BetterPhoto.com - Become a better photographer today!
EMAIL:
PASSWORD:
remember me:     
     


Photography QnA: Problems with Images

Browse by Category | All New Questions | All New Responses | Q&A Home

Category: What's Wrong With My Photographic Technique? : Problems with Images

Have questions regarding resizing photos for websites? How about taking pictures without shadows? Check this section out to find some answers.

Page 228 : 2271 -2280 of 2287 questions

<< Previous 10 skip to page
1 << 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | ...229
Next 7  >>
     
 
Photography Question 
Dave 

member since: 10/18/2001
  2271 .  Blue (tungsten filter)
When I use a blue (tungsten) filter with daylight film to do indoor/ studio portrait work, I often get a decided, blue "tinge" to the photo. Why is this and how can I fix it? Also, what is the fastest tungsten print film that you know of?
I can only find an ISO 160?
Thanks.

2/23/2002 8:01:06 AM

Jeff S. Kennedy

member since: 3/4/2002
  Not all "tungsten" lights are a true tungsten temperature. Consequently, you will often get cold colors shooting with a tungsten filter. There are blue filters which are less intense that you might try. As to tungsten print film, unfortunately, the fastest ISO I recall is the 160. I always thought this was silly since when shooting with tungsten it would be nice to have a little more speed. I know tungsten slide film (even the ISO100 stuff) is on the grainy side. Maybe it's too difficult to make a 400 speed tungsten print film with acceptable grain.

2/23/2002 4:31:04 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Kathy Blough

member since: 1/19/2002
  2272 .  Inside Action Shots
 
  Basketball streaks
Basketball streaks
Good lighting, Manual setting, get streaks from movement
© Kathy Blough
 
  Basketball too dark
Basketball too dark
No movement, too dark, setting on Auto
© Kathy Blough
 
I'm having problems getting good actions shots inside (at a basketball game with flourscent lights). When I set my camera on Auto, there is no movement but the shots are very dark. When I use other modes - P, A or M - and set my camera on flourscent light, the lighting is great, but the shots are all streaked from the movement of the players. Any suggestions?

1/19/2002 6:25:20 PM

Doug Smith

member since: 1/24/2001
  Have you tried using a flash or a higher ASA film? Your problem is too slow a shutter speed and a lens that is not fast enough. You have to at least use a 125 shutter speed and preferably 250 when shooting basketball

1/28/2002 11:38:53 PM

Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/18/2000
  The first photo is properly exposed, but the shutter speed is too slow for hand-holding (camera shake) and too slow to stop the action. To get a faster shutter speed, you need faster film (or a lens with a much larger maximum aperture = $$$). If you used ISO 100 film, then ISO 400 will give you 4x faster shutter speed. If you used ISO 400, then ISO 800 will give you 2x the shutter speed.

The 2nd picture, taken in "Auto," looks like the camera chose to use the built-in flash and a handholdable shutter speed of about 1/60-1/90. Since the players are out of flash range, only the back of heads of the near spectators is properly exposed.

1/29/2002 2:42:13 PM

Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/18/2000
  Re: "or a lens with a much larger maximum aperture = $$$", I forgot about the trusty old 50mm f/1.8 lens. Much better for low light than the typical f/3.5-5.6 zoom, and it can be bought new for $100 or less.

Instead of using a 28-80 zoom set to 80mm with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 and a shutter speed of maybe 1/15, you can use the 50mm at f/2 and a shutter speed of 1/120 without going to a grainier higher speed film.

1/29/2002 2:54:28 PM

Amanda 

member since: 7/12/2001
  I've taken night time shots at night in stadium with ISO 800 film and the results are fine. If you are on tight budget, high speed film can help you the most.

And just to comment on the lighting - I don't think the sports hall featured in your photos are fluorescent-lit. The lights in the hall look white and fluorescent lights will give a greyish-green cast to your photos which is obviously not the case here. I am sure there are many photographers out there who can clarify this matter.

1/30/2002 3:53:16 AM

Jeff Grove

member since: 12/24/2001
  One thing you can do is "push" the film when you shoot. This means that if you're using say ISO 400 film, you set your camera for ISO 800. All the pictures you set your exposure for will be exposed as if you have a one stop faster film in the camera. When you take the film in for processing you must tell them to "push" it one stop. This will allow you to shoot as if the film you were using was one stop faster allowing you to use faster shutter speeds which, as has been mentioned, is part of your problem. I probably didn't explain this as well as I could have but you can check with the place you normally take you film to for processing to see if they'll do it. It may cost a little more if they do.

