it has taken some
> really nice landscape photos. I finally shot about 80 photos inside
> (of a party) and nearly every photo has glaring redeye - even with the
> redeye reduction turned on. Also, I noticed that the area closest to
> the flash is usually washed out.
>
> Is this a camera issue or a photographer issue?
>
> TIA


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Trevor S
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2003
(E-Mail Removed) wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed):

> I've had this camera for a couple of weeks and it has taken some
> really nice landscape photos. I finally shot about 80 photos inside
> (of a party) and nearly every photo has glaring redeye - even with the
> redeye reduction turned on. Also, I noticed that the area closest to
> the flash is usually washed out.
>
> Is this a camera issue or a photographer issue?


Both

Try it leaving the flash off, it does a decent job without the flash as
long as there is not to much movement Experiment with manual mode at
home as much as you want

If using the onboard flash, try getting people to look over your shoulder
to reduce red eye, not into the lens, this is simpily charesteritc of
having the flash mounted so close to the lens, a feature of all cameras
like this.

Get a decent external flash might be another solution.

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2003
JK wrote:

> A camera issue. Next time pay more, and get a camera with a
> more sensitive sensor and a lens that lets more light through,
> so you don't need to use the flash. The other choice is to use
> an off camera flash.
>
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>
>>I've had this camera for a couple of weeks and it has taken some
>>really nice landscape photos. I finally shot about 80 photos inside
>>(of a party) and nearly every photo has glaring redeye - even with the
>>redeye reduction turned on. Also, I noticed that the area closest to
>>the flash is usually washed out.
>>
>> Is this a camera issue or a photographer issue?
>>
>>TIA

>
>

Like most small digitals, the flash is located very close to the lens
and redeye is a problem in many environments. However, you can set
aperture priority and the camera will use a longer exposure if the
flash is turned off allowing for a pretty good chance of getting a good
picture is there is enough light. The camera also has a hotshoe for an
external flash.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Lapin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> Like most small digitals, the flash is located very close to the lens
> and redeye is a problem in many environments. However, you can set
> aperture priority and the camera will use a longer exposure if the
> flash is turned off allowing for a pretty good chance of getting a good
> picture is there is enough light. The camera also has a hotshoe for an
> external flash.


Actually, the camera does NOT have a hotshoe, at least not what I would call
a hotshoe. I've always considered a hotshoe to be a physical mount for a
flash unit, located at the top of the camera body.

It DOES have a jack for an external flash synch, located on the side, IIRC.
It requires a mounting bracket to hold the flash, although. Unless you want
to hold the flash yourself, be it by hand or with a monopod stand. Simply
attach the cable to the jack and the flash unit and you *should* be off to
the races, if I understand it correctly.

BTW, I am disappointed to hear that the redeye problem is so bad with a
pop-up flash camera like the 6490. My understanding was that the pop-up
design should reduce, if not eliminate, redeye. The whold point seems to me
to move the flash further away from the unit.

I know we have software to remove redeye but it would be better not to occur
in the first place. sigh.

--
Tim Lapin
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2003
Tim Lapin wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Like most small digitals, the flash is located very close to the lens
>>and redeye is a problem in many environments. However, you can set
>>aperture priority and the camera will use a longer exposure if the
>>flash is turned off allowing for a pretty good chance of getting a good
>>picture is there is enough light. The camera also has a hotshoe for an
>>external flash.

>
>
> Actually, the camera does NOT have a hotshoe, at least not what I would call
> a hotshoe. I've always considered a hotshoe to be a physical mount for a
> flash unit, located at the top of the camera body.
>
> It DOES have a jack for an external flash synch, located on the side, IIRC.
> It requires a mounting bracket to hold the flash, although. Unless you want
> to hold the flash yourself, be it by hand or with a monopod stand. Simply
> attach the cable to the jack and the flash unit and you *should* be off to
> the races, if I understand it correctly.
>
> BTW, I am disappointed to hear that the redeye problem is so bad with a
> pop-up flash camera like the 6490. My understanding was that the pop-up
> design should reduce, if not eliminate, redeye. The whold point seems to me
> to move the flash further away from the unit.
>
> I know we have software to remove redeye but it would be better not to occur
> in the first place. sigh.
>


Placing the flash near the lens is inevitable in a small camera. Check
out the positioning of the flash in the Sony 717, or example. Red-eye
is going to be a problem in any such camera unless an external flash is
used. I don't think it is fair to indict the 6490 for this common problem.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2003
Tim Lapin wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Like most small digitals, the flash is located very close to the lens
>>and redeye is a problem in many environments. However, you can set
>>aperture priority and the camera will use a longer exposure if the
>>flash is turned off allowing for a pretty good chance of getting a good
>>picture is there is enough light. The camera also has a hotshoe for an
>>external flash.

