# Photography for web publishing

#### Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

•  Subject
• Author
• Posted on
Does any body have any experience of photography for the web? I have
been using film, which is then processed, scanned and cropped as
required. However, in this day and age film photography is becoming
difficult, and I feel bullied into having to buy a digital camera.

My main bone of contention is quality. I prefer 200 ASA film, and
ideally 100 ASA because I don't like graininess and do like the
sharpness. The equivalent quality of 100 ASA isn't supported by any
digital SLR I can find (makes me laugh or perhaps that should be cry,
an old second hand Pentaz MZ-M which came free with a 40 quid second
hand lens produces better quality than a 500 pound modern DSLR) and
the best I can find is 200 ASA equivalent - eg: about 10 mega pixel
resolution.

Of course, with Jpeg compression costing quality anyway, perhaps its
not a practical obstacle? And the convenience of digital is self
evident - no more travelling miles, spending a day taking pictures
only to later find when they are develped you had the exposure set

Matt
--
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

## Re: Photography for web publishing

Matt Probert wrote:

Don't know about DSLRs, but my 3.2 mega pixel non-SLR camera works
just fine for the web. (IMO of course).

If you want I can send you a couple of original sized photos so you
can check for yourself whether the quality is acceptable.

Just curious: how did you link the quality of a 36mm negative of 200
ASA to a digital 10 mega pixel resolution?

--
Els                     http://locusmeus.com /

## Re: Photography for web publishing

I was assured of the relationship by a trusted camera technican.
Research also seems to substantiate his claim. Consulting various
camera manufacturer web sites seems to support the notion, 10
megapixels (approx) is roughly equal to 200 ASA film in terms of
graininess.

Which when one is using a 500 mm lens to take wildlife shots, and even
then having to crop out a small area and enlarge it, is relevant. (As
incidentally is backward compatability. The man at Pentax suggested I
bin my old lenses, even though one retails for almost 600 - roughly
\$1200!) and buy new ones. He should wish!

I appreciate what some other people have said about file size, and if
I were taking landscape shots with a 35 mm film lens (18 mm digital)
then of course I shouldn't worry!

As an aside, my own prints (rather than pictures for the
encyclopaedia) I often develope at A4 size, and I can see the
difference between 200 and 400 ASA film at that size..

Matt
--
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

## Re: Photography for web publishing

Matt Probert wrote:

I see.

Of course. I try to get as close as possible and only use optical
zoom, but I can see the problem when shooting pics of tigers.

Easy for him to say - doubt he'd bin his own lenses if they'd cost
that much.

Still depending on how large you'd want to print them :-)

Definitely. Not too difficult to spot on a regular 4x6" print either,
and I only use 400 when 200 is absolutely not enough for the available
light. Still, for the web you don't need a lot of megapixels, as long
as you can get close enough to the subject with only optical zoom.

--
Els                     http://locusmeus.com /

## Re: Photography for web publishing

Els wrote:

I use 400 for BW work, as I like that to be grainy. But for colour, it's
always 100.
To be honest Matt, you aren't going to notice any degradation, even if you
drop as low as 5mp camera.
The relationship between film ASA and megapixels isn't as relevant as a lot
of folks claim.
The megapixel count is more closely related to the film size format...For
example, 110, 35mm 120 etc etc.
ASA can be more closely associated with the ISO setting on a digital
camera - sensitivity to light.
My current digital camera will run from ISO 100 to ISO 3200.
At ISO 100, it produces better results than a good quality ASA100 35mm film,
unless I start trying to make prints of A2 and A1 size or bigger.

## Re: Photography for web publishing

Matt Probert wrote:

Matt,

Anything with ASA 100 quality would be a huge file.

A professional photographer I know uses a 16M pixel camera.  He's gotten
away from film all together.  Works fine for him, and saves him a huge
amount of money in film processing.

Unless you're going to blow it up to mural size and print it, you
shouldn't see any difference.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

## Re: Photography for web publishing

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

I think you're mixing up your film quality with resolution.
ASA (film terminology) or the digital equivalent term of ISO simply refers
to the film or CCD's sensitivity to light.
As the sensitivity increases, so does the noise or film grain in the final
image, but it doesn't affect the file size.

If I set my camera to ISO 100 and take a photo, then increase it to ISO 3200
and take the same photo, both pictures will have the same physical
dimensions and take up the same space on my memory card.
However, if I set my camera to 1 megapixel and take a photo, then set it to
6 megapixels and take the same photo, both pictures will have very different
dimensions and take up different amounts of memory card real estate.

## Re: Photography for web publishing

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:

No, I'm not.  You're thinking only of speed on a digital camera.  When
you're discussing film, the faster the speed (higher ASA number), the
larger the light-sensitive particles.  This means a picture taken with
ASA 400 film will be grainier than one taken with ASA  100 film, when
both are blown up to the same size.

This equates to megapixels of a digital camera, although until now I
hadn't seen a direct relationship.  With ASA 200 being the equivalent of
10 megapixels in quality, I would guess ASA 100 would be similar to
around 15-16 megapixels.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

## Re: Photography for web publishing

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Yes, but it doesn't affect the size of the file.
The scanned resolution affects that

## Re: Photography for web publishing

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:

True - but what we're comparing is digital vs. film.  And in film, ASA
100 has greater resolution than ASA 200 - which equates to a higher
scanned resolution in digital.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

## Re: Photography for web publishing

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Thats only a very smallpart of the equasion, and you're failing to take into
account the whole ISO part of digital, which is actually a closer comparison
to the ASA ratings in film.
The ISO setting, as it increases will introduce more chromatic noise into
the image, in much the same way as a higher ASA will introduce more
noticeable grain.
They're closely related because their primary function is to allow differing
sensitivities to light. Not differing resolutions.
I agree that a higher ASA will mean the effective largest print size is
reduced, in the same way that a lower megapixel count will reduce the final
print size.