1/31/2002 3:12:23 PM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Kathy,
Prior postings have nailed the problem. Professional and semi-pro photographers use very fast (and very expensive) lenses, at least f/2.8, to cover indoor sports. You can use ISO 800 film, but don't expect to make large prints from ISO 800 beyond 4x6 or 5x7 without them falling apart from the grain.

Jeff mentions "pushing" film. You can do this also, but must do it for the entire roll. You cannot switch film speeds in mid-roll. Processing pushed film requires changing the time of various developing steps and a good professional lab will have run tests to calibrate their machinery for pushed film. I don't know of any "consumer" labs that will "push process" film, especially the one-hour mini-labs. They likely won't even know what you're talking about. Worse yet, some will simply nod at you as if you don't know what you're talking about, take your film and process it normally. (IMO consumer labs have a difficult time properly processing normally exposed film as it is.) Full-service professional labs will push process. You need to identify the film as pushed and tell them by how much (in stops). You *will* pay an additional charge for this. No other film can be processed in their machine when a pushed roll goes through, and there's the setup time for your film roll plus resetting the machine for normal processing afterward.

The alternative not mentioned, *if* it is allowed, is using a powerful flash with a GN of at least 120 to 130 (these are expensive also). The problem with flash is the long distances involved. I have a personal aversion to using flash with sports as it can be distracting to the players, but in some locales, especially for high school sports, it seems to be acceptable. Other locales absolutely forbid it.

-- John

2/1/2002 6:25:21 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Christie E. Kleinert

member since: 3/23/2001
  2273 .  Pentagon Shapes in Direct Sun and Moon Shots
 
  Sunset at Eleven Mile Reservoir
Sunset at Eleven Mile Reservoir
Sunset lacking sun
© Christie E. Kleinert
 
  Moon at sunset over water
Moon at sunset over water
best effort at focusing moon
© Christie E. Kleinert
 
I have taken nice shots of sunsets, none with the actual sun still in the photo, I always end up with those pentagon shapes in the photo or a blurry sun, with or without a filter on the lens. I've also had the same problem with a full or almost full moon, mainly when it seems focused I shoot and the picture is a big blob of white. I have a Canon EOS Rebel 2000. The only pictures I could upload is a shot of what I always get, the post "sunset", and the moon picture is a little out of focus but I tried! Any suggestions for sunsets or how to better focus on the moon? Thanks!

12/6/2001 9:57:31 PM

Ken Pang

member since: 7/8/2000
  Hmm, all I saw in your photos are jpeg compression artifacts.

However, whenever you take photos of a light source, you are never going to get a sharp point. It's always going to flare. (I believe the term is lens flare, but I could be wrong)

I think, though, more likely in your case, it's actually because the sun/moon is way over exposed. Because the surrounding black is so dark, the camera wants to expose the film more, until it has an average of 18% grey on your film. Of course, that means that any bright points are going to be a blurry blob of light.

To avoid this, you need to spot meter from the moon (good luck with the sun! - actually, don't try it. I've heard that it's possible to damage some light meters by pointing them at the sun) The down side of this, of course, is that the rest of the photo will then be pitch black. It's an unavoidable consequence because of the thin exposure latitude of film. (IE, film cannot see both very bright and very dark like the eyes can)

Hope this helps.

Ken.

12/7/2001 4:04:38 AM

Christie E. Kleinert

member since: 3/23/2001
  Thanks! I guess that means maybe I should also try underexposing by 1/2 to 1 full stop? I think you gave me some good places to start! Again thanks!

Christie

12/7/2001 4:56:55 PM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Christie,
Pentagon shapes in your photographs? If you still have the instruction sheet for your lens, look up its specifications. I'd bet dollars to donuts it has five aperture blades in the aperture diaphragm.

Wide open, the aperture is formed by the round lens barrel. As it stops down, these blades form a polygon shaped aperture. Many of the Canon EF lenses for the EOS system have five blades and these form a pentagon shaped aperture at anything but wide open. When a very small and very bright light source (compared to the rest of the image) is within the field of view, the light from it bounces around inside your lens and cause a bright spot in the shape of the lens aperture diaphragm. This is called "aperture flare." Filters won't do anything to eliminate it. In fact, they can make it worse or create additional problems with the added air/glass surfaces for light to reflect from and bounce around inside your lens.

