Please help me solve a photo quality problem

[CruisinManiac]

Lately, when I take photographs with my Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W200 camera, the shots look great on the large viewing window. Bright, crisp photos. However, when I upload them to my computer, they look dull and slightly blurry. This is something new. I am having to go into my photo enhancing program to lighten them, etc., but they still do not look as good as they did on the camera viewer. Any suggestions on why this is happening?

[zackiedawg]

A few things to consider:

 

First - is your camera's LCD screen turned up really bright, and your photos are actually a bit darker or underexposed and you can't tell? Or is the camera's LCD correct, and your computer monitor is too dark, not calibrated, or showing you the wrong brightness? Usually, I'd suggest anyone getting into photo editing or fine printing immediately invest in a calibration system for their monitor, and make sure to regularly check it and tune it so it is showing you reality. One way to test how the photos are coming out for real is to make a moderately large print of one of your photos - at least 8x10. Make sure if you go to a print shop or photo store, that you request absolutely NO retouching or adjustments to the photo at all - that you want to see how the shot looks straight from the camera. If the print looks fine, and needs no adjustments, then it is likely your monitor that is wrong and it needs to be adjusted. If the print is darker or dull, then your camera's LCD may need to be turned down a bit.

 

2. Another consideration is for the softness/blur. The resolution and screen size make a huge difference when viewing a photo - a little 3" LCD screen can always look much better than when a photo is blown up on a 24" monitor. What you intend to do to the photo will determine if the camera will be fine for your needs or whether you need to consider stepping up to something else - If your intention is to always display photos on extremely large, high-res monitors, or make very large prints, you may be pushing the limits of what your camera can handle. But if you intend to share on web, make moderate prints, and do slideshows on TVs...you may be just fine. Remember that how the photo looks when all blown up on your monitor isn't as important as how the photo looks at the size and resolution you intend to use it for. No compact camera with a tiny little sensor is going to look all that good blown up to huge screen sizes at high resolution - for that, you need to step up to big DSLR sensors.

 

That said, some simple editing tools can always help tighten up your photos, and it's not unusual to do a little sharpening or brightening here or there on your photos. And you may have some controls in your camera for adjusting how the photos come out - sometimes cameras have preset picture style modes like 'normal', 'vivid', 'landscape' etc that will adjust the contrast, saturation, sharpness, and color of the JPGs, and some cameras allow these to be tuned by you as well.

[CruisinManiac]

Thank you for the information. I don't think it is my computer screen, as my previous photographs still look good, as is everything else that I view on the 17" screen. ;)

 

I checked and my LCD screen was turned up to the highest bright, but I am not sure if that's something I have done by accident recently, or if it has always been that way. Something else that I discovered was that I accidentally had the setting on M (manually set shutter speed and aperture value.)

 

Although I do not normally blow up photographs to super large sizes, I do have the resolution set to 12.1 mega-pixels. Could that have something to do with it.

 

I think that the camera is getting old and photos are just not coming out as nice as they used to be. Getting ready to take a Mediterranean cruise and want my photos to look their best. I do not have time to learn a new camera. I'd love to find this same camera for sale (brand new) but the chances of that are slim. :rolleyes: It's been a great camera.

 

Questions: I bought new SD cards for the camera, partly because I needed more storage, but also thinking that an older card might be the problem. I have not used them yet to see if that helps. Could that be?

 

Also, would an older battery cause the photos to come out the way they are? I've noticed that I am having to charge the rechargeable battery more often than before.

[sk8teacher]

How do you remove pictures from your older cards? Do you delete them from your computer? Or do you format the card in the camera?

 

Deleting them from the computer will eventually leave ghost images behind, and will interfere with new pictures being taken. This may be your problem. The only way to truely remove pictures from your cards is to format it in the camera.

 

Cheers,

[CruisinManiac]

How do you remove pictures from your older cards? Do you delete them from your computer? Or do you format the card in the camera?

 

Deleting them from the computer will eventually leave ghost images behind, and will interfere with new pictures being taken. This may be your problem. The only way to truely remove pictures from your cards is to format it in the camera.

 

Cheers,

 

Do you mean my desk top computer, or the cameras computer? On the camera, I just press MENU, and then DELETE THIS IMAGE or MULTIPLE IMAGES. Do I need to reformat the card?

