Digital photo frame - advice

Just_Passing_Bi

Thinking of buying a Digital photo frame for a Christmas present, but with so many different makes / sizes, not sure what to buy

Can anyone offer advice, what to buy / avoid?

Just_Passing_Bi

Little bump

Johnmcl7

I find digital photo frames are a bit of a minefield as there's varying quality and the way basic features are handled can be random, some don't support random slideshows (which to me is essential) and some are picky with the number of photos they will take.

I found the best way to choose one was to load up a USB stick or memory card with a few thousand images and go to the likes of Jessops, PC World and Tescos or wherever has frames powered up that can be tested then try out your images and see what you think.

I use a couple of 10in digital photo frames (one Sony, one Samsung) and one 7in frame (Kodak) which all work reasonably well although I think the Samsung is limited to 4,000 photos and the Kodak is possibly similar. Sizewise I probably wouldn't go below 10in unless it's for a desk you're going to be sitting at as 10in isn't that big if it's sitting in a lounge or similar.

John

Dave_C_2

Haven't looked in over a year, but what put me off was the aspect ratio.

Most of the cheaper frames were 16:9 widescreen. both of our cameras (SLR and point and shoot) take photos at 4:3 or thereabouts.
On a digital photo frame that's black lines at the top and bottom.
About half of the photos we take are in portrait, which is pants on widescreen.

Just my 2d worth

Dave

Avoriaz

Dave_C wrote: »

Haven't looked in over a year, but what put me off was the aspect ratio.

Most of the cheaper frames were 16:9 widescreen. both of our cameras (SLR and point and shoot) take photos at 4:3 or thereabouts.
On a digital photo frame that's black lines at the top and bottom.
About half of the photos we take are in portrait, which is pants on widescreen.

Just my 2d worth

Dave

Would positioning the frame in portrait mode (standing on the shorter edge) help or does that just move the problem to the non portrait pictures?

You could have two sets of pictures and position the frame according to which ones you want to display at any one time.

Dave_C_2

Avoriaz wrote: »

Would positioning the frame in portrait mode (standing on the shorter edge) help or does that just move the problem to the non portrait pictures?

It just moves the problem And you still get the black lines!

You could have two sets of pictures and position the frame according to which ones you want to display at any one time.

Good idea, but this would ruin the flow - unless they were set on random within the two groups.

ETA:
I've just thought, what happens if you combine pairs of portraits and show them in landscape? Off to see if it can easily be done in Picasa
Dave

scooby359

Hmm, has someone asked specifically for photo frame?

Saw this article a couple of years ago and never forgotten it (cos I bought one for somebody that year and I've never seen it used since!) -Digital photo frames top list of least-wanted holiday gifts, better find those receipts

jackieblack

scooby359 wrote: »

Hmm, has someone asked specifically for photo frame?

Saw this article a couple of years ago and never forgotten it (cos I bought one for somebody that year and I've never seen it used since!) -Digital photo frames top list of least-wanted holiday gifts, better find those receipts

Agreed..... eveyone I know who bought/was given one have carefully positioned them in a drawer/cupboard/cardboard box

Mr_Toad

Interesting comments. As a gadget lover and owner of a DSLR, and a couple of good compacts, I've never wanted a digital frame.

I have no idea why. Of all the other keen photographers I know I can't think of a single one who uses one.

Thinking about it, I only know one family who has one on prominent display. I wonder why they seem so unpopular?

Johnmcl7

Mr_Toad wrote: »

Interesting comments. As a gadget lover and owner of a DSLR, and a couple of good compacts, I've never wanted a digital frame.

I have no idea why. Of all the other keen photographers I know I can't think of a single one who uses one.

Thinking about it, I only know one family who has one on prominent display. I wonder why they seem so unpopular?

That used to be my thoughts exactly, my Mum had asked if I wanted one for my birthday as I'm a keen photographer and I'm not easy to by for but I wasn't bothered at all. When the dog passed away she bought a little Kodak 7in and put a selection of his pictures on and I was surprised how well it worked. A couple of months after the Samsung 10in was added and I bought a Sony 10in one for work.

The reason I'm a fan of them is I take a lot of photos but rarely actually sit down and look through them so the photo frame showing a random selection is a great way to see older photos passively. Given the amount of time and money I've invested in photography it's definitely a lot better than the photos sitting largely untouched most of the time.

John

Johnmcl7

Dave_C wrote: »

Haven't looked in over a year, but what put me off was the aspect ratio.

Most of the cheaper frames were 16:9 widescreen. both of our cameras (SLR and point and shoot) take photos at 4:3 or thereabouts.
On a digital photo frame that's black lines at the top and bottom.
About half of the photos we take are in portrait, which is pants on widescreen.

Just my 2d worth

Dave

Aside from Panasonic and Olympus, DSLRs and mirrorless cameras are 3:2 rather than 4:3 so they're not that far off 16:9 - the black borders should be left and right and fairly small, not top and bottom. Unless the framing is tight you can usually get away with cropping a little to make it 16:9. Most compacts bar Panasonic are only 4:3 though as you say which is more of square shape than 3:2.

John