> Always disapponted by my digital pictures, I've had a 5 megapixel Pentax
> Optio for a few years, but nothing ever seems to come up to the standard
> of my best analogue pics, taken mostly with a Pentax ME Super. When I
> look at my hoard, the pictures I most enjoy are without exception
> analogue. My digital pictures by comparison seem flat and lacking in
> richness.
>
> I always use the best quality digital settings, least compression etc.,
> but nothing I've taken has the depth and richness of colour of the best
> analogue.
What are you comparing? Are you looking at your camera images on your
monitor while holding film prints in your hand?
Do you realize that you can edit your Pentax images to increase the
brightness, contrast and saturation and that most people usually do
this?
Always disapponted by my digital pictures, I've had a 5 megapixel Pentax
Optio for a few years, but nothing ever seems to come up to the standard
of my best analogue pics, taken mostly with a Pentax ME Super. When I
look at my hoard, the pictures I most enjoy are without exception
analogue. My digital pictures by comparison seem flat and lacking in
richness.
I always use the best quality digital settings, least compression etc.,
but nothing I've taken has the depth and richness of colour of the best
analogue.
Has the quality of digital improved over the past 3 or 4 years? If I
upgrade my camera to something with more MP am I likely to be more
satisfied?
I would be grateful for any advice from you experts!
"Mike O'Sullivan" <mike@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:59ui1vF2mc3l6U1@mid.individual.net...
> Always disapponted by my digital pictures, I've had a 5 megapixel Pentax
> Optio for a few years, but nothing ever seems to come up to the standard
> of my best analogue pics, taken mostly with a Pentax ME Super. When I
> look at my hoard, the pictures I most enjoy are without exception
> analogue. My digital pictures by comparison seem flat and lacking in
> richness.
>
> I always use the best quality digital settings, least compression etc.,
> but nothing I've taken has the depth and richness of colour of the best
> analogue.
>
> Has the quality of digital improved over the past 3 or 4 years? If I
> upgrade my camera to something with more MP am I likely to be more
> satisfied?
>
> I would be grateful for any advice from you experts!
>
> Mike
You fail to mention exactly what characteristics you don't like.
Digicams with small chips tend to produce more noise--especially as the
number of pixels increase.
Digicams that use autofocus may not always focus as you would have done
manually.
Digicams have large depth-of-field--and I personally like to shoot at
shallow DOF, to visually isolate the main object from its surroundings. I
also like creamy bokeh--especially from Pentax (analog) lenses. Little
digicams cannot produce those effects.
My own solution to the problem was to get a film scanner and to continue
using my Pentax gear for image capture. Once I scan the negs, I'm free to
edit them digitally. And I don't get the usual problems from small
digicams--like purple fringing, inability to control DOF, and no bokeh to
speak of.
No P&S--whether analog or digital--gives the photographer the same degree of
control as a good manual camera. I suspect that you will be dissatisfied
with the current generation of digital P&S cameras. Do you still have your
ME Super?
Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
> Always disapponted by my digital pictures, I've had a 5 megapixel Pentax
> Optio for a few years, but nothing ever seems to come up to the standard
> of my best analogue pics, taken mostly with a Pentax ME Super. When I
> look at my hoard, the pictures I most enjoy are without exception
> analogue. My digital pictures by comparison seem flat and lacking in
> richness.
>
> I always use the best quality digital settings, least compression etc.,
> but nothing I've taken has the depth and richness of colour of the best
> analogue.
>
> Has the quality of digital improved over the past 3 or 4 years? If I
> upgrade my camera to something with more MP am I likely to be more
> satisfied?
>
> I would be grateful for any advice from you experts!
>
> Mike
I doubt a different camera will solve your problem, which isn't to mean
there aren't better models out there. Take a good look at the mass of
on-line samples taken with various cameras. See if these match what you
are getting. Download a few sample files and see if the print results
are satisfying. I have a lot of trouble seeing significant differences
between my old film and current digital shots.
Dave Cohen
jeremy wrote:
>
> You fail to mention exactly what characteristics you don't like.
>
> Digicams with small chips tend to produce more noise--especially as the
> number of pixels increase.
Difficult to be specific, it's just a general dissatisfaction with a
sort of uninvolving "flatness", just an imporession of a drear
unexciting effect.
>
> Digicams that use autofocus may not always focus as you would have done
> manually.
>
> Digicams have large depth-of-field--and I personally like to shoot at
> shallow DOF, to visually isolate the main object from its surroundings. I
> also like creamy bokeh--especially from Pentax (analog) lenses. Little
> digicams cannot produce those effects.
What about "big" digicams, such as SLR, although my days of carting
around several pounds of equipment are behind me.
