Working with digital images

[JuneCricket]

Hi- I'm a web designer that needs to shoot on-location for my clients' web sites as well as shoot a variety of images for my own creative design purposes. This will include everything from landscapes to sports events, to campfires, to close-ups of blossoms. These images will be edited in Macromedia Fireworks and maybe Photoshop as well-- although they won't be going to print or posters, etc.  Just on the web. The images need to withstand heavy manipulation: cropping, layering, compression, slicing, etc etc

I'm not a shutterbug and I'm not rich either so I need to know what "bare minimum" I can get away with while still producing quality images that will meet my needs.  Any web-design people out there? What cameras do you recommend? What about JPG and RAW formats?

AAAAAHHHHHH!!! I have so many questions. lol

[ShutterbugGail]

Hi JuneCricket and welcome to the Q&A Board!

Can you give us a bit more information such as the type of cameras you've used previously (eg. SLR)? Are you going to use the images primarily for displaying on the web or will the images be printed?

Upon reading your first paragraph, the first thing that jumps out at me is that a digital Single Lens Reflex camera would serve you well. But then reading that you're not a shutterbug, a dSLR may be an overkill, not to mention expensive since you may need a variety of interchangeable lenses.

An all-in-one digital camera may meet your needs such as the new generation of 12X zoom cameras with Image Stabilization. They also have built in macro and super macro capabilities. I've owned 12X zoom cameras made by Panasonic and Canon and think a lot of them. Sony and Minolta also make fine 12X zooms. They are very versatile but do have a learning curve. These cameras cost about $500.00.

Yes, I am a web design person. I've never used RAW and have no interest in doing so and personally don't think it's absolutely necessary for web work. I shoot JPEG at the highest settings. On the other hand, others would not shoot anything but RAW.

Once you can give us more information, we can go from there.

[JuneCricket]

Hi - thanks for the welcome

I have NEVER used a digital camera before, so you're probably right that a dSLR camera would be overkill.  And yes, the images are primarily for web design... they won't be going to print. (If they were, would you still recommend an SLR?)

What do you think about the Canon S70 or even the S60? They look like they're user-friendly, 5+ megapixel, and include a JPG and RAW option. Do you think they'd give me problems with macro shots (not sure of that lingo, but what I mean is, will they blur if I want a close-up of a flower petal?)

You haven't had any issues with your JPG's? You haven't lost any of the image data? I'm trying to decide how important the RAW format is, since it's so HUGE. lol

[ShutterbugGail]

Of the two, I would personally opt for the S70. It's received high ratings from professional reviewers. They point out that the S70 controls noise more efficiently than the S60. The S70 also has a new sensor that's said to do quite well in preserving detail in highly and shadow areas when scenes are contrasty. Users who own one love it.

Something to consider is that the S70 only has an equivalent of a 100mm lens. This may or may not be a limiting factor for you.

Some of the cons of the S70:

Some corner softness at wide-angle and maximum aperture

Slow autofocus

Low light focus sometimes unreliable

Macro performance is average

I'd like to mention another Canon product.

If you can live with less wide-angle range and don't mind a larger camera, you should seriously take a look at the A620 (or A610). The A620 is a seven megapixel camera with 35-140mm (equiv.) zoom lens. The longer, 4X zoom may come in handy when photographing sports events. It also has faster and more reliable focus than the S70. Users say it does very well shooting a ISO 200 and 400.

I have read a lot about the A620 from owners and have seen their photos. I am very, very impressed and wouldn't mind owning one myself...except that I already have two digital cameras and, as my husband says, enough is enough.

From all I've read, the A6XX cameras take great photos right out of the box. They have plenty of useful scene modes as well as automatic, semi-automatic and manual controls. It doesn't have RAW though.

As mentioned before, I have little interest in using RAW, though many serious amateurs and pros praise it. My Nikon 5400 has a firmware update for raw and I've never installed it. JPEGs serve me well and I don't feel limited at all. I use Photoshop to tweak my photos.

[bdery]

Hi JuneCricket!

Just a note on RAW...

Each time you edit a JPEG, you loose data and quality. that's why RAW is so popular with some people, because it's a lossless format. You mentionned heavy editing, so RAW could be useful for you.

However, RAW is not an easy thing to use. You basically have to "develop" every file with a RAW editor. It takes time and skill but it's unsurpassed of course.

One other option, which is a middle ground, is TIFF. It,s a lossless format, but apart from that it's like a JPEG. In fact it's an uncompressed JPEG. A camera that offers a TIFF mode could be worth considering. then again, most recent cameras offer a high-quality JPEG setting, almost uncompressed. You could convert it to a TIFF, with undetectable loss of quality, and edit that TIFF tile afterward, without loosing quality each time.

