Posts for: CatMarley
Dec 2, 2019 12:57:39 #
dandi wrote:
I did several 20x30 prints with D200 with very good\excellent results. These prints were as a birthday present. I asked my friends to look closely and tell me if the image quality was good. Everybody said - it is great, no one complained about sharpness. I still use D200, with good prime it can produce very sharp images. Colors from D200 are my favorite.
I still have my d200. It was my favorite digital camera. I even had a prism focus screen made for it that worked just like my old FM. Love that camera. It made beautiful prints
Dec 2, 2019 12:48:25 #
Strodav wrote:
Yes, it is confusing and you are completely correc... (show quote)
The bottom line is, however, that there is a definite physical limit to the number of ink squirts the printer can put on the paper, and it is not going to be anywhere near the same as the pixel resolution of our modern sensors. The result is that whereas the pixel peepers with their hi res, enormous monitors are going to be able to see a big difference between a shot from a 40 meg and a 16 meg sensor, especially when they crank up the magnification, the same difference is NOT going to be visible on an 8.5 x 11 print from your normal home printer!
Dec 2, 2019 09:52:25 #
cactuspic wrote:
Cat, I think it's the quality of the 8MP that's in... (show quote)
Only makes sense if whatever processor is selecting the bits to send to the printer is doing a better job selecting what bits to send with the 24 meg file than the 12 meg file. It would make sense then that the very best file to print, in terms of accuracy of detail, would be one whose pixel count exactly matches the ink dot count, so that EVERY pixel is represented in the print. That would remove the uncertainty inherent in the process.
Dec 1, 2019 19:42:12 #
LWW wrote:
Why?
If you have $100 in your pocket can you not spend $25 at checkout?
If you have $100 in your pocket can you not spend $25 at checkout?
It does not matter whether you have $100 in your pocket or $1000 in your pocket if the item you purchase only costs $25! The printer can only put 8 megs of different spots on the paper. The processor has to decide which 8 megs of the 24 megs or 40 megs of pixels to send it, the rest of the pixels represented in that digital file will NOT appear on the paper. Only if you are going to make very large prints will you see the remaining information represented and will you be able to discern a difference.
Look, you are painting a wall, It takes 10 ounces of paint to cover it. It does not matter if you have a quart of paint, or a gallon of paint, the same 10 ounces of paint is going to cover the wall. You can use all your gallon of paint if you have a bigger wall, and if you try to cover a much bigger wall with the quart, you WILL see the difference!
Dec 1, 2019 16:36:35 #
lowkick wrote:
But if I handed you two identical 8x11's, one taken with a 12 megapixel camera and one taken with a 24 megapixel camera, you would see the difference.
How is that possible if the maximum number of dots of ink that a printer can put on the photo paper is around 8 megs? It cannot possibly record more detail from 24meg pixels than it can from 12 meg pixels since in both cases it can only place 8 megs of ink spots on the paper?
Dec 1, 2019 13:53:03 #
nadelewitz wrote:
1. It depends on whether both enlargements are from the same size area of the sensor....same cropping amount, or no cropping with either one
2. Depends on viewing distance, and your own visual acuity.
2. Depends on viewing distance, and your own visual acuity.
An 8.5 x 11 print ultimately depends on (8.5x300) x (11X300) maximum ink dots no matter what size file is fed into the printer.
Dec 1, 2019 13:24:47 #
bbradford wrote:
I would love to solve this mystery I've heard for ... (show quote)
The maximum number of dots that can be printed on a piece of 8.5 x 11 photo paper, by a 300dpi printer, is 8,415,000. Even a 40 megapixel file will only be represented by those 8,415,000 dots of ink. So a 10 meg camera's output will be no less detailed than a 40 meg. Only when you get to much larger sizes will you be able to see a difference. I have very sharp detailed 8 x 10 prints from my original 2 meg Canon - my very first digital camera.
Nov 27, 2019 12:37:25 #
aellman wrote:
Wouldn't they be competitors?
Groomers are not photographers. They would be the perfect collaborators. They know all the people who pamper their pets, and make them beautiful so you can photograph them! I am sure that grooming shops are often asked by clients for referrals to someone to make a portrait of their pets. The mechanics of equipping a van for photography will be similar in some respects to setting up a mobile grooming shop. Even a fairly small van could be equipped with awnings and outdoor backdrops that could be set up outside the van quickly and stored quickly. Pet portrait clients will often want the dog photographed in their home environment - a favorite sofa or room to provide context, so it is important to have readily mobile equipment and lighting that can be moved outside of the van interior.
Nov 25, 2019 18:03:21 #
JonTB wrote:
My suggestion is to tie in with a mobile pet grooming service.
Distribute your cards to all the pet groomers in your area. Visit them, and leave samples of your work.
Nov 25, 2019 09:36:46 #
texasdigital wrote:
I have searched pet photography topics on Ugly Hed... (show quote)
I show my dogs, and the dogshow people always want photos of their dogs. Your local kennel club would be a contact to make. Local dogshows would be a good place to visit and set up a booth. You can locate upcoming shows at http://www. infodog.com. Ad in the local papers also.
Nov 22, 2019 12:17:11 #
Nov 21, 2019 12:25:56 #
Herself wrote:
First, although I’ve loved “taking pictures” for y... (show quote)
The one lens that would cover most of the situations you cite and still be compact and lightweight, is the 18 - 200. I used it for years and it covered 90% of everything. It gives you the equivalent of 27 - 300mm, and is quick focusing and sharp.
Nov 12, 2019 11:37:03 #
Hanson wrote:
I have one of those circular translucent WB filter. Can someone tell me the exact way to use it.
Why would anyone go to the trouble of screwing on an attachment to the lens, and then taking it off again, and stowing it somewhere, when aiming the camera at a sheet of typing paper does the same thing? My answer for your question is "Put it in a drawer and forget it."
Nov 9, 2019 10:32:31 #
barbaradear wrote:
Some suggestions, please, a wide angle lens for my Nikon D7000 - I’m a casual photographer, it’d be great if it were an all around lens........
Nikon 18-200 is a nice compact sharp and versatile lens. When I had Nikons, I just about never took it off the camera. 18-200 covers about 90% of situations.
Nov 7, 2019 16:54:07 #
dennis2146 wrote:
All that matters is that the buyer THINKS the camera will take better photographs. Don't we all do that when we buy a camera. We spend a lot of money thinking the particular camera will take better photos than another equally priced camera.
No Dennis, we all don't. Not everyone labors under that delusion.er bases. Most photographers are aware that almost ANY modern interchangeable lens camera will deliver excellent images if used properly. Choices are made on other bases such as weight, size, ease of use, and specific features and handling advantages.