6mp vs 2mp in a scrapbook

[grilla]

i am a landscape photographer (hobbyist) that shoots large format and 6 x 9.
i admit i dont know squat about the digital cameras. i am headed to
manhattan for four days and am considering the dx7630 6 mp camera to carry
in my pocket. if i never print anything larger than 8 x 10 will i see a
noticeable difference between the 6mp camera and a 2mp camera? i know the
word noticeable is subjective, but i have a 2mp camera already and am trying
to figure out if the difference is worth it. i have have been looking for a
side by side print comparison but cannot find one.

[David J Taylor]

grilla wrote:
> i am a landscape photographer (hobbyist) that shoots large format and
> 6 x 9. i admit i dont know squat about the digital cameras. i am
> headed to manhattan for four days and am considering the dx7630 6 mp
> camera to carry in my pocket. if i never print anything larger than 8
> x 10 will i see a noticeable difference between the 6mp camera and a
> 2mp camera? i know the word noticeable is subjective, but i have a
> 2mp camera already and am trying to figure out if the difference is
> worth it. i have have been looking for a side by side print
> comparison but cannot find one.

It depends what you do with the 8 x 10! If you view it really close up,
yes, the 2MP will be noticeably worse than the 6MP. Viewed at arm's
length 3.3MP, is enough for an 8 x 10, perhaps 2MP from a camera with very
good optics would be "acceptable".

Cheers,
David

[Terence]

"grilla" > wrote in message >...
> i am a landscape photographer (hobbyist) that shoots large format and 6 x 9.
> i admit i dont know squat about the digital cameras. i am headed to
> manhattan for four days and am considering the dx7630 6 mp camera to carry
> in my pocket. if i never print anything larger than 8 x 10 will i see a
> noticeable difference between the 6mp camera and a 2mp camera? i know the
> word noticeable is subjective, but i have a 2mp camera already and am trying
> to figure out if the difference is worth it. i have have been looking for a
> side by side print comparison but cannot find one.

All else being equal, a 6mp 8x10 print will be much much better than a
2mp 8x10 print. A 2mp 8x10 offers a print resolution of about 160
pixels/inch, compared to 280 pixels/inch for a 6mp print. That's a BIG
difference. 300 pixels/inch is the ideal resolution for a good print.

Post processing will help the 2mp image look smoother and relatively
pleasing to the eye, but in the final analysis, you are still loosing
out on 4mp of detail, which you can never get back, no matter what you
do.

For 4x6 prints, I doubt you will see a difference, although the 6mp
image will give you a lot more room for cropping.

hth,
Terence

[Robert Klemme]

"Terence" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
om...
> "grilla" > wrote in message
>...
> > i am a landscape photographer (hobbyist) that shoots large format and
6 x 9.
> > i admit i dont know squat about the digital cameras. i am headed to
> > manhattan for four days and am considering the dx7630 6 mp camera to
carry
> > in my pocket. if i never print anything larger than 8 x 10 will i see
a
> > noticeable difference between the 6mp camera and a 2mp camera? i know
the
> > word noticeable is subjective, but i have a 2mp camera already and am
trying
> > to figure out if the difference is worth it. i have have been looking
for a
> > side by side print comparison but cannot find one.
>
> All else being equal, a 6mp 8x10 print will be much much better than a
> 2mp 8x10 print. A 2mp 8x10 offers a print resolution of about 160
> pixels/inch, compared to 280 pixels/inch for a 6mp print. That's a BIG
> difference. 300 pixels/inch is the ideal resolution for a good print.

Are you referring to prints done at home? AFAIK photo services use 200dpi
for prints of digital images.

> Post processing will help the 2mp image look smoother and relatively
> pleasing to the eye, but in the final analysis, you are still loosing
> out on 4mp of detail, which you can never get back, no matter what you
> do.

Yeah, true.

Kind regards

robert

[Terence]

I will have to double-check at the Wal-Mart I get my prints done from,
but from a purely observational point, I can see a difference between
the 4x6 prints I submit at 300 dpi, compared to the 8x10 prints I've
done (~190dpi)

200dpi for a photo service just seems very low to me.

