Best vs. Good settings

[Kitts21]

Hello all, seeing how I am also one of these dig.challenged people, I was hopeing some of you might be able to help me out. I own a Kodak Z730 camera(5 megapix ), I know alot of you are anti-kodak but it was a good buy. Anyway in the manual it say's to take pictures in the "Best" picture quality setting. In this mode I get 300 pic. on a 1 gig card. When I first purchaced the camera it was only on the "good" setting, in that one I would almost double my storage to I think 520 pic. My question is this.....Is there a big diffrence in the way the pics will look or is this more for an advanced potographer? I know the whole "best" and "good" is a little fuzzy on the meaning but those are the terms used in the manual and on the camera So if anyone could help I would be very thankful.

 

[ukcatfan]

With the cheap prices of memory today, I never shoot in anything but the best quality. Even if you do not notice much of a difference in quality today, in the future you might regret not having used the best setting. You can get a 2GB card of SD or CF (I do not know which your camera uses) for around $35-40 now. I prefer to buy memory from Newegg.com because they have always had great customer service for me.

No camera manufacturer makes a setting on a P&S camera for the advanced photographer. They all realize that the advanced user is going to use a DSLR.

As for the Kodak thing, I am not going to bash your camera, because you already own it and that would just be rude. After all, if you are happy with it, what else matters? I just ask that you consider Canon on your next purchase. I personally feel that it is worth the extra $ over Kodak.

 

[Anewman]

Hello all, seeing how I am also one of these dig.challenged people, I was hopeing some of you might be able to help me out. I own a Kodak Z730 camera(5 megapix ), I know alot of you are anti-kodak but it was a good buy. Anyway in the manual it say's to take pictures in the "Best" picture quality setting. In this mode I get 300 pic. on a 1 gig card. When I first purchaced the camera it was only on the "good" setting, in that one I would almost double my storage to I think 520 pic. My question is this.....Is there a big diffrence in the way the pics will look or is this more for an advanced potographer? I know the whole "best" and "good" is a little fuzzy on the meaning but those are the terms used in the manual and on the camera So if anyone could help I would be very thankful.

Nobody here is "anti-kodak", welcome to the board.

IMO it defeats the purpose of buying the best camera we can afford to, if one is not going to shoot with the best image quality if offers.
BUT
If running out of room on your media card is a possibility, an inferior image is better than no image at all.

Now-a-days you can find a 2gb sd card for around $30(frys).

But really if all you are doing is posting them on the web or printing 4x6's without any cropping it would be very difficult to notice the difference. If making larger prints or if the image needs serious editing the best setting is a must.


Please feel free to share some images.

 

[Master Mason]

Hello all, seeing how I am also one of these dig.challenged people, I was hopeing some of you might be able to help me out. I own a Kodak Z730 camera(5 megapix ), I know alot of you are anti-kodak but it was a good buy. Anyway in the manual it say's to take pictures in the "Best" picture quality setting. In this mode I get 300 pic. on a 1 gig card. When I first purchaced the camera it was only on the "good" setting, in that one I would almost double my storage to I think 520 pic. My question is this.....Is there a big diffrence in the way the pics will look or is this more for an advanced potographer? I know the whole "best" and "good" is a little fuzzy on the meaning but those are the terms used in the manual and on the camera So if anyone could help I would be very thankful.

The difference is the Megapix... In the best it takes the pics in using the whole 5. if the good it uses some amount less than that.

The differnce is the amount of infomation that is stored from the snap shot...
This allows you to have good image quality at larger sizes. It also saves more information that will be needed if you want to use a program to manipulate the picture.

 

[Kitts21]

Thanks for the input fellow Disers. I looked at the Cannons and they were nice ,but I got a free 1gig card with the kodak. I am also new to the digital world, so I was unsure of what I needed. We just purchaced the camera in May. I have yet to be able to get any photos of WDW, "yet" but I will this Sunday . I have taken a ton of pics of the kids and just about everything else My DW thinks I'm nuts and she keeps telling me to "Put that #$@% camera down" I've been very pleased with it so far, the only complaint I have is that we tend to look at the photos less, since they are not developed and are on the computer. I think that is more us just being lazy..... . I have just signed up to Photobucket so when we do get back I can upload the photos to there and share them with everyone. I will post a couple of shots of the kids tomorrow and mabye you guy's (and gal's) can critic them and give me some pointers. On a side note I saw some really cool pics on here were the user made the pic B7W then just "layered" in a part with color very cool. Do I need a special program for that? And if so how much do they usually run. Again thanks for the help.

 

[Rascal1003]

My logic..........

1. Always shoot at the absolute maximum available quality.
2. Always shoot multiple images if you are uncertain.

My reasoning? You will never get an opportunity to recreate that exact moment in time, so capture it as best as the equipment will permit.
You will be able to revisit the images in the future when you are a little wiser and all the data will be there.
It is easy to reduce quality of an image, but you cant create data that isnt there, so cant increase the quality (with only minor exceptions) after the event.

Set the camera to maximum and just buy more memory - it is cheap and totally reusable. Weigh this up against the equivalent film costs and you will have no hesitations.