Some lenses are more prone to aperture flare than others; it's a function of lens design related to formulation of the glass elements and groups, anti-reflective optical coating(s) on them, location of the aperture diaphragm inside the lens, and the construction of the lens barrel (placement of light baffles and effectiveness of the "flocking" to reduce internal reflections).

Suggestions:
(1) Take all filters off your lens under these and similar conditions that have very bright small sources of light either in view, or just outside of view but still illuminating the front of the lens. Use a filter *only* if it's a specialty type desired for artistic reasons (e.g., graduated neutral density, "star," multi-image). The desire for the special effect should be strong enough to outweigh the risks created by adding more air/glass surfaces for light to reflect from.
(2) Use a lens hood! This helps keep off-axis light sources outside the field of view from adding to the problem.
(3) Look carefully in your viewfinder for this effect. You won't see the pentagon because your lens is held wide open until you trip the shutter, but you should see a round spot. In the viewfinder, they're very small, dim and easy to miss; not nearly as prominent as they end up in the enlarged photograph. If you spot one and it's objectionable, try recomposing to see if you can eliminate it and still maintain a desirable composition. If it's from a source outside the field of view, and you already have the hood on the lens, use something to shade the lens with to block it. I've used my hand, hat, gray card, a coat hung or propped up on something (or held by a friend), and on one occasion a large maple leaf. Just ensure whatever you use doesn't end up in the field of view!

-- John

12/9/2001 11:33:38 AM

Jagdish D

member since: 12/4/2001
  As far as shooting pictures of moon goes, you could use the sunny 16 rule to set the exposure as it is directly lit by the sun. Try using a exposure of f8 and 250 shutter speed which would give the same exposure as the sunny 16 rule. Using a faster shutter speed is better to freeze slightest of movements.

For the sunset, wait till the sun is really low on the horizon. Meter from an area next to the sun excluding the sun from the field of view. Set the reading and then recompose your picture.

12/10/2001 11:57:30 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Lisa Plourde

member since: 10/19/2001
  2274 .  Lighting for Portrait - Images Too Dark
 
  Christmas baby
Christmas baby
Baby in a red box with bow
© Lisa Plourde
 
I tried to photograph my daughter with a lot of lighting in the room and a white sheet behind her. She was in a box with red foil paper and a pearlescent bow. The photos came out very dark. Did the flash reflect from the bo877777777777+w and paper? What can I do to fix this?

10/19/2001 9:14:29 PM

Phil Banton

member since: 2/3/2001
  This is just my guess, you could have metered off of the white sheet, makeing your camera think the room was much brighter than it was, like when your subject is in front of a window.

10/19/2001 10:15:04 PM

Mark A. Braxton

member since: 5/2/2000
  Dear Lisa,
Looks like a cute setup you had. A lot of times, we amateurs make the mistake of matrix metering for portraits. The best metering for this would have been metering on your daughter's face and synchronized flash usage. The reflection off of the box still could have swayed the metering though.

I would try lowering the light level in the room also. This also could be a situation where a high f-stop and slow shutter speed might help also. A sync flash cord might also not be a nice investment.

10/21/2001 1:03:18 PM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Lisa,
Looks like you got a lot of reflectivity from the flash on the red foil. The give-away is the white "hot spot" just above the bow. When a strong reflection occurs from a colored surface, the light that bounces around picks up that color. This is most probably why the entire photograph has a pinkish cast to it and all but the hot spot is underexposed. I suspect you were using an on-camera flash just above the lens as no shadows on the white sheet are evident.

You didn't mention lighting details. This type of photograph begs for off-camera flash. A single light, mounted up higher above the camera and angling down at the subject could work, and might get rid of the hot spot. If you cannot move the flash higher, then try angling the box slightly and move the bow toward the upper corner facing the camera. A vertical composition, and moving closer would make your subject fill the frame better, if you can get the flash off of the camera and keep it well above the lens.

-- John

10/21/2001 11:02:37 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Antoine Skinner

member since: 6/14/2001
  2275 .  Filters for B&W Photo
I really enjoy black and white pictures. I would like to know what filter could I use to darken the skin tone of an African American? I would like to use this information to take portrait pictures of my girlfriend looking out a window against a light background.

