1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Beginner help - best way to view pictures?

Discussion in 'Photography Forums' started by Phil.LFC, Nov 29, 2003.

  1. Phil.LFC

    Phil.LFC
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    729
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Staffordshire
    Ratings:
    +56
    I'm new to Digital cameras. Just bought a Sony DSC-P52. Seems great so far, but what is the best/most common way of viewing your pics?
    I've put them onto PC but don't want to fill up my hard drive. Used the Sony software that came with the camera (not very user friendly!) and burned to CD-R. Also tried making a Video CD. This played on my Toshiba DVD player but again wasn't very user friendly - could not pause or FF pics. The quality was also not as good as when viewed on the PC TFT screen. A Video CD can not be accessed for future editing of pictures so is it best to stick to CD-R's? The only problem playing the CD-R on my DVD player was that again, the picture quality was not brilliant.

    I'm thinking of buying a DVD recorder soon with a PC Card slot. Would this be a better way of storing and viewing pictures?

    Also, what is the general view on printing pictures? I only have a HP Deskjet 959 printer. Would it be better to use Jessops or similar for printing pictures?

    Sorry about all the questions but I just want to get the most out of my new purchase (£160 internet price match from Jessops:) )
     
  2. kenfowler3966

    kenfowler3966
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Messages:
    844
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    leeds UK
    Ratings:
    +14
    If you think about it the quality on a tv will never be better than the vga setting on a computer.
    When you view on a pc at about 1280x1000 screen size any more than a 1 meg picture will not be able to display any more detail.

    I take hundreds of pictures at work for condition reports of structures and there is no point in taking these pictures above 1 meg as you cant display the extra resolution on the screen and this quality is fine for the few photos included within the written reports.

    THe only reason for bigger picture files is if you wish to zoom into them later or rpint a high quality or large sized print.

    With the way hard drives are increasing in size and coming down in cost it is unlikely that you would ever run out of storage anyway in the long run.

    Personally I take home photo's at 3meg resolution, compress to jpg files at best quality and store them all in logical folders on the hard drive. I take backups of each new section when there is enough to fill a cd, and ideally keep a second copy at another address in case of catastrophe.

    I then view all via the computer which will give the best quality viewing availble in the normal house.
    I also have the option to print at good quality, but due to the expense and limited life of inkjet prints, this is very rare.

    I have a dvd recorder with hard drive, and slot for camera card, but have never used it for photo storage to dvd due to the poor quality of the final recording. DVD recorders are only really usefull for tv quality broadcasts and archiving camcorder footage onto dvd for easier future viewing.
     
  3. woody67

    woody67
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    634
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    Ratings:
    +13
    It depends on your own concept of what you want out of your pictures.

    Do you just like to review snaps of certain events, or do you study the intricate detail of the picture?

    I would suggest that viewing on a TV is good enough for general reviewing.

    Another thing is do you want loads of prints that you can display, or store in countess albums, or would you just prefer to be able to do a search of your HD or a CD/DVD and then browse the image - ie how accessable do your images have to be?

    The good thing about digital is that you don't have to print 24 or 36 photos of which 90% are crap and go straight in the bin. So you just print the one or two good ones for your wall.
    And you will find that a normal printer will produce perfectly good results when you view the image from normal vieing distances.

    Don't get too carried away in picking out faults in an inkjet print. Look at the picture from 2ft away and it will be fine. Don't get hung up on nit picking the image.

    If you want an image blown up to 10 x 8 or bigger, then a print from a lab is better - but bear in mind that the resultant image is limited by the detail and quality captured by your camera

    If you want to transfer images to disc, then there are recent reports of the media not lasting as long as it should. Stick to proven brands ( I understand pure gold media is the best) and as the media is cheap- keep at least 3 copies of disks - a working copy and a copy securely stored elsewhere in two locations.

    I would recommend a bigger HD though, and placing or your working copies on it.

    And remember to always work on a copy of the original image. This applies to rotating the image too - do not rotate the original as it reduces quality.

    Also have a look at something like Adobe PhotoAlbum for cataloging and referencing all your pictures for quick access via a search
     
  4. melliott1963

    melliott1963
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2001
    Messages:
    427
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Ilford, Essex
    Ratings:
    +4
    I'd just like to pick up one of the points about the 'limited life' of inkjet prints. On my Canon S900, which prints better results than any photo lab I've used, Canon guarantee the inks will stay lightfast for upto 25 years (obviously, not if stored in direct sunlight!). Looking at some of my older 'lab produced' photos, this would appear to be just as good if not better than professional labs! Also, the expense of injet prints really aren't that much greater than lab photos and it can be easily countered by the fact you've got control on what and how you print.

    Like others, I organise my photos in folders and archive them off to multiple CD's. These are viewed on the PC. I wouldn't bother with TV due the to quality not being up to it. I still print off photos and put them in albums because it's still the easiest way to show them to family and friends.
     
  5. figrin_dan

    figrin_dan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    1,991
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +135
    I would recommend using Jessops as I have bad luck with printers. I have tries Kodak (in larger supermarkets) but found the quality not up to the job.
     
  6. Sunil

    Sunil
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2003
    Messages:
    93
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +0
    Does this also apply to rotating portrait photos by 90 degrees?
     
  7. acucobol

    acucobol
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    62
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +0
    No way could I agree that a TV is good enough even for general viewing.
    Viw on a computer or print out. TV is fine for wowing the relatives at Christmas but nothing more.
     
  8. dts borg

    dts borg
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2001
    Messages:
    577
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Hornchurch
    Ratings:
    +8
    Boots are doing 50 Digital photos for ₤5.00 :smashin:

    Just take in a CD-R or your digital camera and they dump it on a HD. This is a next day pick up deal.
    If you have more it still only works out 10p each for a 6x4 photo.


    .............;) dts
     
  9. Brian110507

    Brian110507
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes it applies to any manipulation, also by way of an experiment have a look at the file size of a picture direct from your camera, now rotate it, save it and go back and look at the file size again (don't forget to 'refresh' ) Any difference ??
     
  10. calscot

    calscot
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Messages:
    659
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Milton Keynes
    Ratings:
    +0
    As jpeg compresses the data, any time you change and save will reduce the filesize and of course the quality.

    It is therefore a good idea to keep the original and do all your manipulations on a copy in one session using layers to allow corrections.

    I've not tried it but it seems to me that if you are going to print any images you could save as a high quality jpeg on the camera then save the working copy as a tiff for manipulation and finally printing, therefore you won't get any degradation.

    BTW I also view mine on my projector which seems a bit harking back to the dreaded holiday slide shows of old. But it is actually a much more sociable way of viewing the pictures compared with passing around the prints, as you all see the same picture at the same time. The resolution is only 960x540, but that's good enough to show the picture at reasonable quality.
     
  11. harry66

    harry66
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,400
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Ilford
    Ratings:
    +62
    If you still want to view the pics on a TV then use Nero and create a VCD or SVCD.
    Drag all the pictures in the target window in Nero. Once all pics have been added, select them all and then right mouse click and set a delay as per your taste. Burn the CD.

    This way you should be able to use the chapter skip button on your DVD player remote to fast forward thru the pictures.

    If you dont own Nero then download a trial from www.ahead.de and if you are happy with it then do a search for Nero OEM on www.google.co.uk and you will find a number of sites selling it from £8 upwards.
     
  12. calscot

    calscot
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Messages:
    659
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Milton Keynes
    Ratings:
    +0
    Some image software will do this without loss of quality.
     
  13. Sunil

    Sunil
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2003
    Messages:
    93
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +0
    Adobe Photoshop?
     

Share This Page

Loading...