Author |
Message |
Curlyq
Member
07-10-2002
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 12:21 am
Thanks, Seamonkey. Along with the camera I was also given a SanDisk Memory Stick PRO Duo 1.0 GB that has the adaptor. When I chatted with the first tech guy he did say something about needing a memory stick reader, but I didn't know what he was talking about at the time. I have so much to learn. So far the readers I've found online have said they're compatible with Windows 98. I hope I'm looking at the right thing, because at least they're very affordable.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 12:34 am
Oh great, you have a very decent sized stick AND the adaptor and yes, the reader/writer devices are VERY reasonable.. look for sales online or as some local electronics store.. here I'd be looking at Fry's Electronics ads but whatever you have back there. Sounds like soon you'll have your whole setup and it sounds like a really nice camera!
|
Curlyq
Member
07-10-2002
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 12:44 am
Yeah, Best Buy has a reader on their website for $19.99. Maybe I can check them out. So, pardon my ignorance, but let me see if I've got this right. I put the memory stick in my camera. I take my pictures. I take the stick out of my camera and put it in one of these readers. I plug the reader into my USB port. My computer gets the pictures from the reader. Is that it?
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 2:02 am
Yes! And I'd look around.. it could be that readers that read those memory sticks are more but you can often find 12 in 1 readers for under $10, even $6. Not that $20 is all that bad. Oh and I gather if you need the adapter then the stick would go in the adapter which would go into the appropriate slot on the reader which would then plug into the USB port. And even if the software that might come with it isn't 98 compatible you can probably manage to open up the files and then move them onto your hard drive.
|
Curlyq
Member
07-10-2002
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 2:14 am
Wow. Thanks, Seamonkey.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 8:42 am
I agree about transferring the files. Now I'm going to rain a little on the parade. The bad news is that I think you honestly need a new computer. You won't have enough hard drive space and it will be very slow. The good news is that you don't need a super duper ultimate computer that costs thousands of dollars. A fairly inexpensive new one will probably work much better than what you have now. At least consider it if at all possible. The prices may pleasantly surprise you. 
|
Julieboo
Member
02-05-2002
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 8:49 am
and in the meantime, get the photos put on CDs at a Walgreens (Walmart, where ever...) That won't use up any space on your hard drive... You can also make edits right there on the machine at the store. I also agree with Jimmer. In my opinion, I wouldn't even mess around with your current computer. Take a look at what is out there now. I bet a lot of places have good deals right now...
|
Scooterrific
Member
07-08-2005
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 8:51 am
<ahem>
|
Zachsmom
Member
07-13-2000
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 8:58 am
Curlq, do you have a GoodWill near you? I bought Zachary a nice little computer for less than $100. Works great and even has a DVD installed.
|
Scooterrific
Member
07-08-2005
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 9:05 am
Wow...and I thought Raelynne was spoiled...lol! I feel better now!
|
Zachsmom
Member
07-13-2000
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 9:09 am
LOL, this was back when I was working plus, whenever Zachary went onto my computer to play his games, he messed up my settings. It was cheaper to buy him his own then to keep redoing mine 
|
Hukdonreality
Member
09-29-2003
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 9:53 am
The problem with putting pics on a CD via Walgreen's or wherever, is that I believe they will only put them on as jpegs. Tif files print far better quality pictures. Once they're saved as a jpeg, you can not convert them to a Tif. Jpegs are compressed files and you lose a lot of the fine details.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 10:05 am
I always use jpeg.. maybe that is a problem, lol.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 10:15 am
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying Hukd. The jpg compression scheme is very effective, particularly if you save at highest quality. Unless you shoot in raw format the camera will produce jpgs anyway. I don't think you have the option to shoot raw anyway with this type of camera (very few point and shoots offer that). Also, I don't think that you can see a difference in a jpg and tif print and certainly not at less than 8 x 10. Where you run into problems with jpgs is when you make changes to an image, save it and close it and reopen it and then make more changes, save it, close it and reopen it and so on. Even if you just make one set of changes and then save it as a high quality jpg (i.e. open, change, save, close) one time, you won't see a difference as a result of saving as a jpg. Also, you can make changes to a jpg and then if you want to close it and work on it more later, you can save it as a tif. That way you definitely don't get the jpg losses associated with saving and closing and reopening. Some pros use jpg (I use raw but that is just my preference).
|
Scooterrific
Member
07-08-2005
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 10:22 am
<ahem>
|
Julieboo
Member
02-05-2002
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 10:22 am
I just use jpegs too (Which btw, stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group! Don't know why I store that little nugget of info in my head...) The quality on a CD is fine. I do graphic design work and that is what I use and also what I see many professionals use.
