Picture quality

[Petro-Sooner]

So I go to wal-mart, maybe thats the reason I have my problem, and take a CD with pics from this past summers field camp to get developed. The pics were taken on moms new digital camera. I had the pics from the little memory card put onto CD in July. Today I had them develope the prints from the CD. The prints are not very good at all. Poor resilution. A throw away camera makes better prints. Is it that the pics were on a CD? Would the prints be better if develped off of the memory card thing? Is it wal-marts fault? Can I take the pics back to Wal-Mart and demand restitution? TIA :mad:

[skycat]

CD vs. memory card makes no difference, other than that it's hard to say without seeing them or the files that they were created from.

Can you post one of the pictures so we can see the quality of the original files?

[Frozen Sooner]

What's the resolution on the digital camera?

[skycat]

If he's printing 4x6 and the camera is "new" (newer than a year or two old), and not a camera phone, the resolution isn't going to be a problem.

[Frozen Sooner]

You never know. When someone complains about PQ, my first instinct is to find out what resolution they have.

It's quite possible grandma has the camera set on low PQ as well.

[skycat]

People worry way too much about resolution. If he's printing 4x6 he could get acceptable prints (at 220 dpi) from from a 1.1 MPixel camera. If the camera is only a year or two old, it's almost assuredly going to have quite a bit more resolution that that.

Camera settings are a much more likely culprit, as are a number of things that could have gone wrong in the printing process. That's why I'd like to see a picture, so we can figure out if it's a problem with the source images or the printing process.

[Frozen Sooner]

Well, he never DID say what size the prints were.

I was always under the impression that you needed at least 3.2mp for good 4x6 prints, but will freely admit I don't know a lot about cameras.

[skycat]

Nikon's pro level sports camera is only 4 MP, and it has been used for two page SI layouts (granted Canon has most of the market share for sports shooters).

The quality of the pixels is more important than the quantity.

In fact, I wouldn't buy a pocket sized camera with more than about 5 MP, but that's another story.

[Frozen Sooner]

Fair enough. I know that I've also heard that above 3.2mp the lens becomes way more important than the pixel count.

[skycat]

Well you didn't just pull that number out of thin air, 3.2 MP is what you need to be able to print 4x6 at 300 dpi, which is more or less the best resolution of many photo printers. So if you've got it, you might as well use it.

Which is why I said "acceptable" results can be obtained from a camera at just over 1MP. 220 dpi isn't ideal, but it shouldn't look terrible. But like I said, if the camera is only a year or two old, I doubt it's going to be less than 3.2 MP anyway.

[Petro-Sooner]

The pics were 4X6. Not sure what the specifics on the camera were. I'm technology stupid. The pics on CD show up very nicely on the computer. I would post some pics from the CD but, again, I dont know how. Now that I think about it mom had very nice pics developed from her trip to Alaska from that camera. And it is only a couple years old. I'm starting to think I either hit a wrong button on the camera settings or its walmarts fault. Thanks though.

[skycat]

You could try taking them back to Wal-Mart, or somewhere else. If they look ok on your screen, the raw material should be there for you to get good prints.

One of the nice things about digital in comparison with film, is that it shouldn't matter all that much where you take them, you should be able to get very, very similar results.

If you try again, go to one of those self serve kiosks and look at them on the monitor. They should look the same as they do on your home monitor.

[Frozen Sooner]

The pics were 4X6. Not sure what the specifics on the camera were. I'm technology stupid. The pics on CD show up very nicely on the computer. I would post some pics from the CD but, again, I dont know how. Now that I think about it mom had very nice pics developed from her trip to Alaska from that camera. And it is only a couple years old. I'm starting to think I either hit a wrong button on the camera settings or its walmarts fault. Thanks though.

Well, prints from Alaska are ALWAYS going to look good. My aura permeates the whole state.

[Petro-Sooner]

I will prolly take them back and see if they will re-do them. There was 106 pics which cost me a 20 so I'm kinda ****ed about the whole thing.

[skycat]

That sucks. If they won't redo them for free (they should), I'd take them someplace else. But only print 3 or 4 as a test run.

[SoonerJack]

One time my wife printed the thumbnails as 4x6 and was VERY displeased with the results. She was even more displeased when I showed her what she did wrong.