But to say that anything with ASA100 would be a huge file is a somewhate
maningless statement in the context of this thread, as file size on a hard
drive, or dimensions on a screen are determined by the resolution that the
print was scanned at. Not the ASA rating of the film.
You can scan a print from an ASA100 film at teh same resolution as a print
from ASA400 film, and they'll both produce the same file size.
Admittedly, the ASA400 will have more noticeable grain, but that's
irellevant as it simply becomes image data once scanned. If you scan the
ASA100 at a high enough resolution, you'll have noticeable grain.

My point is that in the world of digital imaging, the only thing that
affects file size is resolution.
That goes for digital cameras and scanners alike.

## Re: Photography for web publishing

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:

No arguments there.

No, what I'm saying is any digital equivalent in resolution to ASA 100
film would be a huge file.

And this all started out because Matt wanted to same resolution in a
digital photo as he can get with ASA 100 film.  That's all I've been
discussing.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

## Re: Photography for web publishing

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Ah...We're on the same page now....
Agreed. You'd be looking at well in excess of a 10mp camera to effectively
match pixels to ASA100 grain. In fact, probably closer to an extremely high
end 20mp setup. I dread to think how costly that would be, and how huge the
file size would be n RAW mode.

But having said that, for what Matt said he wants it for (web work and max
A4 prints), I reckon he'd do just fine with anywthing from 4mp to 10mp, all
of which are available in nicely affordable platforms.
I still strongly recommend the Fuji "S" range of prosumer models,
specifically the S6500fd and S9600.

## Re: Photography for web publishing

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:

Oh, I agree - for web work, 4MB is probably good enough.  I use 6Mp
myself, and it works fine - but by the time I end up compressing it to a
usable size, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference
between it and a 3-4 Mb image.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

## Re: Photography for web publishing

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:46:08 -0000, "$$not quite so$$ Fat Sam"

The 6500fd is pointless unless you're regularly shooting flesh tones,
and I'm not convinced it isn't just a gimmick even then. I have the
S9500 now which I bought to replace my ageing S602zoom and if Matt's
still looking for reassurance then yep its a great machine (if a
trifle heavy).

## Re: Photography for web publishing

null@null.null wrote:

Errr. No, sorry.
I use the S6500fd regularly for landscape and architecture work and it
produces excellent results. Especially at night and in low light situations.
It's also outstanding for macro, close-up and indoor studio work, as I use
it regularly for product and stock shoots.
There's a lot more to it than the facial recognition technology, if that's
what you're referring to.

## Re: Photography for web publishing

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:

Which I have to confess, I've never even switched on, let alone experimented
with.

## Re: Photography for web publishing

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:32:26 -0000, "$$not quite so$$ Fat Sam"

Perhaps I wasnt quite descriptive enough, lets try again. The 6500fd
is pointless (as over and above a comparable model in the same range
that *doesnt* have facial detection). There, hows that? What I meant
was that the 6500fd is a fine machine, but that it cost (last time I
looked) about the same as my otherwise superior specification S9500.
Thus a buyer would be better off going for the comparable model,
*unless* he planned to use the camera mostly for people pics.

While we're at it, where'd you buy your 'fd? Did you know that Fuji
sell their own cameras reconditioned? I got my last three cameras this
way - they're warrantied and usually cheaper than secondhand models on
fleabay. Link is here -
(https://secure.fujifilm.co.uk/shop/consumer/digital/digital-cameras/view-alll )
Now waiting for snakepiss to report me for spamming... lmfao

## Re: Photography for web publishing

Aaah, I see what you mean.
Certainly the S9500 and 9600 have a higher megapixel count, and a hotshoe,
but the S6500 has a newer generation of Fuji's SuperCCD, which gives it the
slight edge in low light conditions.
I found them to be extremely comparable cameras. What one lacks, the other
makes up for and vice versa.
But as most of my shots are low light ones with no flash, the more advanced
sensor won for me.
Besides, when I bought mine, it was about 60 cheaper than the 9600 and it
it just happened to feel more comfortable in my hands.

LOL, yeah I discovered that about two days after I bought mine and was most
annoyed. I could have saved myself a tidy sum.
I bought mine from Dabs, as they had the best price anywhere at the time.
I gave it, an S9600, a Nikon D40 and a Pentax K100d a physical test drive in
Jessops, and when I'd decided, I placed my order online.

## Re: Photography for web publishing

I did also mention that I have several expensive Pentax fitting lenses
which I do not wish to replace. eg: a 170-500 mm lens worth 600

If I save 200 on a camera body, but then have to spend over 1000 on
new lenses, I shall actually end up spending a lot more!

I don't like digital. I don't even like auto-focus. I like to be in
control, however with the disappearance of developing facilities (I
don't feel the need to construct my own) and increased difficulty in
obtaining film, it appears I may be forced to go digital.

There is also the response time, but apparently all the decent DSLRs
have instant responsivness, unlike a mobile phone camera which has a
noticeable delay between pressing the button and the camera taking the
shot.

Thank you all anyway for the usual blend of sensible suggestions and
laughable farce. I should remind you one of the requirements is to
enlarge prints, admittedly only to A4, but often a small area of a
print needs to be seriously enlarged, wild animals don't like people
getting close! And mineral samples need fine detail to be preserved in
the image.

Matt
--
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com