First thanks in advance to any help you guys can give. I have done google searches for this information and can not figure it out. When viewing the LCD on my camera vs pictures on the PC 1) Pictures on camera have better color 2) Pictures on camera appear to be more in focus 3) Pictures on camera just look to be better quality My Story: My wife and I are about to travel to the Carribean Islands in 3 weeks. I thought, 'lets get a good camera so we can get some awesome shots.' Now I know that the SLR cameras with lenses are going to be the best. Best quality.
Why Mac is simply better than PC My thesis is to show why Mac is better than PC. The debate has continued Mac vs. Buying a Mac is like buying a Mercedes Benz it is quality and unique. Buying a PC well it’s like buying a bad copy of Mac. If your time has value you should use a Mac. A home theater PC makes TV more convenient than ever, but you might not be getting the best possible picture quality out of the box. Here are a few tricks for improving it. When you watch movies.
Best shots etc. I could take my friends $2,000 camera but I do not want to lug around a big camera. So my challange was to find a pocket camera that will take the absolute best photos in terms of quality.
I did a ton of reasearch and decided on: The photos look so awesome, so crisp, clear and concise colors. Until I upload them to the PC. Now, they dont look bad on the PC just not as good as the LCD camera.
Should I just take the camera back and buy a cheaper camera (I mean if the photo quality on the PC isnt going to be better). Also, I do not really know how to do 'post processing' other than playing with the contrast/brightness. Sincerley, Camera Newbie. I'm guessing your monitor is bigger than your camera screen? Probably lots bigger? Your monitor corresponds to what in print days would be a huge enlargment, its going to show up minor defects that your titchy camera screen can't.
Try resizing your viewing window to match the size of the camera screen, things will look very similar (if they don't then you need to calibrate your monitor or get a better one). If you're also using the zoom controls on the computer to view a one image pixel to one screen pixel then this corresponds to not only making a huge enlargement but also looking at it through a magnifying glass. If you want to view your pics at their best then get some 8x6 or 10x8 prints done. They'll look much better than pixel peeping on your computer. Honestly speaking with the information you've given, it's hard to say what the problem is - or whether there even is a problem. If you could post some example shots, that could help.
It's probably either: 1. The way you are operating the camera. The way your computer's monitor is calibrated.
Be aware that that camera will NOT give you good results in low light - which means indoors, even with flash. Viewing images on the camera's tiny screen can mask a ot of issues in a photograph that show plainly on a larger screen. It is almost impossible to tell how sharp a photo is by looking at the LCD screen on your camera. It is just too small. I have had many photos that seemed great on the camera LCD actually be out of focus but couldn't tell until I viewed them on my computer. Also, the photos can look really bright on your camera LCD if you have the brightness up all the way but not so good on your monitor. But a couple of things you should try.
Make sure your monitor is set to it's optimal resolution. Anything other than optimal will give you poor results. Also, you might need to color calibrate your monitor.
Most photos can benefit from some post processing so get some software like Photoshop Elements and learn how to use it. Sinisterr wrote: First thanks in advance to any help you guys can give. I have done google searches for this information and can not figure it out. When viewing the LCD on my camera vs pictures on the PC 1) Pictures on camera have better color 2) Pictures on camera appear to be more in focus 3) Pictures on camera just look to be better quality My Story: My wife and I are about to travel to the Carribean Islands in 3 weeks. I thought, 'lets get a good camera so we can get some awesome shots.'
Now I know that the SLR cameras with lenses are going to be the best. Best quality. Best shots etc. I could take my friends $2,000 camera but I do not want to lug around a big camera. So my challange was to find a pocket camera that will take the absolute best photos in terms of quality.
I did a ton of reasearch and decided on: The photos look so awesome, so crisp, clear and concise colors. Until I upload them to the PC. Now, they dont look bad on the PC just not as good as the LCD camera. Should I just take the camera back and buy a cheaper camera (I mean if the photo quality on the PC isnt going to be better). Also, I do not really know how to do 'post processing' other than playing with the contrast/brightness. Sincerley, Camera Newbie. When viewing the LCD on my camera vs pictures on the PC 1) Pictures on camera have better color This suggest the very common problem that computer displays are normally not set to an accurate colour, brightness and contrast calibration.
Here are a couple of web sites that will help you identify this problem and fix it well enough for normal use. 2) Pictures on camera appear to be more in focus They're larger on the computer screen so naturally you see more imperfections.
![Why is a mac better than pc for pictures and video Why is a mac better than pc for pictures and video](https://www.4kshooters.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/MAC_vs_PC_01.jpg)
This is like printing an image quite large - naturally you see things which are not relevant in a small print. Focus issues are often confused with other problems like noise reduction side effects and slow shutter speeds causing motion blur.
There are other issues that relate to not learning how to control focus systems and simply expecting too much. Some of these can to some extent be controlled.
It's really hard to be specific about this without examples. 3) Pictures on camera just look to be better quality This is pretty vague and it's likely this idea will vanish if you deal with the first two issues. Stucs201 wrote: I'm guessing your monitor is bigger than your camera screen? Probably lots bigger?
Your monitor corresponds to what in print days would be a huge enlargment, its going to show up minor defects that your titchy camera screen can't. Try resizing your viewing window to match the size of the camera screen, things will look very similar (if they don't then you need to calibrate your monitor or get a better one). If you're also using the zoom controls on the computer to view a one image pixel to one screen pixel then this corresponds to not only making a huge enlargement but also looking at it through a magnifying glass. If you want to view your pics at their best then get some 8x6 or 10x8 prints done. They'll look much better than pixel peeping on your computer. Ya I know the enlargement reduces photo focus and stuff.
But It shouldnt reduce the amount of colors / brightness etc in the photo. If I put the photo at the same size as the camera screen, the camera screen still looks 30x better.
Of Course how would I do that? The problem is that I want to show you what they look like on the camera vs what they look like on the monitor.
I am pretty sure there is no way to do that. For example, My night photos they look decent on the camera (not great.
Night shots are a paint), but they look pretty damn good (brightness, contrast, hues, color intensity). On my computer they dont look nearly as good. I also noticed that when I put them on my wifes laptop which is a 17inch HD monitor, they looked better than my PC but still not as good as the camera. I did some editing on my PC that made the photos look good, but they looked worse on my wife's pc.
Sinisterr wrote: stucs201 wrote: I'm guessing your monitor is bigger than your camera screen? Probably lots bigger? Your monitor corresponds to what in print days would be a huge enlargment, its going to show up minor defects that your titchy camera screen can't. Try resizing your viewing window to match the size of the camera screen, things will look very similar (if they don't then you need to calibrate your monitor or get a better one). If you're also using the zoom controls on the computer to view a one image pixel to one screen pixel then this corresponds to not only making a huge enlargement but also looking at it through a magnifying glass.
If you want to view your pics at their best then get some 8x6 or 10x8 prints done. They'll look much better than pixel peeping on your computer.
Ya I know the enlargement reduces photo focus and stuff. But It shouldnt reduce the amount of colors / brightness etc in the photo. Oh yes it will.
All enlargements look more diffuse in every respect than the small size. If I put the photo at the same size as the camera screen, the camera screen still looks 30x better.
If there is THAT much difference (no exaggeration?) then it's likely to say much more about your computer monitor than your camera. Try uploading a picture or two to your gallery and let us see what they look like on OUR monitors?
Sjgcit wrote: When viewing the LCD on my camera vs pictures on the PC 1) Pictures on camera have better color This suggest the very common problem that computer displays are normally not set to an accurate colour, brightness and contrast calibration. Here are a couple of web sites that will help you identify this problem and fix it well enough for normal use. 2) Pictures on camera appear to be more in focus They're larger on the computer screen so naturally you see more imperfections.
This is like printing an image quite large - naturally you see things which are not relevant in a small print. Focus issues are often confused with other problems like noise reduction side effects and slow shutter speeds causing motion blur. There are other issues that relate to not learning how to control focus systems and simply expecting too much.
Some of these can to some extent be controlled. It's really hard to be specific about this without examples. 3) Pictures on camera just look to be better quality This is pretty vague and it's likely this idea will vanish if you deal with the first two issues. How do you reduce the noise of a photo? Is that done post processes or prior to? I am going to try and calibrate my monitor and see if that helps.
It just really frustrates me seeing such awesome photos on the camera and the PC photos just look bleh. Almost enough for me to get another camera since on screen im just not seeing a huge difference for this price of a pocket camera. ChrisLumix wrote: Sinisterr wrote: stucs201 wrote: I'm guessing your monitor is bigger than your camera screen? Probably lots bigger? Your monitor corresponds to what in print days would be a huge enlargment, its going to show up minor defects that your titchy camera screen can't.
Try resizing your viewing window to match the size of the camera screen, things will look very similar (if they don't then you need to calibrate your monitor or get a better one). If you're also using the zoom controls on the computer to view a one image pixel to one screen pixel then this corresponds to not only making a huge enlargement but also looking at it through a magnifying glass. If you want to view your pics at their best then get some 8x6 or 10x8 prints done.
They'll look much better than pixel peeping on your computer. Ya I know the enlargement reduces photo focus and stuff. But It shouldnt reduce the amount of colors / brightness etc in the photo. Oh yes it will. All enlargements look more diffuse in every respect than the small size. If I put the photo at the same size as the camera screen, the camera screen still looks 30x better.
If there is THAT much difference (no exaggeration?) then it's likely to say much more about your computer monitor than your camera. Try uploading a picture or two to your gallery and let us see what they look like on OUR monitors? I can upload a few photos but most of my photos are in harsh conditions (aka night/bad lighting). Alot of cameras take decent photos in full sunlight Like I said, on the camera they look pretty impressive and just very lackluster on the PC.
Ya I was exagerating. Just so frustrated. I would say they look at least 50% better. Sinisterr wrote: Of Course how would I do that? The problem is that I want to show you what they look like on the camera vs what they look like on the monitor. I am pretty sure there is no way to do that.
For example, My night photos they look decent on the camera (not great. Night shots are a paint), but they look pretty damn good (brightness, contrast, hues, color intensity). On my computer they dont look nearly as good.
You won't get good low-light/night/indoors shots with that camera - at best you'll get 'just about useable' results. I also noticed that when I put them on my wifes laptop which is a 17inch HD monitor, they looked better than my PC but still not as good as the camera.
I did some editing on my PC that made the photos look good, but they looked worse on my wife's pc. You should really post some examples if you want people to give you advice. The second photo if I up the brightness, down the contrast it starts to look like the camera.
The problem is, that the green on the camera is still better, and the dark shadows going across the grass are much darker on the camera. NOTE: You should be able to see the top right section of the tree also (at least on the camera) The first photo I had to down the contrast -44 and up brightness to +19 just to start to get the photo to look even remotely like it did on the camera.
Also, both of these photos (although still not nearly as good as the camera), did look better on my wifes HD laptop. Sigh, please help. Sinisterr wrote: The second photo if I up the brightness, down the contrast it starts to look like the camera. The problem is, that the green on the camera is still better, and the dark shadows going across the grass are much darker on the camera. NOTE: You should be able to see the top right section of the tree also (at least on the camera) The first photo I had to down the contrast -44 and up brightness to +19 just to start to get the photo to look even remotely like it did on the camera. Also, both of these photos (although still not nearly as good as the camera), did look better on my wifes HD laptop. Sigh, please help.
Both those pictures look pretty bad on my monitor. The first is blurry (camera shake in all likelihood) and the second is fairly soft too, with some noise. They both are shot in low light and use very slow shutter speeds. Are they with the adjustments you mentioned or without PP? If with, can you post the OOC versions for us? - Panas0n!c Lum!x FZ-38 (The word 'LOSE' is spelled 'LOSE'!
It's not spelled 'LOOSE', ok?). Sinisterr wrote: The second photo if I up the brightness, down the contrast it starts to look like the camera.
The problem is, that the green on the camera is still better, and the dark shadows going across the grass are much darker on the camera. NOTE: You should be able to see the top right section of the tree also (at least on the camera) The first photo I had to down the contrast -44 and up brightness to +19 just to start to get the photo to look even remotely like it did on the camera. Also, both of these photos (although still not nearly as good as the camera), did look better on my wifes HD laptop. Sigh, please help. To be honest, in these examples, I think you're seeing the limitations of your camera. I wonder if you have raided the brightness setting on your camera's LCD? This might give you a false impression of the shots.
