Help!! Newsletter photos are terrible!!

[snowowl]

I work for a nonprofit org. and the dig. photos in the newsletter are terrible. The pixels in the photos are visible.

A donor agreed to buy us a better camera. What do I look for? Photos are taken at indoor meetings and outdoor events. We print in black and white and give a camera ready copy to our printer. Any suggestions? Also, are higher megapixels necessarily better?

Thanks a lot for any advice.

[speaklightly]

There are more than a few variables within your question.

(1) What has your printer told you will improve the photos?
(2) What kind of digital camera are you now using for your photos?
(3) What is the experience level of the person taking your photos?

Without more info, we are somewhat handicapped. At first glance, I would hazard the generalized opinion that either the Kodak DX-7440 or the HP R707 would measurably improve things for you. However, please give us some more info. It may be as simple as the fact bthat your printer has some very specific requirements>

Sarah Joyce

[D70FAN]

I work for a nonprofit org. and the dig. photos in the newsletter are terrible. The pixels in the photos are visible.

A donor agreed to buy us a better camera. What do I look for? Photos are taken at indoor meetings and outdoor events. We print in black and white and give a camera ready copy to our printer. Any suggestions? Also, are higher megapixels necessarily better?

Thanks a lot for any advice.

I doubt that you will need a camera with more than about 3 megapixels and 3X optical zoom. The HP and Kodak cameras that Sarah has recommended will work fine for your needs.

But you may also want to consider that the $250 Canon A75 will meet all of your requirements and save you about $75 to $100. It uses low cost AA rechargable batteries, and low cost complact flash memory. A very economical, high performing, digital camera.

[judge9847]

You also need to consider how your photos are being prepared for publication, i.e. via Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro or Picture It! or whatever software it is that's being used.

Are the photos being over-optimized so as to reduce them to a certain size? Are you using jpegs or some other format for your pictures.

If you could post a sample of an image straight out of the camera and also the result of whatever post-processing that's done you'd certainly be able to get a lot of help.

We print in black and white and give a camera ready copy to our printer.

It would also be useful if you could post a sample of what you mean by giving a camera ready copy to your printers ... that kind of doesn't make a lot of sense, if you don't mind me saying so.

[snowowl]

I hope I can answer your questions.
(1) Our printer hasn't told us anything. He tells us they are terrible when we bring the copy to him. We place the photo in the copy before we bring the copy to him. They are terrible at that point.
(2) I asked my co-worker about her camera. This is her reply: "My camera is a Sony model MVC-FD85. It doesn't tell how many pixels the
camera is. I can adjust the image size ranging from 640 x 480 to 1280 x 960.
The picture I sent you from my camera was at 1024 x 768. I hope this helps."
(3) I think the exp. is average for a film camera and this was a new digital a few years ago. Thanks so much.

There are more than a few variables within your question.

(1) What has your printer told you will improve the photos?
(2) What kind of digital camera are you now using for your photos?
(3) What is the experience level of the person taking your photos?

Without more info, we are somewhat handicapped. At first glance, I would hazard the generalized opinion that either the Kodak DX-7440 or the HP R707 would measurably improve things for you. However, please give us some more info. It may be as simple as the fact bthat your printer has some very specific requirements>

Sarah Joyce

[snowowl]

Thanks, I appreciate your response.

I doubt that you will need a camera with more than about 3 megapixels and 3X optical zoom. The HP and Kodak cameras that Sarah has recommended will work fine for your needs.

But you may also want to consider that the $250 Canon A75 will meet all of your requirements and save you about $75 to $100. It uses low cost AA rechargable batteries, and low cost complact flash memory. A very economical, high performing, digital camera.

[snowowl]

When we worked with black and white film photos, we gave the photo to the printer and he had negatives made. He placed the photo where we wanted it in the newsletter. Well, most of the time--once in awhile there was a surprise!

Now we place the digital photo in the newsletter and give it to him ready to print (not zerox).

We do make the images smaller and a volunteer used Photoshopto format the pictures. We are using jpegs.

I had the person who takes the photos email me a photo but I think you want one directly from her camera. I'll see what I can do.

You also need to consider how your photos are being prepared for publication, i.e. via Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro or Picture It! or whatever software it is that's being used.

Are the photos being over-optimized so as to reduce them to a certain size? Are you using jpegs or some other format for your pictures.

If you could post a sample of an image straight out of the camera and also the result of whatever post-processing that's done you'd certainly be able to get a lot of help.




It would also be useful if you could post a sample of what you mean by giving a camera ready copy to your printers ... that kind of doesn't make a lot of sense, if you don't mind me saying so.

[speaklightly]

Firstly, I believe that you need more digital photo resolution (a different digit camera). Secondly, (and for this I am somewhat handicapped due to the lack of a sample photo from your "staff" photographer) I believe the digital camera skills might have to be upgraded somewhat. Finally, please have somebody who is fairly knowledgeable in digital photo editing "tweak" (process) the digital photos you want to use in your newsletter so that they have good to excellent contrast and are very, very sharp.

You should definitely change digital cameras. The suggested Kodak DX-7440 and the HP R707 are digital cameras with a higher resolution that should improve matters but keep in mind that you are still at risk due to the skill of the "staff" photographer, and the experience and skill of the person "tweaking" or processing your digital photos.

I hope that helps a bit.

Sarah Joyce

[judge9847]

We do make the images smaller and a volunteer used Photoshopto format the pictures. We are using jpegs.

I'd agree with Sarah here - I reckon it could be "operator error" when using Photoshop. It can be a really difficult piece of software to handle if you're not sure of yourself, especially the earlier versions. There are other, simpler (and cheaper" ) photo editors which will produce the results that you want.

I had the person who takes the photos email me a photo but I think you want one directly from her camera. I'll see what I can do.

That would be really great! If you get a problem with file size and posting to this forum let me know and we can make other arrangements. And it would be really useful as well if you can let us see the one that's been emailed.

[snowowl]

[QUOTE=snowowl]I just bought a Nikon Coolpix 3200--that I'm trying to see how it works. Is this as good as the Kodak that you suggest.