Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Where are the BEST Point and Shoot Photos ?

Reply
Thread Tools

Where are the BEST Point and Shoot Photos ?

 
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2007
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:13:03 GMT, RBrickston <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in <(E-Mail Removed)>:

>In article <e092f5e9-93f4-420f-953f-
>(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> On Nov 16, 7:20 pm, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> > Ok, i have seen some incredible dSLR photos on the
>> > web.
>> >
>> > I have yet to see a mind-blowing point and shoot photo
>> > gallery. Does anyone have a great link?
>> >
>> > Mind you, i have pretty much decided to order the Canon 40d
>> > tomorrow.
>> >
>> > But if i wake up tomorrow, and find something incredible that
>> > was done with a P&S, you can bet that i will re-consider.....
>> >
>> > DT

>>
>> What kind of photos that you want to take? There are some decent
>> galleries which utilized Sony DSC R1 Point and shoot cameras. Try this
>> one.
>> http://www.pbase.com/tylim/root
>> Hope that this helps you.

>
>Don't give up your day job.


Does acting rudely come naturally, or do you have to work at it?
There are some very good images there.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2007
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:59:38 -0600, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in <fhn6vn$1ff$(E-Mail Removed)>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:20:40 -0800 (PST), (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>
>>> Ok, i have seen some incredible dSLR photos on the
>>> web.
>>>
>>> I have yet to see a mind-blowing point and shoot photo
>>> gallery. Does anyone have a great link?
>>>
>>> Mind you, i have pretty much decided to order the Canon 40d
>>> tomorrow.
>>>
>>> But if i wake up tomorrow, and find something incredible that
>>> was done with a P&S, you can bet that i will re-consider.....

>>
>> I'll pass -- no offense intended, but this looks too much like a
>> waste-of-time troll to me.

>
>It's not ... I'd also like to see such a thing. That is,
>a whole gallery of great P&S photos. Note: these must be full
>camera resolution, not just 768x1024 for computer screen.
>
>I've posted one of my photos, why don't you post a link
>to a P&S gallery of great shots. It should not be difficult
>(that's not a joke ... as all the P&S people say, what matters
>is teh image, and that's true.)


Because nothing will be accomplished -- this is just a back and forth,
not a constructive discussion.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2007
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:09:29 -0800, SMS ??? ?
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<473f2dee$0$79914$(E-Mail Removed)>:

>Doug McDonald wrote:
>
>> I've posted one of my photos, why don't you post a link
>> to a P&S gallery of great shots. It should not be difficult
>> (that's not a joke ... as all the P&S people say, what matters
>> is teh image, and that's true.)

>
>Alas a posted image is very different than a printed image.


You don't have a printer either?

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2007
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:26:04 -0600, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in <fhn8h9$28e$(E-Mail Removed)>:

>.... Still, at least somebody had the decency to
>actually post a link to a gallery of photos of quality made with
>a P&S.


I've posted a number of such images here -- see "Farmers Market" for the
latest.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Marvin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2007
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Ok, i have seen some incredible dSLR photos on the
> web.
>
> I have yet to see a mind-blowing point and shoot photo
> gallery. Does anyone have a great link?
>
> Mind you, i have pretty much decided to order the Canon 40d
> tomorrow.
>
> But if i wake up tomorrow, and find something incredible that
> was done with a P&S, you can bet that i will re-consider.....
>
>
> DT


The National Art Gallery in Washington, DC currently has an
exhibit of snapshots, from ca. 1910 to recent years. The
most recent include digital photos. I saw nothing
"incredible" there, but it was interesting.
 
Reply With Quote
 
dumbtroll@live.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2007


John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:34:14 -0800 (PST), (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
> <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
> >On Nov 17, 2:54?am, "Dennis Pogson" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >wrote:

>
> >... My
> >powershot G3 isn't exactly a looker! But for
> >pics smaller than 8.5x11, it takes great photos.

>
> Properly printed, a G3 should be able to do excellent 8x10, and pretty
> good 11x14. In the latter case, you might want to try resizing first to
> 300 DPI (or even 600 DPI, depending on the printer) with Lanczos
> resampling.
>


Even at 8.5x11, you start to see pixelation with the RAW
photos on the G3. 11x17 would be too much, even with resampling.


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2007
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:14:51 -0800 (PST), (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:34:14 -0800 (PST), (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>
>> >On Nov 17, 2:54?am, "Dennis Pogson" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> >wrote:

>>
>> >... My
>> >powershot G3 isn't exactly a looker! But for
>> >pics smaller than 8.5x11, it takes great photos.

>>
>> Properly printed, a G3 should be able to do excellent 8x10, and pretty
>> good 11x14. In the latter case, you might want to try resizing first to
>> 300 DPI (or even 600 DPI, depending on the printer) with Lanczos
>> resampling.

>
> Even at 8.5x11, you start to see pixelation with the RAW
>photos on the G3. 11x17 would be too much, even with resampling.


Only if you're dot peeping the print. Print quality is subject to
viewing conditions and viewing distance. An 8x12 print under normal
viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156
PPI for excellent results, which is only 3 MP. See
<http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm >

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 
Reply With Quote
 
acl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2007
On Nov 22, 4:43 am, John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> An 8x12 print under normal
> viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156
> PPI for excellent results, which is only 3 MP. See
> <http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_wh...>


Well not to disagree here on something that is surely subjective, but
I suggest that someone reading this should print a 3mp image at A4
size and look at it before forming an opinion as to the validity of
the above statement.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2007
On Nov 21, 4:07 pm, acl <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 4:43 am, John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > An 8x12 print under normal
> > viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156
> > PPI for excellent results, which is only 3 MP. See
> > <http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_wh...>

>
> Well not to disagree here on something that is surely subjective, but
> I suggest that someone reading this should print a 3mp image at A4
> size and look at it before forming an opinion as to the validity of
> the above statement.


And it is important to start get the 3MP image either from a 3MP
camera or cropping from a larger image. Down sizing a larger image to
3MP will give an image that is far sharper then what a 3MP camera
could ever produce.

But even if you do dowm sample, a 3MP A4 print next to a 8 MP one will
look pretty bad, at least to me it does.

Scott

Scott
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2007
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:07:29 -0800 (PST), acl
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>On Nov 22, 4:43 am, John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> An 8x12 print under normal
>> viewing conditions and at normal viewing distance of 22" needs only 156
>> PPI for excellent results, which is only 3 MP. See
>> <http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_wh...>

>
>Well not to disagree here on something that is surely subjective, but
>I suggest that someone reading this should print a 3mp image at A4
>size and look at it before forming an opinion as to the validity of
>the above statement.


Actually science and the limits of human perception, as you would know
if you'd paid much attention to the article.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 
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
Share-Point-2010 ,Share-Point -2010 Training , Share-point-2010Hyderabad , Share-point-2010 Institute Saraswati lakki ASP .Net 0 01-06-2012 06:39 AM
Best 4.0mp point and shoot Jim Digital Photography 4 05-26-2004 10:34 AM
Best digital point and shoot for under $300 street John S Digital Photography 18 04-23-2004 01:32 PM
Best movie taking ability in a point and shoot? Destroy Digital Photography 18 11-10-2003 04:09 AM
Best point and shoot camera for a bus Ralph Kramden Digital Photography 3 08-11-2003 06:09 PM



Advertisments