hotography is fast revolutionizing the world of home computers, and PCs are fast becoming a basic staple of amateur photography. People are using the technology to get better pictures faster, and to get them for less money than conventional photography methods.
A friend drove this point home to me over Memorial Day weekend. We were having dinner when he took out a photograph of himself and his family. The picture, he told me, had been taken by his father the day before with a digital camera and printed on an inkjet printer using special photo-quality paper. The picture looked great. ''It takes 10 minutes to print the picture, but who cares?'' he enthused.
The secret to making great pictures with your computer - besides knowing when to press the shutter button - is having a camera that can take a fairly high-resolution image and using good paper in your color inkjet. It also helps keep track of your photographs: After all, what good is an award-winning photograph if you can't find it?
The resolution of a digital image refers to the number of pixels used to create the photograph. A few years ago, a typical resolution was 320 pixels across and 240 pixels high. Unfortunately, while that is good enough for a photo on a Web page, that same picture is likely to look blurry or pixilated when displayed full size on a computer screen or printed. For a good-looking picture, you want at least 640x480 - a full-sized picture on a 14-inch computer screen - or higher resolutions.
Higher resolution images look better than their low-resolution counterparts because they contain more information. Unfortunately, this additional information takes longer to transfer from the camera to the computer, takes up more space on your computer's hard drive, and is slower for your machine to manipulate. Higher-resolution cameras also cost more than low-resolution ones, because they need a more expensive sensor and more memory to store the images.
A few months ago I looked at two high-priced digital cameras from Kodak. Both took high-resolution images (up to 1024x1536), but they cost between $700 and $1,000. That's too much money for most people.
An exciting camera at the low end of the price spectrum is Polaroid's new PDC700. The compact camera has an impressive 1024x768 resolution, a built-in flash, and costs just $300. The camera has both an internal 4 megabyte memory card (enough for between 20 and 40 images) and a slot for a compact flash module, which you can load into your camera like a piece of electronic ''film.'' And unlike other low-end cameras, the Polaroid has both a viewfinder and a small LCD panel on the back for looking at them afterward: If you don't like the picture, you can delete it.
Like other digital cameras, two problems with the Polaroid are short battery life - the camera requires AA batteries that are fully charged, and it quickly drains them - and no lens cap. If you don't use rechargeable batteries, you might spend $3 or $4 for each set of 20 photographs you take. And after a few years of heavy use, the lens might get so scratched it can't take decent photos.
An interesting alternative to digital photography is Kodak's Advantix Film Drive ($350). The Film Drive is a desktop scanner that takes a roll of developed APS film (that new cartridge film that is slowly replacing 35mm). With the provided software you can preview your entire roll, find a picture you want, and then transfer a specific image into your computer.
The big advantage of the Film Drive is that today's APS cameras are much easier to use than their digital brethren: The batteries in film cameras last months, rather than hours; APS film cameras are smaller, lighter, and more rugged; film cameras generally have better optics; film takes richer pictures; and film has incredibly high resolution. When you digitize it, you can choose a picture that is 875x500 pixels, 1750x1000, or 2625x1500.
The disadvantage of film cameras is cost and speed. A 40-exposure roll of APS film costs about $7; add another $7 to $14 for processing. That's nearly five times the price of batteries for the Polaroid camera. And unlike digital cameras, which make your images available instantly, APS film must be developed - so add a few more hours.
One issue photographers have had to deal with for generations is how to store their pictures. For $8, you can buy a plastic APS film storage box that neatly holds 12 rolls of film along with their index prints.
Polaroid's camera comes with a program called PhotoMax that lets you download images from the camera, save them in JPEG files, and then organize the files into electronic albums. I don't really like Polaroid's software. It's slow and a bit awkward to use. It would really bog down if I had a thousand electronic images.
My two big complaints with this digital stuff are interfaces and code quality. The Polaroid camera connects to the PC with a slow serial interface; the Kodak Advantix uses the parallel port. Instead, both of these machines should be using the high-speed Universal Serial Bus, which is faster, more reliable, and which would also let these devices be used with Macintosh computers.
The second problem is the programs that control the hardware. Although both Kodak and Polaroid have spent a lot of money developing software with flashy graphics and slick interfaces, the programs themselves are awkward to use and crash from time to time. Most people I know would prefer to use software that is simpler, faster, and more reliable.
Technology writer Simson L. Garfinkel can be reached at plugged-in@simson.net.
Dow:
