Kodak 6490 - Redeye Central

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by bd@ola.moc, Dec 26, 2003.

  1. Guest

    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
     
    , Dec 26, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. JK Guest

    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.

    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
     
    JK, Dec 26, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Trevor S Guest

    wrote in news::

    > 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
     
    Trevor S, Dec 27, 2003
    #3
  4. Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
    >
    > 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.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 27, 2003
    #4
  5. Tim Lapin Guest

    In article <>,
    Ron Hunter <> 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
     
    Tim Lapin, Dec 29, 2003
    #5
  6. Ron Hunter Guest

    Tim Lapin wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Ron Hunter <> 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.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 30, 2003
    #6
  7. Ron Hunter Guest

    Tim Lapin wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Ron Hunter <> 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.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 30, 2003
    #7
  8. Tim Lapin Guest

    In article <>,
    Ron Hunter <> 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
     
    Tim Lapin, Dec 30, 2003
    #8
  9. Howard Guest

    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





    --

    In the words of the IMMORTAL USED CAR DEALER:
    THERE IS AN ASS FOR EVERY SEAT!
     
    Howard, Dec 30, 2003
    #9
  10. Paige Miller Guest

    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
     
    Paige Miller, Dec 31, 2003
    #10
  11. Ron Hunter Guest

    Paige Miller wrote:

    > 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.


    Any time you use digital zoom, you are degrading the picture somewhat,
    and the particular way in which digital zoom works combines with JPEG to
    increase the artifacting. Lose/lose situation.

    >
    > 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.


    Color accuracy usually does suffer in low light, even for the human eye.

    >
    > 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).


    Definitely. The software is for the novice user.

    >
    > 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.
    >


    You are right, it is quite unfair. My Chevy Impala won't carry 10 or go
    260 mph, either.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 31, 2003
    #11
  12. Paige Miller Guest

    On Stardate 12/31/2003 11:11 AM, the following keys were mysteriously
    typed at Ron Hunter's keyboard...
    > Paige Miller wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > Any time you use digital zoom, you are degrading the picture somewhat,
    > and the particular way in which digital zoom works combines with JPEG to
    > increase the artifacting. Lose/lose situation.


    So in the fantasy world of making whatever improvements you would want
    to the camera, what is the win/win solution? Having DX6490 save the raw
    image, not the JPEG image? I know this isn't a feature at this time, but
    would that help? Or is the win/win solution to eventually trade up to a
    digital SLR?

    >> 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.

    >
    > Color accuracy usually does suffer in low light, even for the human eye.


    Hey speak for yourself. I have implanted "rodent eyes" so I can see
    better in low light ...

    >> 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).

    >
    > Definitely. The software is for the novice user.


    Right now I'm having fun with the freeware Adobe Photoshop Album Starter
    Edition; considering purchasing the full version.

    >> 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.

    >
    > You are right, it is quite unfair. My Chevy Impala won't carry 10 or go
    > 260 mph, either.


    Nevertheless, it does make me want to consider getting a digital SLR at
    some point. I suppose none of the criticism I have made of the DX6490
    are unique to this particular camera; other similar cameras will have
    similar issues. Which is good to know, I'm still very pleased with this
    camera.

    --
    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
     
    Paige Miller, Dec 31, 2003
    #12
  13. Ron Hunter Guest

    Paige Miller wrote:
    > On Stardate 12/31/2003 11:11 AM, the following keys were mysteriously
    > typed at Ron Hunter's keyboard...
    >
    >> Paige Miller wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >>
    >> Any time you use digital zoom, you are degrading the picture somewhat,
    >> and the particular way in which digital zoom works combines with JPEG
    >> to increase the artifacting. Lose/lose situation.

    >
    >
    > So in the fantasy world of making whatever improvements you would want
    > to the camera, what is the win/win solution? Having DX6490 save the raw
    > image, not the JPEG image? I know this isn't a feature at this time, but
    > would that help? Or is the win/win solution to eventually trade up to a
    > digital SLR?


    Probably, if 10X zoom isn't enough for you, a DSLR would also be
    limiting, but then everything is, isn't it?

    >
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >>
    >> Color accuracy usually does suffer in low light, even for the human eye.

    >
    >
    > Hey speak for yourself. I have implanted "rodent eyes" so I can see
    > better in low light ...
    >


    I see pretty well in low light, especially for my age, but I cat does
    much better. Of course, HE sees very little, if any, color, and I would
    sorely miss that.


    >>> 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).

    >>
    >>
    >> Definitely. The software is for the novice user.

    >
    >
    > Right now I'm having fun with the freeware Adobe Photoshop Album Starter
    > Edition; considering purchasing the full version.
    >


    Might be a good investment. I still seek a photoeditor with the
    features I want, in a usable (for me) package. Of course with my
    minimal needs, it must be under $50.

    >>> 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.

    >>
    >>
    >> You are right, it is quite unfair. My Chevy Impala won't carry 10 or
    >> go 260 mph, either.