>
> My own solution to the problem was to get a film scanner and to continue
> using my Pentax gear for image capture. Once I scan the negs, I'm free to
> edit them digitally. And I don't get the usual problems from small
> digicams--like purple fringing, inability to control DOF, and no bokeh to
> speak of.
>
> No P&S--whether analog or digital--gives the photographer the same degree of
> control as a good manual camera. I suspect that you will be dissatisfied
> with the current generation of digital P&S cameras. Do you still have your
> ME Super?
Yes I do, but the advantages of digital photography are obvious, such as
the ability immediately to be able to discard unsuccessful images.
On May 3, 12:40 pm, Jim Townsend <n...@real.address> wrote:
....
> Do you realize that you can edit your Pentax images to increase the
> brightness, contrast and saturation and that most people usually do
> this?
Take an outdoor pic. set your camera to higher saturation and
take the same pic. compare. if that doesn't do it for you,
try altering other attributes. even white balance.
I had the same feeling and changing saturation (MORE!) did it
for me.
....thehick
> Always disapponted by my digital pictures, I've had a 5 megapixel Pentax
> Optio for a few years, but nothing ever seems to come up to the standard
> of my best analogue pics, taken mostly with a Pentax ME Super. When I
> look at my hoard, the pictures I most enjoy are without exception
> analogue. My digital pictures by comparison seem flat and lacking in
> richness.
>
> I always use the best quality digital settings, least compression etc.,
> but nothing I've taken has the depth and richness of colour of the best
> analogue.
>
> Has the quality of digital improved over the past 3 or 4 years? If I
> upgrade my camera to something with more MP am I likely to be more
> satisfied?
>
> I would be grateful for any advice from you experts!
>
> Mike
Do you edit your images with a photo editor?
You can control brightness, contrast, saturation sharpness etc.
Also, what kind of printer, ink and paper are you using to print your
pictures?
All have a pronounced effect on print quality.
Do you use an online company to make your prints?
I notice a difference between prints from my old film camera and my
digital camera.
Prints from edited digital images look BETTER!
Bob
> Always disapponted by my digital pictures, I've had a 5 megapixel Pentax
> Optio for a few years, but nothing ever seems to come up to the standard
> of my best analogue pics, taken mostly with a Pentax ME Super.
The answer is right there... you can't expect a point&shoot to equal any
SLR, because we ALL see and shoot differently (and better) thru the prism.
A long time ago I sold my Leica M3 to a friend dirt cheap, and used the
cash to buy an Exa, the baby Exacta SLR. As a photographer I became
completely revitalized
"jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5Xo_h.7185$dy2.1171@trndny01...
>
> My own solution to the problem was to get a film scanner and to continue
> using my Pentax gear for image capture. Once I scan the negs, I'm free to
> edit them digitally. And I don't get the usual problems from small
> digicams--like purple fringing, inability to control DOF, and no bokeh to
> speak of.
>
It's also reassuring to look at a negative and know that the original is
safe, and the scan is a good back-up if something happens to the negative.
I'm now doing some digital capture as well as film and it's hard to have
faith in invisible bits and bytes. Even though I do backups, I need to
start making high quality prints of my digital keepers in case the files
vaporize.
Bob Williams wrote:
>
>
> Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Always disapponted by my digital pictures, I've had a 5 megapixel
>> Pentax Optio for a few years, but nothing ever seems to come up to the
>> standard of my best analogue pics, taken mostly with a Pentax ME
>> Super. When I look at my hoard, the pictures I most enjoy are without
>> exception analogue. My digital pictures by comparison seem flat and
>> lacking in richness.
>>
>> I always use the best quality digital settings, least compression
>> etc., but nothing I've taken has the depth and richness of colour of
>> the best analogue.
>>
>> Has the quality of digital improved over the past 3 or 4 years? If I
>> upgrade my camera to something with more MP am I likely to be more
>> satisfied?
>>
>> I would be grateful for any advice from you experts!
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> Do you edit your images with a photo editor?
> You can control brightness, contrast, saturation sharpness etc.
Well yes, I do, as somebody else pointed out editing software is
available, and recently I passed my efforts through software called DCE
Autoenhance, which did provide some improvement. However this seems to
be an admission that the camera is deficient in some way if you always
have to use third party software, when surely the camera should be
better at capturing a good image in the first place. This seems to
support my suspicion that digital photography is inherently inferior.
> Also, what kind of printer, ink and paper are you using to print your
> pictures?
> All have a pronounced effect on print quality.
> Do you use an online company to make your prints? I notice a difference between prints from my old film camera and my
> digital camera. Prints from edited digital images look BETTER!
First I'm looking to improve the pictures I see on the pc screen before
wasting money on printing.
Re: Always disapponted by my (digital) pictures 
Linear Mode
