Pictures look better enlarged?

[OrangeJoe]

I'm using an SD1100 IS, I've been viewing them on the TV but for the first time I saved them onto the computer. They're all 8Meg pictures, but they seem very dark on the computer screen (even when screen brightness is up to 100%). They look better when enlarged (around 24" x 16") :confused:. Thing is, tomorrow I'm going to get them printed in standard photo size (6"x 4"), can I expect the prints to be similar to viewing them normal size onscreen(darker/less clarity)?

Would I have to reduce the meg size down before I get them printed (6" x 4") or is this what to expect when viewing them onscreen?:oops:

If it helps, I'll post a few pics on the thread, just explain what's to be done.:o

[Yogesh Sarkar]

Have you calibrated your monitor?

[OrangeJoe]

Have you calibrated your monitor?

nope. what do I do?

[Yogesh Sarkar]

Here is an article (http://www.wikihow.com/Calibrate-Your-Monitor) if you don't want to use a software and hardware to calibrate your monitor.

[OrangeJoe]

Thanks Yogesh. I calibrated the screen and it made some difference, very minimal though.

I got my prints back today and it seems the camera is underexposing, the prints are quite dark, actually alot darker than on screen. Now, I have to go to another developer to see if the printers are at fault or to see if the camera is underexposing.>:( why didn't I just stick with film?:mad:

Has any other SD1100 IS owners noticed that the camera is underexposing?

[Yogesh Sarkar]

Joe try to brighten the image, using a image editing software like Picasa or Irfanview.

[Jon]

What do your histograms look like on the camera when you review the images (press "Disp" until you get the "Detailed" view on p. 50 of your manual). Are you using any EC on the pictures? Remember, you can't judge exposure by the way it looks on the LCD; that's deliberately designed to be bright so you can have a chance of seeing it in bright sunlight.

[OrangeJoe]

Joe try to brighten the image, using a image editing software like Picasa or Irfanview.

To be honest Yogesh, I don't want to use computer software. The point and shoot camera was for my parents and I'm trying to find the best settings for them where they can shoot their photos, edit their photos 'in camera', display them on the TV to friends and get them developed by a professional.

I'm trying a few test-shots with different developers. One of them was able to brighten all the pictures and they came out looking a lot better, especially in 7"x5" prints, although a portion of the photo was cut off, just not as much if I was printing 6"x4". Now I have to make sure when I take a photo that I leave enough room around the camera screen, just because developing crops part of it away:cry:




What do your histograms look like on the camera when you review the images (press "Disp" until you get the "Detailed" view on p. 50 of your manual).


histograms show the image to be dark, the majority of prints are dark and unless I start setting scenes up with lights or move to Australia, I don't think it will make much difference.

Are you using any EC on the pictures?

nope, both the indoor photos with flash and outdoors come out dark. apart from the lucky one which gets the correct amount of light.

Remember, you can't judge exposure by the way it looks on the LCD; that's deliberately designed to be bright so you can have a chance of seeing it in bright sunlight.

The screen changes colour under 'my colours' setting, it brightens and darkens when changing the exposure, so I took it as granted that the changes on screen were supposed to be feedback for the photo I'm taking.

As for trying to compose a picture using the histogram, this is quite tedious and you could miss a lot of shots.:cry:

Out of curiosity, if the photos taken with the camera were just right (not underexposed or over exposed) would they be better quality than editing them afterwards?

[Jon]

Yes, getting it right in camera is better than saving it in post-processing. This is especially true with underexposure, as noise is worse in underexposed images. You don't need to use the histogram for every shot; take a test shot, and adjust the exposure compensation based on that. Ideally, the curve of your histogram will reach to the right hand end of the scale. You may find that you consistently need an EC of +1 for correct exposure; if this is the case, the camera probably needs adjusting.

Can you post some (unedited, just resized) examples with EXIF data?

[OrangeJoe]

You may find that you consistently need an EC of +1 for correct exposure; if this is the case, the camera probably needs adjusting.

I think that's needed. It would be good if I can take it to a shop and the exposure can be notched up +1.

Can you post some (unedited, just resized) examples with EXIF data?

here's two photos using the 'in-camera' trimming:, but when printing the photos become dark.

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/9820/fishingrigs054cm2.jpg

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/9813/fishingrigs053os1.jpg

[Jon]

Y'know? Those look fine on my screen, and they printed out just fine here, too at about 6x8.

[low orbit]

I think that's needed. It would be good if I can take it to a shop and the exposure can be notched up +1.



here's two photos using the 'in-camera' trimming:, but when printing the photos become dark.




They look pretty good here as well - fractionally underexposed but nothing that would effect a print.

Your exposure compensation can be dialled in - in camera ;)

ps! If you leave the polariser on all the time you can lose up to 2 stops of light with it fully engaged. The camera will try to compensate for this.

Cheers.

[DigitalSpecialist]

Joe, your trouble is that you haven't calibrated your printer to your monitor and paper choice. Your photos look great on my monitor(calibrated), but I haven't printed them as I am low on ink. Start with calibrating your monitor, via whatever method you prefer, then calibrate your printer to your paper choice and you will be good to go!

[Yogesh Sarkar]

Y'know? Those look fine on my screen, and they printed out just fine here, too at about 6x8.
I agree, they look bright enough. I guess you need a better photo printing lab.

[OrangeJoe]

Seems to be the fault of the printing lab. I have prints to collect today from different labs, so I'll know better then.

Thanks everyone for your help:smile:

[OrangeJoe]

.......just to update on my situation. I got prints back from 2 different labs and the prints from Boots were fantastic. They're really sharp and the colours are spot-on. The printers at Boots really suits the SD1000 camera.

Phew!!!! thank God for that!