10/17/2001 12:01:44 AM

Veronica  A. Cavera

member since: 3/11/2002
  Hi Antoine, The two filters I use for b&w is a red and a yellow. They both have different affects and the best way to see which one you like better for different subjects is by experimenting.

8/21/2002 11:47:58 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Joy Fender

member since: 11/6/2005
  2276 .  Troubleshooting: What Would Cause This?
 
  What is this?
What is this?
Weird mark on some of my pictures
© Joy Fender
 
Attached is a portion of a picture I took yesterday and had developed today. You'll see an odd marking on the pic. I originally thought this was due to a mark on my 80-200mm zoom lens. Yesterday, I made sure I only used my 28-105mm lens.

Now I realize that it's something that the *camera* itself is doing. I'm using a Rebel 2000. This doesn't happen on every picture. About 5-7 per 24 exposure roll. Doesn't matter the speed either. I typically use 200 or 400 speed (Fuji Superia).

Any thoughts?

10/14/2001 11:27:42 PM

  Joy, something is blocking the light from hitting the film. I would assume that a hair fell into the camera when you were changing film at some point. Look inside of the camera and do not touch the shutter blades or the screen. If you see a hair or piece of string etc, carefully remove it with a tweezers. If you don't see anything, take it to a camera shop with the picture and they will be able to help you.

10/15/2001 3:19:39 PM

James Miotke
BetterPhoto Member
BetterPhotoJim.com
Owner, BetterPhoto.com, Inc.
  Hi Joy,

I agree with Donnarae and would just add that people have been known to damage that shutter leaves on Rebels; although they are great cameras, they are notorious for being fragile in this area.

I would try to use an air blower to dislodge the hair before attempting surgery.

10/15/2001 6:19:20 PM

Joy Fender

member since: 11/6/2005
  I took a look and actually believe there is a teeny (almost microscopic) scratch. How it got there, I don't know. Will have to find a good camera shop to have them look at it to be sure. :::sigh:::

10/16/2001 2:42:22 PM

  Hi Joy, Where do you think that you see a tiny scratch? What does the piece look like?

10/16/2001 7:14:28 PM

Joy Fender

member since: 11/6/2005
  Hi Donna: The scratch is on the mirror inside the camera. When I take off the lens and hold the camera upright and facing me, I see the mark or scratch in the bottom right corner of the mirror portion of the interior (not sure of the proper names).

I also went through the entire roll of pictures and can see it on every frame. In many instances, the area of the picture where this mark ends up is dark and not noticeable without close scrutiny. And the difference between where it lands is simply from how I hold the camera.

I'm taking it to a good camera shop tomorrow and let them take a look. The camera is not even a year old yet (was an Xmas present last year). I'm bummed.

10/16/2001 7:40:27 PM

  Joy, Don't be bummed! You are doing the right thing at this point in time. It is hard to diagnose it without seeing the camera myself. First look in the phone book and find the closest authorized Canon dealer, then look for the box that this came in and find the warranty card. If the camera does indeed have a physical problem, mail it to the Canon factory in NJ with the purchase invoice and they will fix it for FREE and do a wonderful job. It will be like getting a brand new camera. Good luck and let me know how it went. It will be OK!

10/16/2001 8:15:05 PM

Joy Fender

member since: 11/6/2005
  Thanks for the info Donna. I *will* try that!

10/16/2001 8:19:20 PM

  any time... donnarae

10/16/2001 8:33:02 PM

James Miotke
BetterPhoto Member
BetterPhotoJim.com
Owner, BetterPhoto.com, Inc.
  Hi Joy,

It looks like you got a lot of help and are on your way.

I just wanted to point out that the mirror flips up and out of the way when you take the picture. So if you seem to see a scratch there, it might be something being reflected in the mirror. But it probably is not the problem causing the imperfections in the photos.

Either way, you are doing the right thing by taking it in. Hopefully it will be a small problem and easily fixed.

Best wishes,

10/16/2001 9:16:41 PM

Joy Fender

member since: 11/6/2005
  The Final Chapter:

Good news! It *was* a hair stuck in the shutter blades!! The guy at the camera shop was really nice about it (i.e., he didn't laugh at me, too hard :) ). He got the hair out, used some canned air and handed me back my camera. No charge.