 

[boBQuincy]

I have no problem with Kodak, I have one (DC4800) and still use it when I don't want to carry a SLR.

There is probably no reason to use anything less than the best setting available unless you are short on memory cards. I fully agree with some others, the cost of memory cards is low compared to getting that great photograph in the best quality possible.

 

[Master Mason]

Thanks for the input fellow Disers. I looked at the Cannons and they were nice ,but I got a free 1gig card with the kodak. I am also new to the digital world, so I was unsure of what I needed. We just purchaced the camera in May. I have yet to be able to get any photos of WDW, "yet" but I will this Sunday . I have taken a ton of pics of the kids and just about everything else My DW thinks I'm nuts and she keeps telling me to "Put that #$@% camera down" I've been very pleased with it so far, the only complaint I have is that we tend to look at the photos less, since they are not developed and are on the computer. I think that is more us just being lazy..... . I have just signed up to Photobucket so when we do get back I can upload the photos to there and share them with everyone. I will post a couple of shots of the kids tomorrow and mabye you guy's (and gal's) can critic them and give me some pointers. On a side note I saw some really cool pics on here were the user made the pic B7W then just "layered" in a part with color very cool. Do I need a special program for that? And if so how much do they usually run. Again thanks for the help.

There are several digital imigaing softwares out there.... your camera should have come with a simple one.

The cadilac is Photoshop.... It is the industry standard for profesionals, but it is expensive and has a large learning curve. If you have someone in school there is a place on the net that sells student versions, that willl give it to you for 1/2 price or so.

Photoshop also has a light version, that runs in the $60 range.

And as I said there are others, but those are the only 2 I am familiar with.

 

[jann1033]

actually the kodac software isn't bad, my daughter has/had an easy share and i liked the software for basic editing...i just got photoshop elements 4 and so far like it and it's much easier to use than the photoshop cs( or what ever the initials are) you can get it around 60 on ebay or maybe some oem versions someplace online

by mistake( couldn't read the lcd) i shot a bunch of pictures at med on my rebelxt( 8 mp) and they were fine but i haven't enlarged any so i don't know if i'd see a bunch of difference or not...however, being digital, if you shoot best( highest , what ever it's called) you can always go through them at luch or something and delete if you need more room.. i'd rather do that myself than use a lower setting.. with only 5 mp to start with, you don't have a lot of room to play around with cropping ect if you use much less than your best setting

 

[mhutchinson]

I didn't see this in the thread yet, so here is another reason to shoot in the best setting you can. If you decide to crop a part of the picture you will more than likely still obtain a nice clear photo. At lower resolutions the picture might start to get pixel-eeee and look digitized. As I have seen here many times, memory is really cheap these days. When I first went digital my first 48mb card I bought set me back $160 us.

btw....my family has 2 Kodak PS digitals

Welcome to the photo board.

Mike

 

[Kitts21]

The more I read through these I have realized I have led you all astray. It's not the Megapixils setting I was getting at. Altghough I was also unaware of the whole cropping thing, but it's the jpg setting for compression????? I have no idea what it's for but it tells me to use the "fine "setting and not the "standard" setting. If this means anything to you, and you can help me understand what it's for that would be great. Again thanks for bearing with me and helping me out.

 

[mhutchinson]

Fine setting typically will include better details than the standard, medium, or 'not so' fine settings. This will create cleaner images.

Mike

 

[Kitts21]

I also want to apoligize to everyone for a very poor generalization. I remember reading a lot of post when I was looking to purchace this camera, and there were a lot of negative posts about kodak. I kinda feel bad about buying somthing else since kodak was started right here in our backyad in Rochester, NY thanks for the help

 

[boBQuincy]

It still comes back to using the best setting available. Varying levels of JPG compression are available on most digital cameras.
When we take a 6 MB file and compress it to 1 MB, something has to give! What 'gives' is the image quality.

Even the best JPG has destructive compression applied, the less the better!

 

[Dan Murphy]

Kodaks are fine as far as I know. I myself use a Canon, did use A Nikon. Most cameras today are good.

I agree, best setting. Welcome to the board.

 

[ukcatfan]

I also want to apoligize to everyone for a very poor generalization. I remember reading a lot of post when I was looking to purchace this camera, and there were a lot of negative posts about kodak. I kinda feel bad about buying somthing else since kodak was started right here in our backyad in Rochester, NY thanks for the help

I will try to sum up a little about the whole Kodak issue. Almost every newer model camera from any manufacturer will satisfy the average consumer. With this board, you end up with a large number of the "other" people that really analyze the images and notice where some brands have better quality images. There have been some people that go a little too far criticizing Kodak. There is a difference between criticizing a company and criticizing a person that bought from that company. Some people have crossed the line in the past. If you like it, that is all that matters. I personally prefer Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, and even Fuji over Kodak. Again this is only my opinion.

There is one marketing ploy of Kodak's that you might want to watch out for. The dock is not needed at all and really only saves about ten seconds in starting the download process. The USB cable, or even better a dedicated card reader, work just the same. The card reader also saves your battery life. Even if the dock recharges your battery, the cable supplied with the camera does the exact same thing. They market it like it is the most innovative product ever developed.

Enjoy your new camera at WDW.

Kevin