|
Hukdonreality
Member
09-29-2003
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 1:55 pm
Jimmer is right that most digitals within our price ranges will only take jpegs. When you download them to your computer, I still suggest saving them as tif files before you begin any editing. Google tif (or tiff) vs jpeg format and you will find out that jpegs lose quality within each generation (each time you edit and re-save). They are known as "lossy" files for that reason. I'm not talking about when you look at them and then close them. Try this and you will become a believer in tif files: Scan a photo, then save it once as a jpeg and once as a tif. Print each out. You will probably throw up after you see the quality of the tif and realize that you have so many jpegs. I have scanned pictures that are probably 2" x 3" and saved them as tifs, and can blow them up to 8" x 10" and they look like professional quality photos. Just saying, not looking to argue with anyone here. The top photo is a 2nd generation jpeg and the bottom is a 2nd generation tif. Of course the only way to upload here is by making them both jpegs, so take that into consideration that the top one is now a 3rd generation jpeg, and the bottom is a jpeg of a 2nd generation tif. Now that I have you thoroughly confused...Notice right above the eyelid, the amount of "static" type stuff, and most especially note near the inside corner of the eye on the top photo that there are some 4 or 5 vertical lines. Along the bottom eyelid, there is also more visible "static" stuff. O.k., maybe this isn't really clear here too much, but believe me, when you print your pictures, you will appreciate the clarity of tif pictures.

|
Hukdonreality
Member
09-29-2003
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 1:58 pm
Julie, quality on a CD would be fine in jpeg format. The computer can only handle so many pixels per screen anyways. The jpeg vs tif thing for me, is all about the quality of printed material.
|
Juju2bigdog
Member
10-27-2000
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 2:04 pm
Curlyq, I saw an eMachine brand computer the other day, brand new, about 120 Gb hard drive 1 Gig processor speed, with a DVD writer for $249!!! No monitor or printer, but I expect you already have working ones of those. I do. It had an AMD Turion chip, which is a bit slower than some of the other chips, but if you are not a gamer, just a regular internet surfer, word processor, amateur photo editior, I am sure that chip would be more tha adequate for your needs.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 2:28 pm
What quality level are you using for the jpg in your example, Hukd? Of course, as you said, the top image is a 3rd generation jpg. One thing that I can't emphasize enough for digital shooters is that you back your images up onto some other media as well as your hard drive. Either buy an external hard drive (which is the easiest and fastest method) or use CDs or DVDs. Always test your back-ups so that you know that they worked successfully. Also, never edit the original image and resave it. Always save a copy and that way you can go back to the original if you decide you want to make changes. All hard drives wear out and a lot of these images are irreplaceable.
|
Curlyq
Member
07-10-2002
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 3:33 pm
Wow. This is a lot of information. I've always used jpegs and didn't realize there was a difference in quality. As to getting a new computer, I'm unemployed and have no savings left so that's completely out of the question. It's not that I'm being cheap or lazy about getting one. I just honestly can't even think about doing that. If it wasn't for my aunt's generosity it would've probably been ages before I even got the camera. I have to make due as best I can with what I have. Jimmer, I'm confused about your warning that I won't have enough hard drive space. Enough space for what? For the photo files?
|
Julieboo
Member
02-05-2002
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 4:14 pm
Yes, Curly, I am sure that's what Jimmer means. Photo files add up quickly and take up a lot of space. I am surprised that more posters here don't think that CDs are a good idea. That is how I back up my images. I have a CD (or two) made up when I have the prints made.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 6:00 pm
Yes that's what I meant. Even the jpgs from that camera will add up to a lot of space very quickly. I think that if you can't afford another computer or a CD burner, that Julie's idea of getting the CDs or DVDs burned at Walmart or wherever is a brilliant plan. See if they'll make two copies for you.
|
Curlyq
Member
07-10-2002
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 7:04 pm
Yeah, that's what I'll probably do. I would've burned them onto CDs anyway, even if I could get the pictures straight onto my computer. I've got hundreds of photos stored on my hard drive, and half of them (the vintage photos I painstakingly restored) have been saved onto CD, but I need to do the same with the rest of them. I think I'd prefer having all our family photos on CD rather than this huge pile of prints we've got taking up space here. Then I could just print the ones I want when I need to.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 7:07 pm
I agree about never modifying the original file, except that I do go through and flip the ones that I took "sideways". I always "save as". As for space.. my HD is 145gigs with 121 gigs free. I try to put the important pics on both laptop and desktop. I've never printed a pic yet, so I'm ignorant of the niceties of that.
|