[Robert Klemme]

"Terence" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
ups.com...
> I will have to double-check at the Wal-Mart I get my prints done from,
> but from a purely observational point, I can see a difference between
> the 4x6 prints I submit at 300 dpi, compared to the 8x10 prints I've
> done (~190dpi)
>
> 200dpi for a photo service just seems very low to me.

But keep in mind that photo services use a different printing process from
your preferred laser or inkjet printer.

Regards

robert

[Phantom]

I must have missed the first part of this question somewhere along the
way..........what resolution is suggested for pictures that are going to be
printed at a photo service, and would you use a .jpeg, or .bmp file? This
would be for 4x6 prints.
"Terence" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I will have to double-check at the Wal-Mart I get my prints done from,
> but from a purely observational point, I can see a difference between
> the 4x6 prints I submit at 300 dpi, compared to the 8x10 prints I've
> done (~190dpi)
>
> 200dpi for a photo service just seems very low to me.
>
>

[Terence]

for a 4x6 print, I would try to stick with 1200x1800, although you
probably won't notice the difference if you went a little lower than
that (within reason).

As far as the file format to use, jpeg is fine, so long as you don't
continually save/re-save i.e. if you do a lot of post-processing. If
you do post process, use any lossless format (tiff, bmp, etc....), then
as a final step you can save as jpg and bring that to your photo
service for printing.

[MartinS]

"Terence" > wrote:

> for a 4x6 print, I would try to stick with 1200x1800, although you
> probably won't notice the difference if you went a little lower than
> that (within reason).
>
> As far as the file format to use, jpeg is fine, so long as you don't
> continually save/re-save i.e. if you do a lot of post-processing. If
> you do post process, use any lossless format (tiff, bmp, etc....),
> then as a final step you can save as jpg and bring that to your
> photo service for printing.

I've found that the Wal-Mart self-serve reader won't take files larger
than ~1MB.

--
Martin S.

[David J Taylor]

MartinS wrote:
> "Terence" > wrote:
>
>> for a 4x6 print, I would try to stick with 1200x1800, although you
>> probably won't notice the difference if you went a little lower than
>> that (within reason).
>>
>> As far as the file format to use, jpeg is fine, so long as you don't
>> continually save/re-save i.e. if you do a lot of post-processing. If
>> you do post process, use any lossless format (tiff, bmp, etc....),
>> then as a final step you can save as jpg and bring that to your
>> photo service for printing.
>
> I've found that the Wal-Mart self-serve reader won't take files larger
> than ~1MB.

It's probably better to make a JPEG with more pixels, but with more
compression as well, if you are limited in file size. You shouldn't need
a lot of compression to make a 1200 x 1800 picture less than 1MB and still
keep good quality. Try it and see.

Cheers,
David

[MartinS]

"David J Taylor" > wrote:
> MartinS wrote:
>> "Terence" > wrote:
>>
>>> for a 4x6 print, I would try to stick with 1200x1800, although you
>>> probably won't notice the difference if you went a little lower
>>> than that (within reason).
>>>
>>> As far as the file format to use, jpeg is fine, so long as you
>>> don't continually save/re-save i.e. if you do a lot of
>>> post-processing. If you do post process, use any lossless format
>>> (tiff, bmp, etc....), then as a final step you can save as jpg and
>>> bring that to your photo service for printing.
>>
>> I've found that the Wal-Mart self-serve reader won't take files
>> larger than ~1MB.
>
> It's probably better to make a JPEG with more pixels, but with more
> compression as well, if you are limited in file size. You shouldn't
> need a lot of compression to make a 1200 x 1800 picture less than
> 1MB and still keep good quality. Try it and see.

My (obsolete) HP 318 produces 1200 x 1800 images of 700-900KB at "best
quality" setting. This is equivalent of saving a jpeg at 95% quality
from a graphics editing program. Quality is excellent at 4 x 6 in.

--
Martin S.