[sk8teacher]

Do you mean my desk top computer, or the cameras computer? On the camera, I just press MENU, and then DELETE THIS IMAGE or MULTIPLE IMAGES. Do I need to reformat the card?

 

Actually, either way :D. To ensure you remove ALL bytes of the pictures, you should always reformat the card. When you simply delete something, occasionally a few bytes of data get left behind. Eventually, as you take new pictures they get written over the left behind data, and start to create issues with the new picture.

 

By reformatting, you eliminate this issue. Just make sure you have downloaded/copied your pictures onto your desktop computer before reformatting :eek:.

 

Cheers,

[zackiedawg]

I checked and my LCD screen was turned up to the highest bright, but I am not sure if that's something I have done by accident recently, or if it has always been that way.

 

That definitely could be playing a part - brightness on the screen is sometimes useful in sunlight to see the screen if you have to, but otherwise it's usually best to keep it tuned to roughly what they look like on the computer - turned down a few notches might help.

 

Something else that I discovered was that I accidentally had the setting on M (manually set shutter speed and aperture value.)

 

That could definitely have an effect! If you weren't setting the aperture & shutter, then the camera was just shooting on whatever settings were there, and not metering for the scene at all.

 

Although I do not normally blow up photographs to super large sizes, I do have the resolution set to 12.1 mega-pixels. Could that have something to do with it.

 

No...that's good - usually best to keep the camera at the highest possible resolution....better to have extra resolution you don't need but causes no harm, than to have to low resolution and find you need it.

 

I think that the camera is getting old and photos are just not coming out as nice as they used to be. Getting ready to take a Mediterranean cruise and want my photos to look their best. I do not have time to learn a new camera. I'd love to find this same camera for sale (brand new) but the chances of that are slim. :rolleyes: It's been a great camera.

 

As long as the camera still shoots what you need it to, an upgrade isn't needed - only if it breaks, or fails to meter properly. By the sound of it, you just had a few settings change and it was throwing off the results. No reason to believe you can't get many more happy years out of that camera.

 

Questions: I bought new SD cards for the camera, partly because I needed more storage, but also thinking that an older card might be the problem. I have not used them yet to see if that helps. Could that be?

 

As others have mentioned, the older cards are best restored and cleared by using the 'format' function in the camera. Actually, ANY card, new or old - when you've transferred photos off the card and onto a computer, and want to delete everything on the card, don't go to the delete menu or use the 'delete all' function...go into the camera's main menu, in the setup area - usually all the way near the end of the menu are the settings related to the memory card, and one of those is 'format card'. Anytime you want to delete all the photos from a card, including those older ones you want to clean up, use this function instead of the delete function. It's faster, it's easier, it's better for the card, and it deletes everything - not just all the photos, but any little command files, thumbnail files, traces, ghosts, etc - it basically makes it a clean new card with nothing at all on it, ready to shoot.

 

Also, would an older battery cause the photos to come out the way they are? I've noticed that I am having to charge the rechargeable battery more often than before.

 

No...the battery wouldn't affect the image quality - only the amount of time it can stay on, the lag or delay in recharging or using flash, and sometimes even the focus speed or cycling speed can slow down. Image quality should remain the same. It may be a good time to consider a fresh new battery - depending on how long you've had yours and how many recharges it's been through, it could just be at the end of its reasonable life. A new battery for $30-50 is not a bad investment if you have a camera you're happy with.

[pierces]

Deleting them from the computer will eventually leave ghost images behind, and will interfere with new pictures being taken. This may be your problem. The only way to truely remove pictures from your cards is to format it in the camera.

 

 

Would it be possible to provide links to the articles that document this phenomenon...I am doing an article on photo myths and this is one of the best examples I've seen! No offense meant to you but whoever came up with that was either kidding or over-medicated!:D

 

Wow! That's right up there with, "Opening JPEG files repeatedly to view them will cause a loss of quality and eventually destroy the images because they are re-compressed every time they are closed again."

 

 

To the OP: Check the SIZE setting in your camera. It may have accidently been re-set from Large to Medium or Small. The reduced resolution images would still look great on the LCD, but would look fuzzy and dull at a larger size. Less of an effect would be caused by changing the quality setting to Low from Highest.

 

Here's an article on Image size and quality settings that I did a couple of years ago.