>
>
> Actually, the camera does NOT have a hotshoe, at least not what I would call
> a hotshoe. I've always considered a hotshoe to be a physical mount for a
> flash unit, located at the top of the camera body.
>
> It DOES have a jack for an external flash synch, located on the side, IIRC.
> It requires a mounting bracket to hold the flash, although. Unless you want
> to hold the flash yourself, be it by hand or with a monopod stand. Simply
> attach the cable to the jack and the flash unit and you *should* be off to
> the races, if I understand it correctly.
>
> BTW, I am disappointed to hear that the redeye problem is so bad with a
> pop-up flash camera like the 6490. My understanding was that the pop-up
> design should reduce, if not eliminate, redeye. The whold point seems to me
> to move the flash further away from the unit.
>
> I know we have software to remove redeye but it would be better not to occur
> in the first place. sigh.
>

Sorry about the hotshoe comment. I have been looking at so many
different cameras lately they are starting to run together. Each seems
to have some advantages, and some faults. Someone will come out with
the perfect camera, if I just wait long enough.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Lapin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> >

> Sorry about the hotshoe comment. I have been looking at so many
> different cameras lately they are starting to run together. Each seems
> to have some advantages, and some faults. Someone will come out with
> the perfect camera, if I just wait long enough.



Well, I took the plunge and got one yesterday. Actually, my wife did, as
she had promised me one for Christmas. You've got to love those Boxing Day
sales!

Anyway, I've taken a few dozen photos and a few movies and so far so good.
Good ergonimics, sharp image in both LCD and EVF, quick startup and only one
incidence of redeye.

Problems I've seen so far are limited to focus issues in low light (I'll
need to use my tripod for some photos). I don't know if there are any
issues with the P-ASM modes as I haven't tried them yet.

One note about redeye:
It can, at times, be *very hard* to remove redeye from a brown-eyed
subject. iPhoto (freebie with Mac OS X) perhaps cannot fully distinguish
the subtle shades of red and brown at work in specific cases. I've used it
before with great success on other cases of redeye, so the result came as a
surprise.

Maybe Kodak's software will work better but based on what I've seen playing
with the package at work, I don't think so. I was using the latest
downloadable version of EasyShare.

--
Tim Lapin
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Howard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2003

I currently have a kodak dx4900 (4 mp) which is the same MP as the 6490
I am toying with buying the same camera (not the one you own, however<g>)
and still have a small doubt about shooting at the full 380 zoom!
I also try to use the flash a little as possible.red eye being one of my
concerns.
After you get used to the camera and take a 100 pictures, if it not too
inconvenient, PLEASE let me any pitfalls or what you DO NOT LIKE about
it.....

you may do it off this NG or post here, as I do check it often


TIA and may the new year be good to you and yours

h





--
(E-Mail Removed)
In the words of the IMMORTAL USED CAR DEALER:
THERE IS AN ASS FOR EVERY SEAT!


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paige Miller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2003
On Stardate 12/30/2003 5:46 PM, the following keys were mysteriously
typed at Howard's keyboard...

> I currently have a kodak dx4900 (4 mp) which is the same MP as the 6490
> I am toying with buying the same camera (not the one you own, however<g>)
> and still have a small doubt about shooting at the full 380 zoom!
> I also try to use the flash a little as possible.red eye being one of my
> concerns.
> After you get used to the camera and take a 100 pictures, if it not too
> inconvenient, PLEASE let me any pitfalls or what you DO NOT LIKE about
> it.....
>
> you may do it off this NG or post here, as I do check it often
>
>
> TIA and may the new year be good to you and yours


I have taken over 1000 pictures with my Kodak DX 6490. Most of the time
I like the results, and the camera is certainly very easy to use. With
good lighting, or if you are within the flash's range, the camera takes
excellent photos. I have had no real problems using the 10X optical
zoom, even at 10X I get excellent photos, although it usually requires a
tripod or leaning against a solid object to get really sharp pictures at
10X.

Some items I don't particularly like:

1. At 30X (10X optical times 3X digital), I find a certain amount of
fuzziness in the pictures (to be expected from digital zooms) and some
artifacts (not expected) that are unpleasant sometimes. I have very few
photos at 30X that I consider to be "good photos". Tripod required at 30X.

2. In low light, I find that using Photoshop Elements to enhance the
picture gives better representation of what I remember the actual colors
to be (but of course, my memory may be mistaken). Otherwise, the colors
seem somewhat washed out.

3. Easyshare software is a very limited piece of software compared to
others that I have looked at (and there are plenty of better packages
out there that have free demos to check out).

4. From what I have read here in the newsgroups, you will always get a
certain amount of noise at higher ISO settings. However, compared to
pictures posted by some at 1600 ISO from other cameras, I find the noise
at 800 ISO via the Kodak DX6490 to be rather objectionable. Perhaps that
isn't totally fair to compare high end Digital SLR photos at 1600 to a
high end consumer non-SLR 800, but that's how I see it. Using Noise
Ninja on the noisy 400 and 800 photos makes a huge improvement to my
photos, however.

--
Paige Miller
pmiller5 at rochester dot rr dot com
http://home.rochester.rr.com/djpaige/blogger.html

It's nothing until I call it -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire
If you get the choice to sit it out or dance,
I hope you dance -- Lee Ann Womack
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kodak 6490 Compression TEST Jim Spencer Digital Photography 19 12-15-2003 01:37 AM
Kodak 6490 Pictures from a Florida State University game. Jeff Digital Photography 10 11-19-2003 10:00 AM
Help with Kodak DX-6490 Rudy Garcia Digital Photography 2 10-23-2003 02:39 AM
Kodak 6490 Larry Caldwell Digital Photography 12 10-16-2003 05:58 PM
HP 945, KODAK 6490 or OLYMPUS 750? Island Wind Digital Photography 0 09-23-2003 02:01 PM



Advertisments