    >
    >
    > Nevertheless, it does make me want to consider getting a digital SLR at
    > some point. I suppose none of the criticism I have made of the DX6490
    > are unique to this particular camera; other similar cameras will have
    > similar issues. Which is good to know, I'm still very pleased with this
    > camera.
    >


    I am sure that when/if you get a DSLR, you will find that it too has
    limitations, and shortcomings. It is human nature to want more that we
    have, and to find fault with what we have, in favor of what we don't have.
    I have two complaints about the DX6490; It's too big to fit in my shirt
    pocket, and the EVF just doesn't cut it for me. Of course my brother in
    law just took back a Digital Rebel in favor of a Sony 717 because the
    Rebel didn't allow using the LCD screen for aiming... something I would
    do ONLY in macro mode....
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 31, 2003
    #13
  14. Dave Guest

    In article <6LzIb.96570$>, Paige Miller
    <> wrote:

    > 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.
    >
    >


    You know if you use the just the 10x optical zoom, you can make prints
    up to 20x30 inches, when you go into digital zoom, your largest print
    size is 4x6 inches.

    Now if you take a picture at 10x and crop it to the same size as what
    the 30x is you can make a 5x7 or maybe even a 8x10 if you have a good
    image.

    Your camera also has a 3rd type of zoom (as do all cameras), you can
    use your feet to get closer thus improving your image without using
    digital zoom.
     
    Dave, Dec 31, 2003
    #14
  15. Ron Hunter Guest

    Dave wrote:
    > In article <6LzIb.96570$>, Paige Miller
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>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.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > You know if you use the just the 10x optical zoom, you can make prints
    > up to 20x30 inches, when you go into digital zoom, your largest print
    > size is 4x6 inches.
    >
    > Now if you take a picture at 10x and crop it to the same size as what
    > the 30x is you can make a 5x7 or maybe even a 8x10 if you have a good
    > image.
    >
    > Your camera also has a 3rd type of zoom (as do all cameras), you can
    > use your feet to get closer thus improving your image without using
    > digital zoom.


    Unless you are trying to take a picture of someone standing on the other
    side of a ravine..... Grin.
    Or maybe that grizzly bear.....
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 1, 2004
    #15
  16. Paige Miller Guest

    On Stardate 12/31/2003 6:40 PM, the following keys were mysteriously
    typed at Dave's keyboard...
    > In article <6LzIb.96570$>, Paige Miller
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>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.

    >
    > You know if you use the just the 10x optical zoom, you can make prints
    > up to 20x30 inches, when you go into digital zoom, your largest print
    > size is 4x6 inches.
    >
    > Now if you take a picture at 10x and crop it to the same size as what
    > the 30x is you can make a 5x7 or maybe even a 8x10 if you have a good
    > image.


    These are good points. Thanks! As I am a relative beginner to digital
    photography, I was not aware of this fact. But I'm going to give what
    you say a try.

    > Your camera also has a 3rd type of zoom (as do all cameras), you can
    > use your feet to get closer thus improving your image without using
    > digital zoom.


    In general, again this is a good point. Architecture, in the form of
    tall buildings, is a counter-example where you can only get so close
    before your feet fail to help further. Basketball and soccer are
    additional examples of situations where you can only get to a certain
    distance and then no closer ... there's that annoying line that you're
    not supposed to cross during a game, and there are those annoying
    security people who also don't want you moving in certain places at the
    side of the court or soccer pitch, and those players can be very
    insensitive to the needs of photographers and all run over to the other
    side of the field or court.

    While this newsgroup has been a wonderful source of information, and
    should continue to be so (and thanks to everyone here), I think I should
    start looking for some photography classes here in town. Or maybe, since
    I live in a town known for photography, I can hook up with an
    experienced photographer and spend some time going around town and
    taking photos together.

    --
    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
     
    Paige Miller, Jan 1, 2004
    #16
  17. Dave Guest

    In article <>, Ron Hunter
    <> wrote:

    > Dave wrote:
    > > In article <6LzIb.96570$>, Paige Miller
    > > <> wrote:
    > >


    > > Your camera also has a 3rd type of zoom (as do all cameras), you can
    > > use your feet to get closer thus improving your image without using
    > > digital zoom.

    >
    > Unless you are trying to take a picture of someone standing on the other
    > side of a ravine..... Grin.
    > Or maybe that grizzly bear.....


    You know what, With the grizzly bear, I would still use my feet! To
    get farther away from it...
     
    Dave, Jan 1, 2004
    #17
  18. Ron Hunter Guest

    Dave wrote:
    > In article <>, Ron Hunter
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Dave wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <6LzIb.96570$>, Paige Miller
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>

    >
    >
    >>>Your camera also has a 3rd type of zoom (as do all cameras), you can
    >>>use your feet to get closer thus improving your image without using
    >>>digital zoom.

    >>
    >>Unless you are trying to take a picture of someone standing on the other
    >>side of a ravine..... Grin.
    >>Or maybe that grizzly bear.....

    >
    >
    > You know what, With the grizzly bear, I would still use my feet! To
    > get farther away from it...


    Maybe a 21x zoom in that case? Grin.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 1, 2004
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Island Wind

    HP 945, KODAK 6490 or OLYMPUS 750?

    Island Wind, Sep 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    304
    Island Wind
    Sep 23, 2003
  2. Larry Caldwell

    Kodak 6490

    Larry Caldwell, Oct 5, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    880
    Ron Baird
    Oct 16, 2003
  3. Rudy Garcia

    Help with Kodak DX-6490

    Rudy Garcia, Oct 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    441
    Rudy Garcia
    Oct 23, 2003
  4. Jim Spencer

    Kodak 6490 Compression TEST

    Jim Spencer, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    641
    news.bellatlantic.net
    Dec 15, 2003
  5. Jeff
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    649
    Ron Hunter
    Nov 19, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page