 

http://pptphoto.com/ArticlePages/VivaLaResolution.htm

 

Dave

[CruisinManiac]

sk8teacher and zackiedawg - Thanks for the info on formatting, I did it! :)

 

zackiedawg - The settings issue must have been it for the last several photos that I took - over Easter, but I feel that I have not been getting a quality photos for sometime. ;)

 

and sometimes even the focus speed or cycling speed can slow down.

If the battery effects the focus speed, could that not effect the quality of the photo? :confused:

 

OK, two more questions. In my camera settings, I have an option, OEVto adjust Brightness & Darkness. Currently, it is set at -0-. Should I change this and up the brightness? I don't know what it means.

 

What is conversion lens? I have settings of OFF, WIDE, and TEL. The camera is set to off. Is that what it should be?

 

Wow! That's right up there with, "Opening JPEG files repeatedly to view them will cause a loss of quality and eventually destroy the images because they are re-compressed every time they are closed again."

 

I am sure am glad that's a myth! I open and close my photos repeatedly. What about cropping? Doesn't that make them lose quality?

 

To the OP: Check the SIZE setting in your camera. It may have accidently been re-set from Large to Medium or Small. The reduced resolution images would still look great on the LCD, but would look fuzzy and dull at a larger size. Less of an effect would be caused by changing the quality setting to Low from Highest.

 

Here's an article on Image size and quality settings that I did a couple of years ago.

 

http://pptphoto.com/ArticlePages/VivaLaResolution.htm

 

Dave

 

I would check if I knew how. As far as I know, I don't have a SIZE setting. :confused:

 

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. ;)

[pierces]

 

As others have mentioned, the older cards are best restored and cleared by using the 'format' function in the camera. Actually, ANY card, new or old - when you've transferred photos off the card and onto a computer, and want to delete everything on the card, don't go to the delete menu or use the 'delete all' function...go into the camera's main menu, in the setup area - usually all the way near the end of the menu are the settings related to the memory card, and one of those is 'format card'. Anytime you want to delete all the photos from a card, including those older ones you want to clean up, use this function instead of the delete function. It's faster, it's easier, it's better for the card, and it deletes everything - not just all the photos, but any little command files, thumbnail files, traces, ghosts, etc - it basically makes it a clean new card with nothing at all on it, ready to shoot.

 

 

Gotta jump in here...

 

Image files are stored on media as encoded data in whatever format the camera is set to use with the thumbnail embedded in the file itself. The files are located on "sectors" which the drive/card has been partitioned into by the formatting process chosen by the operating system and their location (or locations if the file was bigger than a sector and had to be split) are stored in the File Allocation Table (the "FAT" - is created during formatting). The best metaphor is a old time book library. The image files are stored on the sectors (shelves) by space availability in no particular order discernible to the visitor with their location recorded in the FAT(Dewey Decimal card file). When an image is viewed, the viewing program (viewer, editor or even the camera's operating system) goes to the FAT (Card File), looks up the location of the file on the media (aisle and shelf in the library) then retrieves the data into memory and decodes the data for presentation or editing (gets the book or multiple volumes that make up the story and checks them out...actually checks out a copy since the book is left on the shelf).

 

When you delete files off of a card, hard drive or USB stick the standard delete function merely removes the marker (tears up the Dewey reference card) from the FAT and makes the file space seem empty to the operating system. Unlike books left on a shelf with no reference card, the original image file is still there taking up no physical space, but if another file is written to that "empty space", it simply overwrites the sectors and records the location in the FAT (I guess it would be like erasing the pages in the un-referenced books and recording a new story on them). Even standard PC or in-camera formatting leaves the bulk of the file intact and just erases the FAT and creates a new one. (BTW, this file storage method is what allows corrupted or accidentally erased cards to be recovered by rescue utilities which work by locating files by pattern and reconstructing them.) Admixture of files is so unlikely as to be impossible since the end of one corrupted file would have to be completed by a fragment of another in the proper encoded sequence. Intermixing or double-exposure would be similarly unlikely since interlacing the data would create an indecipherable mess unreadable by the viewing program.