I of course was so happy to find that there wasn't a major problem. Not to mention I was in an honest to goodness camera shop (as in, NOT a Circuit City or Best Buy). So, I had to help myself to some supplies: new cap for one of my Canon lens (lost on the first day I used it), a cap strap for said lens, a warming filter (my first!) and a lens cloth.

Thanks again, Donna and Jim, for the advice!

10/17/2001 2:11:10 PM

  Hi Joy, THATS GREAT NEWS! I am so happy for you. Start shooting away now! donnarae

10/17/2001 3:39:02 PM

  Joy, Get a UV filter for your lens too if you don't have one. It will protect your lens when the cap vanishes and help rid your picture of UV rays.

10/17/2001 3:44:03 PM

James Bennett

member since: 1/22/2001
  I was fascinated by this discussion. I had the EXACT same problem w/ EXACTLY the same camera, and a local shop fixed me up EXACTLY the same way. His five second repair earned him a long time customer!! I also learned that having a true photo shop develop my pictures is a lot better than the one hour drive throughs. A tad more expensive but well worth the cost.

10/27/2001 8:52:35 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Joy Fender

member since: 11/6/2005
  2277 .  Should I Use A Tripod?
I've been unsuccessful taking pictures of my dog in motion. We're spending a lot of time hiking and I'd like to get some shots of him on the trail. I'm using a Canon Rebel 2000, 200 or 400 speed film. I switch between a Canon 75-200 zoom lens and a Tamron 28-105 zoom lens.

All my shots of him moving are blurry, even when I use the "sport" mode on the camera. I'm wondering if the problem is my handling of the camera. Would I have better luck if I had the camera on a tripod?

Thanks!

10/14/2001 8:52:32 AM

  Hi Joy, try doing this hand held again by following the dogs movements with your eye on the camera. When you see the shot that you want, carefully press the shutter half-way until you see the green light. Keep panning - then follow thru and snap the picture without jerking. Continue using the mode that you are in until you learn how to do this. If you can not do this by hand, definatly use a tripod using the same tecnique. goodluck =donnarae

10/14/2001 10:23:53 AM

Mike Turner

member since: 3/16/2001
  Joy,

My thoughts are that a tripod would complicate things. I am going to make a couple of assumptions; that you are hiking during the day, and that you can hold the camera **relatively** still. With 400 speed film, even 200 in broad daylight you should be able to get the shot you want. Follow Donna's directions and you will end up with a masterpiece. Also, remember to zoom in on your dog and a tip I just learned is, for the best shot, get down at your dog's level. Good luck!!!

10/19/2001 12:42:50 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Yonatan 

member since: 3/11/2001
  2278 .  Vignetting Problem with SIGMA lens 28-200 (part 2)
As Chuck, I had the same problem with the same lens (only using a Canon Rebel G camera), I found it to happen when I needed to use the flash.

What is the reason, and how can I avoid it? Does removing the hood solve it 100%?

Thank you in advance.

10/10/2001 2:15:33 AM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  You guys aren't stacking filters are you? Just kidding; I'm sure you're not. If it's not the hood (lens shade), maybe it's something internal going on in the lens. Rather imprecise, but I'm stumped, too.

10/10/2001 7:46:30 AM

  Hi, I would not recommend using the hood with the flash nor at short focal lengths. Both cause vingnetting. Check the owners manual that came with the lens and this may give you some additional information on when you should or should not use it. These manuals come in very handy at times. Good luck.

10/10/2001 5:18:25 PM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  Sounds like you nailed it for us, Donnarae. Thank you.

Until someone tells me my neo-Luddite views are unwelcome, I'll offer you one more. It is true that zooms are better than they were ten years ago. However, we can expect to take some kind of hit in optical quality with a zoom of such a huge range, in the form of distortion, reduced resolution, or some sort of problem such as this. Hold on to this zoom, as it's probably fine in the 50-200 range. If you're a wide angle fan, as I am, consider either prime lenses (one focal length, such as a 24, 28, or 35-mm) or a narrower range wide-angle zoom such as a 24-35. Canon's L-series is expensive, but is said to be so good that you'll never need to buy another wide angle.

Always use a hood with a wide-angle; you'll need it even more.

