So, does this NOT make sense?
Feb 20, 2015 11:21:59 #
Assume the following: Samsung NX1 28 megs 16-50 "S" lens. Looking to print at A3 size, approx. 19" x 13". Assume for the moment JPEG only.
Camera can shoot at different resolution levels, , i.e. "extra fine", "fine", etc.
Other than time and memory consumed, and just on question of ultimate print is there any good reason NOT to shoot at the maximum size and then use more dots per inch in the printing to get the size I want? Is there any valid reason to intentionally shoot with less data?
Thanks
Camera can shoot at different resolution levels, , i.e. "extra fine", "fine", etc.
Other than time and memory consumed, and just on question of ultimate print is there any good reason NOT to shoot at the maximum size and then use more dots per inch in the printing to get the size I want? Is there any valid reason to intentionally shoot with less data?
Thanks
Feb 20, 2015 11:34:57 #
Higher resolution = bigger files = more storage consumed, slower transfer of files, and possibly conflicts with file size limitations if you are sending pictures via email, etc. For the pictures I want to take, the higher IQ more than offsets these drawbacks.
Feb 20, 2015 11:51:31 #
ssscomp wrote:
...Camera can shoot at different resolution levels, , i.e. "extra fine", "fine", etc. ...s there any good reason NOT to shoot at the maximum size and then use more dots per inch in the printing to get the size I want? Is there any valid reason to intentionally shoot with less data?...
shoot the highest quality you can.
.
Feb 20, 2015 11:54:33 #
I agree. Shoot to record the BEST possible image - you can always 'downgrade' it later in, or depending on your point of view, with PP.
Feb 20, 2015 11:54:49 #
shoot at the highest quality you can. you can always tweak your file afterwards for the end result required.
Feb 20, 2015 12:20:23 #
Also, do NOT crop your image. Printing to 13x19-inches is not the same format as 8x10-inches. Cropping should be chosen for specific format at time of printing.
Feb 20, 2015 18:26:15 #
When going to print, you can downsize the file, but it's awful hard adding resolution to it. You can add digital mumbo-jumbo to it, but that's all you're doing.
Feb 21, 2015 08:20:58 #
ssscomp wrote:
Assume the following: Samsung NX1 28 megs 16-50 &... (show quote)
When my son was younger, he would record everything at the lowest speed on the VCR, just to save money on those $2.00 blank tapes. Sure, he got a lot on each tape, but the quality was garbage.
I record images at the highest level possible, usually raw. Sure, the files are larger, but they're larger because they're higher quality. Higher quality is why I buy decent equipment.
Feb 21, 2015 09:23:38 #
ssscomp wrote:
Assume the following: Samsung NX1 28 megs 16-50 &... (show quote)
Echo: Always shoot the highest quality your camera will do.
Feb 21, 2015 09:28:14 #
Alway shoot with the ultimate use of the image in mind. I have a friend who does a lot of wedding photography. Lots of images, very, very seldom printed larger than 8x10. He chooses to use JPEG to conserve resources since he is in a commercial endeavor and knows his target audience. Would not work very well for a fine-art landscape photographer! Know the use for which your images will be used.
Feb 21, 2015 09:29:55 #
Record at the highest possible and also raw. The SD cards are inexpensive these days and owning a few of them is expected. Then when you get home delete as needed (but I avoid deleting in camera).
I know how much the lens and camera I'm using costs, a $75 memory card should not be a stopper.
I know how much the lens and camera I'm using costs, a $75 memory card should not be a stopper.
Feb 21, 2015 09:32:47 #
I personally shoot selecting BOTH raw and jpeg small files. I use the jpeg files to screen and delete images I don't want to convert just to save time and space.
Feb 21, 2015 10:30:31 #
Bugfan
Loc: Toronto, Canada
It's impossible to know what is going to happen to an image in the longer term. Maybe you'll never look at it again or perhaps one day you'll turn it into a huge poster.
As a result of this, I always shoot at the highest quality.
Yah it takes more storage but that's cheap these days. I can get a four terabyte drive for 50% less than I paid for a 200 MB hard drive twenty years ago.
Maybe it does take a bit longer to transfer images but how often do you do large image transfers? My only big transfers are the images on the camera and those only take a few minutes usually.
And of course you can't send those files by email but then I get around that by making a downsized set before sending out images. I always make a copy of each folder and downsize all the images to 4x6 inches, 96 dpi and medium quality. It only takes a few minutes and downsizes to ten percent or less of the original size.
My vote is to save as much data as you can at the highest quality available. That's saved me many times when I dug out an image of some years ago to use today.
As a result of this, I always shoot at the highest quality.
Yah it takes more storage but that's cheap these days. I can get a four terabyte drive for 50% less than I paid for a 200 MB hard drive twenty years ago.
Maybe it does take a bit longer to transfer images but how often do you do large image transfers? My only big transfers are the images on the camera and those only take a few minutes usually.
And of course you can't send those files by email but then I get around that by making a downsized set before sending out images. I always make a copy of each folder and downsize all the images to 4x6 inches, 96 dpi and medium quality. It only takes a few minutes and downsizes to ten percent or less of the original size.
My vote is to save as much data as you can at the highest quality available. That's saved me many times when I dug out an image of some years ago to use today.
Feb 21, 2015 12:09:35 #
There is only one reason that I know of for not shooting at the highest resolution.
If you are trying to shoot a large series of photos on burst mode, for example a full series of one high jumper through the entire jump, then you would have to use a lower resolution in order to get more photos before your buffer filled up and you couldn't keep shooting.
If you did that you couldn't print 19-13 anymore, but it would be a valid reason to shoot at lower resolution.
If you are trying to shoot a large series of photos on burst mode, for example a full series of one high jumper through the entire jump, then you would have to use a lower resolution in order to get more photos before your buffer filled up and you couldn't keep shooting.
If you did that you couldn't print 19-13 anymore, but it would be a valid reason to shoot at lower resolution.
Feb 21, 2015 19:37:20 #
ssscomp wrote:
Assume the following: Samsung NX1 28 megs 16-50 &... (show quote)
Don't need to assume anything, shoot at the best (largest) quality you can and you can go down from there as need arises.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.