 

The difference between formatting on a computer or in the camera is nil. If you format on the computer and put the card in the camera, the camera looks for its proprietary folders and files and if it doesn't find them, it reformats the card and creates them. The only danger is wasting a few seconds formatting them on the PC, so formatting in the camera is actually good advice. The supposed difference lies in the past when a card formatted by a computer in 32-bit FAT32 and inserted into a camera that used 16-bit FAT16 format would appear to be unusable until re-formatted in the camera. Some cameras weren't even smart enough to try and the user would assume the card was ruined.

 

Bottom line - If you delete or re-format, the old files are still there until you write over them again with new images. Fragments of files or whole unreferenced images (are these the unseeable ghost images?) remain as a normal part of the process and are obliterated by the next file to be sent to that sector, if ever. (Ever sell or give away a re-formatted card that once contained photos you would rather not appear on the internet? A rescue utility can usually bring them back to life if the card wasn't used after the formatting :eek:) If you are obsessive over having a pristine card every time, check to see if your camera has a "LOW-LEVEL" format option. This erases the card by systematically erasing every byte available on the card and writing zero values to them to obliterate the data. In most cameras, I suspect that LOW-LEVEL means actually doing the FAT removal format as described above with the regular FORMAT command doing a DELETE ALL command and recreating the folders since doing a proper data wiping using a rescue utility like RescuePro takes quite a while.

 

Happy formatting!

 

Dave

[pierces]

 

 

I would check if I knew how. As far as I know, I don't have a SIZE setting. :confused:

 

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. ;)

 

Check here: http://www.docs.sony.com/release/DSCW200.pdf

 

The settings are outlined starting on page 21.

 

Or here: http://www.docs.sony.com/release/DSCW200_Handbook.pdf

 

More detail on page 40.

 

Dave

[CruisinManiac]

Check here: http://www.docs.sony.com/release/DSCW200.pdf

 

The settings are outlined starting on page 21.

 

Or here: http://www.docs.sony.com/release/DSCW200_Handbook.pdf

 

More detail on page 40.

 

Dave

 

Thanks! You just saved me looking up my handbook. I was going to look for what a certain symbol means on my camera. ;)

 

Could you also answer the following that I posted above?

 

OK, two more questions. In my camera settings, I have an option, OEVto adjust Brightness & Darkness. Currently, it is set at -0-. Should I change this and up the brightness? I don't know what it means.

 

What is conversion lens? I have settings of OFF, WIDE, and TEL. The camera is set to off. Is that what it should be?

 

[pierces]

I have an option, OEVto adjust Brightness & Darkness. Currently, it is set at -0-. Should I change this and up the brightness? I don't know what it means.

 

EV stands for Exposure Value. The setting for that indicator is Exposure Compensation, normally set to zero compensation ( - 0 - ). Using this setting allows you to override the meter setting that the camera chooses when evaluating a scene. Say you take a picture of a white flower against a dark background and the camera, while setting the scene based on an average, makes the background look good but makes the flower a bright white blob. Adjusting the Exposure Compensation to -.7 or even -1.0 or lower will darken the image and allow you to record the detail in the flower (darkening the background too). Bright beaches or snow can fool the average too and dialing the Compensation up to +1.0 can change muddy grey snow to a natural white. or make those dark, shadowy faces look more like your family at the beach. Practice. Experiment. "Digital Film" is free!

 

What is conversion lens? I have settings of OFF, WIDE, and TEL. The camera is set to off. Is that what it should be?

 

Sony sells add-on accessory lenses that increase or decrease the focal length of your camera's lens to add telephoto reach (TEL) or to give it a wider view (WIDE). This setting adjusts you camera to compensate for these conversion lenses. If you don't have one attached, OFF is correct.

 

Dave

[awboater]

I am sure it is the manual setting on your camera first. It could cause the photo to be over or under exposed, as well as blurry.

 

Try setting it to something else and see if the situation changes.

[dileep]

Many cameras have a quality setting that defines the compression ratio for the jpeg image without chnaging the pixel count. Mine has "standard" and "fine". The picture quality and file size is much higher in fine mode.

[CruisinManiac]

Thanks Dave for the explanations. I'll try to play with the settings.

 

I am sure it is the manual setting on your camera first. It could cause the photo to be over or under exposed, as well as blurry.

 

Try setting it to something else and see if the situation changes.

 

Yes, I think you are correct. I have changed the M to automatic.