10/11/2001 9:23:24 AM

  Hi Doug, In my opinion, telephoto lenses are better than ever. They are lighter and more compact. I am a small lady and carrying my camera, bag and tripod, etc. are enough weight for me so who needs cumbersome lenses, too. Canon's L series IS the best that money can buy. I have a 300 IS L lens which is my favorite and compared to the 400 lenses years ago - this baby is a charm. It is ultra-fast and for quick action when you don't have a tripod in a dimly lit areas you can switch to the IS (Image Stabilizer). This is one of the main reasons that I purchased this. You can't compare these lenses with anything made years ago. The optical quality alone is pheonomial. All of the L series lenses are excellent. Some photographers sell these lenses on ebay at a discount price. I have met professional photographers in the past couple of years who have said they purchased their L series lens on ebay and it was good as new, so that is an alternative way to get something excellent without having to settle for less. Good luck.

10/11/2001 2:54:14 PM

Robin Davies

member since: 10/16/2001
  I'm not familiar with the camera or the lens, but there is one obvious possible cause of the problem. You said that the problem seems to happen when you use a flash. That's a pretty good indicator that spread of your flash isn't wide enough for a short focal length lens. If you can, try using a diffusing lens on the flash. My flash has a bumpy plastic bit that snaps over the face of the flash to accomplish this. The manual for my flash says that it needs a diffuser for 28mm lenses. Perhaps yours is the same.

Regards,

10/17/2001 10:54:18 PM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  A few lashes with a camera strap on me for not thinking of this in the first place, Robin. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. I've had it happen, too, not so much at 35mm, but for sure at 28mm.

10/22/2001 1:38:16 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Lu 

member since: 10/8/2001
  2279 .  Sony Camera + HP PhotoSmart Printer = Unclear Pics
I use a Sony digital camera (uses floppy disks) and HP Photosmart 1000 printer. Pics look great on PC but when I print them out, they are not as clear as they should be. I am using high gloss Kodak paper. Would changing to HP high gloss paper make a difference? Also for taking pics of people, what settings should I be using on camera and on printer. Something is NOT RIGHT and I am wasting photo paper. Please help. (My husband bought this camera but wants ME to learn how to use it).

10/8/2001 12:45:39 PM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  You're caught up in a common problem caused by the manufacturers' failure to teach us how to use digital equipment. There's nothing wrong with your camera or your printer.

Digital pics look great on screen. To get good prints, you should use the camera's highest quality and resolution settings. Look under JPEG compression and use the highest quality (the least compression) you can. Better still, if the camera captures in the TIF mode, use that. At these settings, you won't get as many images on a floppy. Just get more floppies. That's the price of having resolution sufficient for printing.

Digital images should go to the printer by way of your imaging software. Here you can size your image. Do nothing here that changes the file size (total number of pixels) of your image. For your purpose here, adjust the image so that the resolution reads 150 pixels per inch (ppi). This may not be an 8 x 10, but will be a decent print size. You can also adjust the brightness/ contrast, and fix dust spots.

Set your printer at a good quality setting. I doubt that a camera that stores images on floppies will give you a big enough file size to print at the full resolution capability of this printer. You want a printer setting that will give you a decent print with about a 150 PPI image file going INTO the printer. That setting may be about 600 dpi. I think you'll be surprised at the nice prints you can get from your set-up.

Try these tips and come back to us if you have a problem. Now give your husband a hug. He knew you were smart enough to go to the right place for answers.

10/9/2001 9:04:34 AM

Lisa Young

member since: 9/1/2001
  When I tried to use Kodak paper for my HP 952c, the colors ran. I told someone about it and they told me that HP has some sort of chemical process in their inks that makes you use their photo paper because it works best with HP photo paper. I tried it and they were right, no more smears and made some great photos up to 8x10 on it with the dpi set at 300. I run out of temporary memory if I set it any higher. By the way I have a Sony MVC FD-95 with 2.1 mp and use memory sticks for my photos. Good luck!

10/9/2001 7:33:47 PM

Valena Sturdivant

member since: 9/30/2001
  I believe the two responses before mine are correct. I had the same problem and the first thing I had to fix was my printer settings. Make sure you set your printer to photoenhance or the like for your printer. But MAKE SURE you set it back when printing text material or you will use more ink than necessary on your text material. Second I have an Epson printer and tried HP Photo paper and Kodak paper and it just won't work. You are better off using the same kind of paper as your printer. Another hint is that Photo Paper is a higher grade than Photo Quality Paper. The glossy, matte, or semi-glossy doesn't matter but try to always use Photo Paper made by the same company as your printer. Good luck!

