in camera resolution change
Nov 2, 2017 13:42:24 #
When adjusting my resolution from, say, large to medium (or small) while maintaining picture quality at "fine" how much picture quality should I expect to loose? This would be with a full frame camera shooting JPEGS.
Nov 2, 2017 13:47:55 #
I think it would be best if you do some test shooting to figure that out. Can think of no other way to see the difference.
Nov 2, 2017 14:09:54 #
Idaho wrote:
When adjusting my resolution from, say, large to medium (or small) while maintaining picture quality at "fine" how much picture quality should I expect to loose? This would be with a full frame camera shooting JPEGS.
How much -> too much. You're already allowing the camera to throw away pixels from the sensor when creating the largest JPEG files. The matter just gets worse as you lower the resolution. You may have perfectly fine images for online use from small/fine, but and this is a big BUT: you lose data needed for complex edits in post processing and you lose the ability to use the images for any purpose beyond relatively small online posts and small print needs.
Nov 2, 2017 16:04:08 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
You're already allowing the camera to throw away pixels from the sensor when creating the largest JPEG files.
What???
RAW, JPEG, TIFF all have the same pixel dimensions. You lose image information with JPEG, but not pixels.Nov 2, 2017 16:21:22 #
If you have a full frame camera, and are shooting JPEG, you are wasting all the money you spent. Go RAW or go home.
Nov 2, 2017 16:34:17 #
Idaho wrote:
When adjusting my resolution from, say, large to medium (or small) while maintaining picture quality at "fine" how much picture quality should I expect to loose? This would be with a full frame camera shooting JPEGS.
Not sure of your reason for doing that, but...
You can do what I do and shoot both raw and small, basic JPEG.
Initially, I need fast browsing for quick upload to the web.
I still have full-rez raw files for later.
You never know when you might capture that once in a lifetime image.
Nov 2, 2017 16:41:34 #
OddJobber wrote:
What??? RAW, JPEG, TIFF all have the same pixel dimensions. You lose image information with JPEG, but not pixels.
RAW, JPEG, TIFF all have the same pixel dimensions. You lose image information with JPEG, but not pixels.Agreed, that should have been data rather than 'pixels'. Alas, the shock of the idea had my head reeling while trying to type. Never good ...
Nov 2, 2017 17:47:59 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Agreed, that should have been data rather than 'pixels'. Alas, the shock of the idea had my head reeling while trying to type. Never good ...
Okey dokey.
I want to add that the printable size will vary greatly with the megapixel count of the sensor. Some of the new 45MP super cameras can produce usable images at low resolution. Not so with a 14MP sensor.
Nov 3, 2017 05:51:41 #
Idaho wrote:
When adjusting my resolution from, say, large to medium (or small) while maintaining picture quality at "fine" how much picture quality should I expect to loose? This would be with a full frame camera shooting JPEGS.
Unless you're using low capacity memory cards, I see no reason to lower the resolution. Capture the image at the best resolution and then manipulate it later.
As for the actual loss, you'll have to experiment to find out, zooming in to see how details look.
Nov 3, 2017 06:11:06 #
I opt for the highest/finest when I shoot jpg-only, which I do more of with my Fuji because its images please me right out of the camera. BTW here's a pitch for jpg-only ... nice argument, I thought. And maybe the answer to my Lightroom conundrum! http://danbaileyphoto.com/blog/3-reasons-why-i-recommend-shoot-jpeg-instead-of-raw/?utm_content=bufferf87a5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Nov 3, 2017 06:14:32 #
there may be times or situations where getting the shots is more important than the resolution or image quality.
Nov 3, 2017 06:24:33 #
dhowland wrote:
I opt for the highest/finest when I shoot jpg-only, which I do more of with my Fuji because its images please me right out of the camera. BTW here's a pitch for jpg-only ... nice argument, I thought. And maybe the answer to my Lightroom conundrum! http://danbaileyphoto.com/blog/3-reasons-why-i-recommend-shoot-jpeg-instead-of-raw/?utm_content=bufferf87a5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Nov 3, 2017 06:26:56 #
The only reason (that I can think of) that you would intentionally reduce image quality before post-processing is this: you are in a situation where you have one card, limited memory, and the prospect that you might fill that card shooting at a higher resolution. Otherwise, I don’t understand why you would buy a Ferrari to haul fertilizer.
Nov 3, 2017 06:29:28 #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
The only reason (that I can think of) that you would intentionally reduce image quality before post-processing is this: you are in a situation where you have one card, limited memory, and the prospect that you might fill that card shooting at a higher resolution. Otherwise, I don’t understand why you would buy a Ferrari to haul fertilizer.
That assumes post-processing. If you're getting what you want right out of the camera, jpgs would be fine (no pun intended).
Nov 3, 2017 06:37:42 #
dhowland wrote:
That assumes post-processing. If you're getting what you want right out of the camera, jpgs would be fine (no pun intended).
Sorry, I wasn’t clear: it’s not a jpeg v raw choice; it’s a jpeg “fine” v jpeg “low”. Different cameras call it different things. When submitting any image for publication or email, I can reduce the size. No other processing required. So my comment stands: why would one start with a low res set of images unless the intent is to capture the most images on each individual card?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.