 

Many cameras have a quality setting that defines the compression ratio for the jpeg image without chnaging the pixel count. Mine has "standard" and "fine". The picture quality and file size is much higher in fine mode.

 

My video settings offer the FINE and STANDARD, but the photo settings only offer the resolution settings.

[awboater]

I guess I should add my opinion to the format issue.

 

All of my cameras format the cards in FAT32. And they format in 32Kb Allocation blocks.

 

The format process the cameras use could be considered "quick-format" as the formatting only takes a second or two. Therefore, when formatted in the camera, the only thing that is deleted is the File Allocation Tables - not the data.

 

The way data is stored on the card is that units, called "blocks" are arranged in 32Kb strips of data. For this discussion, the term block, cluster, and sector are interchangeable.

 

In the FAT, as pierces indicated, the starting address of each block is stored in a table. Since each block of data can contain up to 32K of data, many blocks are required to store a typical photo.

 

In a hard drive, when a file is written onto the disk, the computer attempts to write this data in consecutive blocks as much as possible, as with a hard drive, the retrieval speed is dependent on how much the heads have to move to get to the individual blocks. Over time, as data is written to and from the hard drive, the blocks can become fragmented - that is, lose their consecutive order.

 

This is not a problem in respect to the FAT table as it can locate the proper blocks wherever they are on a disk. But it can be a problem if the fragmentation is severe enough that the disk heads have to mechanically move all over the disk to retrieve the data.

 

This is not generally an issue with solid state cards as there is not a mechanical head seek delay. Therefore, defragging or reformatting a card to improve performance is not generally required.

 

If you need to completely erase the files, perform a full format (not a quick format) in Windows, Unix, Mac, or whatever your choice of computer.

 

So is it better to format the card in the computer or the camera?

 

The block size I mentioned above is variable. Windows 7 can format block sizes from 1024 to 32K, with a default of 4096. All of my cameras format with block sizes of 32K.

 

And some computers - especially servers can format at 64K and beyond.

 

While cameras can read various block sizes, they may not be able to read all of the different block sizes. I have been successful in using block sizes between 4K and 32K, but Windows 7 won't go to 64K, so I cannot test the cameras with that block size.

 

There is a trade-off in block sizes. The larger block sizes are generally faster, but they are less efficient in storing data. Large block sizes are typically used for databases, but with multi-megabit file sizes, photos could be treated the same.

 

The reason the larger block sizes are faster is that there are fewer blocks recorded in the FAT table for each file, so there are fewer lookups to the FAT required when accessing the blocks that make up the file.

 

Since photo files are large, using the largest block size you can would be offer the best performance - provided the camera can support that block size.

 

So then, if you format the card in the camera, you will be assured of the best block size, which for my cameras is 32K (a fairly large block size).

 

If you format the card in the computer, if the format utility is set at the default block size (for Windows 7 and FAT32 it's 4096), then you could be robbing performance of your card. While it's OK to format in Windows 7, for the best performance, make sure the block size is set to 32K.

 

Some photographers reformat their cards for every use. I don't do that. I have used the same cards over and over. The only time I have had an issue is when I intermix cards from my Nikon cameras and Olympus camera. That has resulted in corrupted files. So I try to keep the cards dedicated to one brand camera.

 

But the corrupt file situation only happened once, so I am not sure if it was a camera issue or something else.

 

One last point. With Windows 7, there is an option to read/write to the cards either with or without cache enabled. It is found in the properties section of the SD card. My recommendation is to turn it off, unless you always dismount the SD card by using the "Safely Remove Device" option (which you should do anyway).

 

If you don't, you could corrupt the card and damage files.

 

Sorry for the long-winded technical story.

[CruisinManiac]

WOW!!! I am going to format, no matter what. :D

[sk8teacher]

Would it be possible to provide links to the articles that document this phenomenon...I am doing an article on photo myths and this is one of the best examples I've seen! No offense meant to you but whoever came up with that was either kidding or over-medicated!:D

 

Dave

 

Then perhaps you can explain why I was getting this "phenomenon" when I was simply deleting photos from the card while opened on my computer, but they went away when I formatted the card in the camera.

 

I cannot provide a link to an article for you, I can only tell you my personal experience. I wasn't kidding, I'm not "over-medicated", and have been taking photo's for over 50 years. Granted, I am relatively new to digital photography, and am certainly not an expert on how computers and writing of data onto harddrives, flashcards etc. actually occurs.