10/9/2001 10:13:16 PM

  Lu, you didn't give us much information about your Sony camera. Having owned 5 diffrent Sony digitals, I have a bit of experience printing from them. If you have a camera with numbers from FD 71 through FD 91 even on the fine setting you will only get files around 150K. Not nearly enough to print 8x10. They do a good job on 3x5 and occasionally 5x7 The FD 95 averages about 350K and does a much better job. The FD 97 averages 850K and does a very respectable job on 8x10. The posts above about balancing your printer and paper are right on. I have had some success with Red River paper in both HP and Epson printers.

10/9/2001 10:38:13 PM

James Miotke
BetterPhoto Member
BetterPhotoJim.com
Owner, BetterPhoto.com, Inc.
  These are all right answers, complete with a lot of great tips, but I wanted to second Doug's last response in particular. Many of the floppy disk Sony Mavica cameras just cannot hold a big enough image on that little bit of storage. They are convenient and work excellent for onscreen images (which can be a tiny fraction of the size required for print).

What can you do? Try taking one picture at the highest possible resolution and quality. I say one because that is probably all that will fit on the floppy. Print it out and see how it looks. Before printing, try to make sure that the image resolution is no smaller than 150 ppi (and no bigger than 300 ppi). If it looks better, you're in business.

To get more than one image at a time, you MIGHT be able to utilize the Super Floppy disks. I think 3M makes them and they hold 120MBs, if memory serves. Check to make sure your camera can use it but if it does, you will get a lot more use out of your current camera.

Hope this helps.

10/10/2001 1:13:34 AM

Lisa Young

member since: 9/1/2001
  My Sony MVC FD-95 takes floppies and for the standard floppy at the highest image quality I can get four on it. So rather than constantly changing out floppies I bought the memory stick adaptor and a 64mb memory stick can hold 180 shots at the highest resolution for this camera. It takes 20 seconds between shots for downloads, but who knows how many seconds it would take to change out floppies. So that might also be an option for your Sony. Good luck!

10/10/2001 1:24:31 AM

Robert Allen

member since: 7/31/2001
  I use an Epson printer and print on Kodak paper with great results and only occasionaly adjust the printer settings. I am still learning as well.

10/13/2001 8:43:55 AM

Richard A. Etts

member since: 4/5/2002
 
 
  Burlington
Burlington
Photo Glossy Heavyweight
 
  Jet Print
Jet Print
Premium Photo
 
 
Lu, I own the HP 952C and I don't use HP paper (too expensive). I get Burlington's Heavyweight Photo Glossy (with the baby pic) and Jet Print Photo's Premium Photo Paper (with the barn scene) for all my printing. A 1000+ prints later I have none I didn't like. Both these papers are available at most any department store or office supply store. In your print settings chose HP Premium Plus Photo Paper to print. Hope this helps.

4/5/2002 10:01:05 AM

James Fuqua

member since: 6/11/2003
  I just started photography with a Canon PowwerShot A20. Not a very expensive camera but I get good prints up to 8X10 using my Canon S820D Printer. I have also tried all brands of paper and I get the best quality prints on HP paper. Maybe a little more expensive but I prefer it over Kodak or some of the other brands.

James Fuqua

6/11/2003 4:54:31 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Chuck 

member since: 9/14/2001
  2280 .  Vignetting Problems with Sigma 28-200 Lens
I recently purchased a Sigma 28-200 lens for travel. In the 28-35mm range I have noticed that the corners of the prints are darker (vignetting). Is this a fault with the lens or am I not doing something right. I'm using a Pentax PZ1P camera and have not experienced this with any other lens. Thank you.

10/5/2001 11:04:40 AM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  I've had this happen because of lens hoods. Are you using the one Sigma gave you? It's hard to design a hood that will work right at the wide and narrow ends of that huge range. Also, some makers don't care, figuring that, since common print sizes are not proportional to the 35-mm frame, the printing machines will crop out any vignetting. If you shoot slides, you'll see vignetting in this situation. Take off the hood and see if that's it.

10/5/2001 11:37:00 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
<< Previous 10 skip to page
1 << 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | ...229
Next 7  >>

Copyright 1996-2014 BetterPhoto.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.