Airport x-ray machines....

[handicap18]

Kelly,
I guess I need to explore my camera a little more.
If I have it set to JPG Normal I get 3008x2000 pixels and about a 1.5mg sized image which my camera says I can fit 548 images. At JPG Fine I get 3008x2000 pixels and about a 2.2mg sized image and the camera says I can fit about 290 images.

A 4x6" print either way is going to look great. If I know I'm going to want larger prints I'll go back and forth as needed. But even at JPG Normal I'll get excellent prints. My 3.2 megapixel camera gave me some great 5x7's and 8x10's.

But I'm getting off topic now.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

No it won't. "Great" is a relative term. Even my grandfather who is 80+ years old can disinguish the difference when he compared a 4x6 printed from a "fine" setting versus the one prined from a "normal" setting.

Look carefully at details such as grass, at gradients such as clouds, at colour differences such as Dr. Seuss' carousel at IOA, at the noise level on night scenes at high ISO or fireworks and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Of course, to know this, your pics also have to be printed at a proper finishing place unlike Walgreens and the like.

 

[pyrxtc]

No it won't. "Great" is a relative term. Even my grandfather who is 80+ years old can disinguish the difference when he compared a 4x6 printed from a "fine" setting versus the one prined from a "normal" setting.

Look carefully at details such as grass, at gradients such as clouds, at colour differences such as Dr. Seuss' carousel at IOA, at the noise level on night scenes at high ISO or fireworks and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Of course, to know this, your pics also have to be printed at a proper finishing place unlike Walgreens and the like.

I just want to say that this is BUll! Witht he naked eye, noone can distiguish the difference. most places you have your prints made are going to lower the resolution significantly anyways. If two of your pics , taken of the same place, but at different resolutions. come out looking different, it is the problem of the lab that you are having your prints made at. I have put in orders for pics that have been taken with my 2 MP camera long with pics from my 8 MP camera and the color comes out amazing every time and you cannot distinguish whci camera took which picture unless I blew them up to a poster size photograph. For a 4x6 print, you can take it with a 2 mp and not lose any quality or color.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Sure, sure. Whatever you say. I only use properly calibrated picture and a pro photo finishing company that Fuji themselves take their custom sized prints done. Just because YOU can not see the difference, doesn't mean the problem is not there.
It's like some people can't see the difference between a $2000 plasma and another at $4000.

You can't see the difference, more power to you. You can save space, take more picture, run your film gazillion times through Xray. I can see the difference. DH can, my parents can, my grandparents can, my photography teacher can.

Again, if you can't see the difference, congratulations, and I'm NOT being sarcastic.

I have put in orders for pics that have been taken with my 2 MP camera long with pics from my 8 MP camera and the color comes out amazing every time

This can only mean that your photo finisher did the compensation (colour rendition, colour depth, exposure) for you. I suggest try doing that with a PRO photo finisher, not "most" (which includes Walmart, Walrgreens, Ofoto and other photo finisher who caters the average consumer). I never use those photo finishers anymore for the following reasons:

1. Their machines are not calibrated daily to the proper colour temperature
2. They tend use thinner photo paper (maybe same brand but different weight)
3. They tend to muck around with the colour balance (amongst everything else) even after you ask them to just print it as is.

Oh, btw, to know exactly how the print is supposed to look like, you will also need to have your PC screen to be perfectly calibrated. ie, buy a proper calibration sensor, calibrate your screen once a week, have the screen in a light-controlled environment).

 

[crazee4mickey]

Wow ---I asked a simple question and even this can cause people to get "hot under the collar"!
Thanks to anyone who answered my initial question about the x-ray machines at airports and the effects they have on film, memory cards, etc. I like the idea of the ziploc bag and also the lead lined bag--will definately be taking my cameras as carry on!
Thanks WillCad for your direction to your webpage, I will follow your advice as I know it is quite dependable....I believe it was you who also answered some of my photography questions before our first trip to WDW, all great advice..thanks again to all who provided the answers!

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Wow ---I asked a simple question and even this can cause people to get "hot under the collar"!

My apology for the way I write. I just don't like being called "BULL"

 

[pyrxtc]

Sorry, but I do have my prints made at a proffesional lab since I am a professional photographer! I would never trust my important prints to a place like Walmart or shutterfly or anythng like that. They also do not "color correct" my photos. Just that the point was on a 4x6 photograph, it can only fit so many MP's in the first place. Now if you tried to zoom in on a small space using a smaller MP camera, then it would get mighty grainy. But is the OP is printing 4x6 of her original shot, she will not see a difference.

froma photography website

"300 DPI is generally considered photo quality. If you go higher than that, it's not really going to make any difference once the results are printed.

So, if you only print 4x6 photos, a 2.1 MP camera is all you'll need.
Here's an example to illustrate this. Let's say you take the same photo with both a 2.1 MP camera and a 8MP camera. Now, you go home and make a 4x6 from each camera. Guess what? You won't be able to tell the difference. And any differences you could detect are probably due to sensor and lens differences. Heck, it's possible the 2.1 MP camera would give you better results if it had a better image sensor and lens than the 8MP camera!

You see, megapixels alone don't determine quality and sharpness. They're simply a measure of resolution—how many dots make up your image. Picture quality and sharpness are determined by the quality of your sensor and lens."

http://www.worldstart.com/tips/tips.php/1332

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Wow, somebody needs to take a chill pill... a whole bottle of them.

I never talk about resolution, I've always been saying that the difference is from COMPRESSION LEVEL (Fine vs Normal settings. Both at 6 MP) and you CAN see the difference in the following areas:

1. Colour rendition
2. Artifacts
3. Dynamic range
4. Details

and the list goes on.

Your quote from the photography website also means nothing. It is commonly accepted in the video industry that a video resolution higher than 1080p will not be detectable by the human eye. Guess what? During CES a certain company showed 4320p and EVERYBODY can see the difference with the exception of a couple of people. Ever think that you may be one of those "couple of people"

BTW, did I mentioned that just because YOU can't see it, doesn't mean nobody else in the world can see it.

Oh, as a reminder, I'm NOT talking about resolution difference, I AM talking about compression difference. Of course, as a professional photographer you already know the difference between "resolution" and "compression level", right?

 

[safetymom]

Sorry I know too many pros that had problems and they all know now not to send them through the scanner. You can't be too careful.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Can you tell which picture taken with "FINE" setting and which with "NORMAL" (higher compression) setting? On a 17" monitor at 72 dpi, the picture is even smaller than 3.5"x5" (let alone 4x6"). However, one can still see easily which picture was taken using low compression and which one with higher compression. Especially if you know where (or what) to look for.

hint: the one with edge-enhancement (halo-effect around the objects) is the one with higher compression. Of course, this will be hidden once the monitor (or print) brightness is boosted to a non-industry-standard level.

 

[pyrxtc]

another picture to compare it to would help...........

 

[Kelly Grannell]

No, I'm not going to do the homework for you. It's clear and it's proven that even at 72 dpi, at 3"x3" size you can see the difference in compression (bunking your theory that the difference is not noticable to the naked eye at 4x6).

My recommendation is for you to do the homework before jumping to conclusion and calling other's opinion as "bull". Especially when the poster (ie, me) was talking about compression and not resolution.