 

But, when I first started taking digital pictures, I would download them to my computer, and then, with the file open, simply highlight everything and hit the delete button. After doing this a few times, I went on a cruise and when I opened started to download the pictures, I noticed that as each one opened on the computer, another picture would appear first and then the new picture would appear over the top of it. The first picture to appear was one that I had taken a couple of months previously. The new pictures all appeared to be slightly out of focus and were not worth keeping.

 

After placing the card back into the camera and then using the camera's format function, the card was clean. That is what I based my comment on. So I now format my cards after downloading the pictures to ensure this does not happen again.

 

Call it a myth is you want, but it did happen to me.

 

Cheers,

[pierces]

But, when I first started taking digital pictures, I would download them to my computer, and then, with the file open, simply highlight everything and hit the delete button. After doing this a few times, I went on a cruise and when I opened started to download the pictures, I noticed that as each one opened on the computer, another picture would appear first and then the new picture would appear over the top of it. The first picture to appear was one that I had taken a couple of months previously. The new pictures all appeared to be slightly out of focus and were not worth keeping.

 

That clears up the picture of what you were doing and there is actually an explanation. Unless the default settings are changed, most cameras reset the image numbering every time the card is cleared since the naming engine gets the last number and adds one to it. If the card is empty, either by deletion, formatting or even a new card, the numbering starts over. When you uploaded the pictures to the computer, the files would have the same name as the previous batch. Operating systems cache a copy of the thumbnails that they read from the image files to speed up the display process and when you open a different file with the same name, the cached thumbnail for the card could be displayed briefly before the new thumbnail was checked, found to be different, and reloaded prior to display.

 

As for the fuzziness...I've been taking pictures nearly as long as you have and I've found that most photo problems have a similar origin that seem to mysteriously follow me from camera to camera.;) Seriously, the image quality could have been too low of a default quality setting that may have been reset during menu diving with the new camera. Not too long ago, cameras still came preset with less than maximum quality settings to save space and allow the user's first photos to fit on the limited internal memory or crappy 4MB card they shipped the camera with.

 

I quote this with no malice because I have found that it often applies to me:

 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

- Arthur C. Clarke

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

[dileep]

There are several different ways of transferring photos from your memory card to your computer. I use a couple of different ones.

 

Most of the time, the software that came with my camera (or some othet photo viewer) pops up when I insert the SD card into the reader and asks me to select a folder to upload into. After uploading, I format the card in the camera.

 

At other times, I manually open the SD card folder and either cut or copy all the pictures after selecting all or a subset, and then paste into the desired folder on my PC. If I cut and paste, I don't need to format the card.

 

My camera is set to use sequentially increasing numbering for the images.

 

Both approaches work without any problems! In general, it is good practice to format your card before taking new pictures.

[bobmacliberty]

Weighing in on the formatting question. First, I'm not an expert but I'd put my money behind pierces explanation. That said though, here are a few other comments:

• I've read several pro photographer blogs that discussed this same issue. I don't know that many of the pros really understand what's happening technically with the card, but most suggest formatting the card in the camera before each use. Some actually admit that they don't know if this is necessary, but that's what they've always done and have never had a problem.
  
• Before doing anything to the pictures on the card, make sure that you have a couple of copies of the picture stored somewhere else in case you have a problem with one copy on your computer. Some programs (I use Lightroom) have the ability to do this automatically when importing from the card. This is obviously important if you're a wedding photographer and don't want to have to explain to the bride how your hard drive crashed and all her wedding pictures are gone. I feel much the same though way about pictures of vacations, kids events, etc.
  
• Whatever you do, be consistent about how you do it. Establish a routine that works and do it every time. I recently missed out on some important pictures when needing to do a fast memory card change in the middle of the action. I hadn't pre-formatted the second card and when I put it in the camera, it was full. It only took a few seconds to go into the menu and do a format (crossing my fingers that everything on the card had been copied to the computer), but I missed several shots during that time.:mad:
  

Format vs. delete, one large capacity card vs. several small cards, brand X cards vs. brand Y cards, fastest speed available vs. fast enough. I've only recently gotten into photography, so I don't really go back to the film days. Didn't photographers have the same sort of arguements about different types of film?:D