Again the relative size of computer screen and small LCD will disguise the fact that they're awful shots. For example, I've taken quick snaps of a relation's little girl playing and in a 6x4 they look fine, but above that there is obvious blur from motion. And your camera screen is way smaller than a 6x4! You are, IMO, expecting too much from any P&S if you are expecting much from shots like these. Essentially you are shooting in the dark. Even a DSLR could be troubled by trying to get focus in these scenes. You are finding out that you can't be cheap with your camera choice, go beep-click, and expect the best results to be produced by a camera.
It doesn't matter how much the camera tries to make you feel good by altering the JPEG preview, or how much better you think the photos look on a laptop screen that isn't calibrated properly. The output is bad, and it's bad because you don't know what you're doing and you're demanding too much from a cheap camera. If you want to photograph things in the dark, you need a much better camera with a fast lens or a flash, a tripod, and patience. Also get your monitor calibrated.
Why Mac Users Feel a Mac Is Better than a Windows PC Standard business school theory says that a company that sells the most product can’t be stopped because it just gets better and better at what it does, to the point where no one can catch up. But Apple has adopted some strategies that give it some important advantages that let it win against the competition provided by Microsoft.
If you have a problem, it’s Apple’s problem. Microsoft sells its Windows operating system to dozens of companies that make personal computers.
This strategy has some benefits in that competition among these PC vendors keeps prices down, but it also means that Microsoft has to support a many different hardware designs and components (displays, hard drives, communications adapters, processor chips, and so on). And this includes not just all the variations currently being sold, but products no longer on the market but still in use, including PCs made by companies no longer in business. Outside of a brief period of licensing in the mid-1990s, Apple has maintained complete control over the design and manufacture of products that use its software.
This vertical integration greatly simplifies Apple’s development efforts, allowing it to bring out new versions of its operating system much more often than Microsoft has been able to. Vertical integration also has benefits for customers in terms of reliability and service. If you have a problem with hardware or software, Apple has a strong incentive to fix it.
With the computer, operating system, and much of the software supplied by a single vendor, Mac users don’t have to worry about being shuttled from company to company. Regardless of the problem with the extensive suite of software that comes with a Mac, it’s Apple’s problem.
Apple is the industry thought leader. One of Apple’s roles in the computer industry is to pick and choose among the amazing new technologies. For the most part, technologies that Apple picks get adopted by the rest of the industry, particularly Microsoft.
Apple may not have invented the graphical user interface, WiFi wireless networking, or the universal serial bus, but Apple’s adoption of these technologies made them industry standards. Appearances matter. The original design team that created the first Macintosh computer included a fine artist who was involved in everything from graphical interface design to the artwork on the cardboard box that the Mac came in.
Apple also takes pride in arranging all the buttons and jacks in a pleasing way, questioning each feature, and eliminating unnecessary doodads. The result is something that isn’t just easy to look at but is easy to understand and simple to work with. A case in point is the Apple Remote that comes with each Mac.
Remotes for most consumer products rival an airplane cockpit in complexity; Apple’s has just six buttons. Apple’s leadership looks forward, not backward. Apple is also the company that decides when to tell a technology goodbye.
Apple was the first to introduce 3 ½-inch floppy disks on personal computers and the first to drop them as a standard feature, as just one example. Unneeded features increase complexity and make machines harder to use and more prone to problems. Apple provides top-notch products.
Unit for unit, Apple is the most profitable company in the industry. How does the company do that with such a small share of the market?
The same way that Mercedes-Benz or Armani does — by branding. Apple sells unique products that customers willingly pay for. The benefit to a Mac buyer is that no company can keep such an enviable position in the long run without delivering top-notch goods. You do get what you pay for. Apple and Intel are partners. For most of the personal computer era, the Intel Corporation, inventor of the microprocessor and creator of the x86 series of microprocessors that power most PCs, was closely allied with Microsoft.
But in 2005, Apple announced that it would be partnering with Intel. Now all new Macs use Intel chips. Strong hints have surfaced that Apple expects to take advantage of unique innovations from Intel in the future.