A last thing : you mentionned sports among your projected subjects. You should consider how far from your subject you will be in this instance, because cropping can only get you so far (even though for web, you can crop rather heavily). Some cameras offer support for add-on lenses, this could come in handy for you. But the longer the focal length, the higher the risk of camera shake. Consider a tripod in these situations, or a camera with Image Stabilization.

I hope I didn't confuse you more!

[JuneCricket]

No, you aren't confusing me, the info has been great! I appreciate both of you taking the time to answer my questions in such detail.

SBGail- Now I'm really torn between the s70 and the a6xxx series! lol  I do like a faster auto-focus on the a620... I'll have to look up the specs for both cameras again, but burst mode is another thing that would be good for sporting events. Also, you said macro performance is average on the s70; is it any better on the a620? And sorry to do this to you, but what do you think about the s80 (if I decide that RAW isn't necessary right now)?  

Bdery- Ok now we get to the crux of the problem! I read in another thread about converting JPG to TIFF with fairly good results, so I'm glad you brought it up here. When I'm looking at camera specs, what am I looking for to know that it saves the images as a high-quality JPG?--- or is it something that comes "standard" with newer cameras now? Do you have any camera recommendations for what I'm doing?

[ShutterbugGail]

Now I'm really torn between the s70 and the a6xxx series! lol  I do like a faster auto-focus on the a620... I'll have to look up the specs for both cameras again, but burst mode is another thing that would be good for sporting events. Also, you said macro performance is average on the s70; is it any better on the a620? And sorry to do this to you, but what do you think about the s80 (if I decide that RAW isn't necessary right now)?  

Among the s60-70-80, I'd get the s80 if the price difference isn't an issue. It has addressed many of the issues of the earlier version, has a faster processor and is slightly lighter (not to mention good looking).

The macro in the a620 has been rated "excellent" by several respected digital camera reviewers. For what it's worth, it has an excellent video mode too.

If you decide that RAW is a requirement, your choice is easier. If you don't care one way or another if a camera has RAW, your choice is more difficult. Based on the discussion we've had so far, I think the main factors for you to consider are:

- price

- size and weight

- which is more useful - a camera with a wide angle lens or one with a longer zoom lens.

All except the cheapest cameras have HIGH quality jpeg settings. Some manufacturers call this setting BEST or FINE.

I've recently added Amazon feeds to the main site which list their top selling digital cameras. I've been amazed at how Canon seems to consistently take over the field in every category.

[JuneCricket]

Thankyou, you have been MOST helpful!!!  

[ShutterbugGail]

You're welcome. If you care to share, let us know what you decide. And come on back with questions if you need help with your new digital camera.

[bdery]

When I'm looking at camera specs, what am I looking for to know that it saves the images as a high-quality JPG?--- or is it something that comes "standard" with newer cameras now? Do you have any camera recommendations for what I'm doing?

Hi-quality JPEG isn't standard, at all. It's there on most high-end cameras, though. There is no standard about this, some companies prefer to compress more so as to take up less space on a memory card. Others vary in this too. Most people tell you to always shoot at the best quality, but myself I usually use the FINE setting with my Canon S2 (it also has SUPERFINE, but since I don't process the images much, it's not a problem for me).

The actual compression level varies, it's really a case-by -case thing.

For th kind of uses you have in mind, I wouldn't recommend anything specific. Your uses are very diverse, and I wouldn't wan to pick a camera for you. What I suggest is that you try to narrow your choices features-wise, then go to a store, ask to handle the cameras, take sample pictures if you own a memory card. Also, read the reviews of the cameras that interest you and pay attention to innocuous details like battery life, flash recycle time, etc. Those are things we don't always think about, but they can be important. www.dpreview.com is a very good website for reviews, and it offers links to other reviewing sites. Don,t be overly concerned about small details in image quality, as long as the reviewer doesn't say it's important. After all, you're going to process the images afterward...

[ShutterbugGail]

There is no standard about this, some companies prefer to compress more so as to take up less space on a memory card.  

This is true. But it is my understanding that jpegs uncompress when you open them in an editing program. That's why the 1.8 mb file I'm clicking on right now shows as 14.4 mb when I check it's properties in Photoshop or save it as a TIF (the TIF file size is also 14.4 mb). When you open an jpeg, edit it a bit then save it as a jpeg, you'll be asked to compress it again.

The quality of an image has more to do with the quality of a lens, sensor other such things than the way a particular camera compresses a jpeg. I can be wrong about this of course.

[JuneCricket]

Again, thanks to both of you for the final bits of info. I will definitely let you know what I decide on, and then tell you if its holding up to everything I'm asking from it.