bluemerc Loc: Tampa, Fla

My Nikon p100 has the option of many different size image sizes ranging from 640 x 480 to 3648 x 2736 and image quality from Fine to Basic.

Is there any reason to use anything less than the 3648 x 2736 and the "fine" image quality other than to save disc space.

Will it be more grainy with the higher counts, or anything thing else detrimental??

My logic says you should get the best quality photo with the highest image count and the "fine" setting.

Am I right???

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Yep!

sheelister

I have a related query about Image size: I plan to look into stock photography sites. One of them requires that images be a minimum of 5mb. Can I calculate the MB size of an image from the pixel size in a camera's specs? If not, how is the MB size calculated?

pappy0352 Loc: Oregon

I always shoot the largest and beat quality.

Pappy

pappy0352 Loc: Oregon

I always shoot the largest and beat quality.

Pappy

Photog1 Loc: North America

Kind of, but not quite. It all depends on the amount of "information" in the imge - an image, for example, with a lot of white and little contrast will be around X bytes in size, whereas an image with a lot of color range and light dynamic will be larger than X bytes, even when shot on the same camera. 5MB is not very large anymore, and any modern DSLR or bridge camera with a 5 or 6 MP sensor or larger will have no problem creating a 5MB image size.

Stock photo sites do this so that an image can be blown up and cropped without losing too much information detail.

NiagaraJim Loc: Niagara Falls, ON

I tried the stock photography route and after many hours reading gave it up. Most sites are looking for specific images, no shots of birds, flowers etc as they have tons already, If you want test the market try 500px.com, there you can store images and put them up for sale also. People can also vote on your images so you get some idea that what you are doing is good enough for stock.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

If you take pictures for eBay they will load faater if you use the loswer size. thats the only time I use it. - Dave

Reinr Loc: Staffordshire. UK

One quick way of determining image file size is to multiply the pixel width by height. 2500 x 2500 will give a file size in excess of 5 meg. This is only a rough guide. As stated earlier, low infornation in the image lowers the file size, but most stock sites realise that and it is often acceptable to send them a file that is below their minimum requirements providing the pixel width and height are okay.

Tea8 Loc: Where the wind comes sweeping down the plain.

That or Craigslist or if you only plan to email pics. In all cases a lower image quality helps, but I have never shot anything below norm.

I don't even shoot norm anymore. I used to when I was taking snapshots 5 or 6 years ago, but now I am more serious about creating a good image and this is part of that.You may never know what shot could be that one great shot so might as well go with the highest possible size your camera will allow.

sheelister

Well, right now I have a 10-megapixel DSLR and I shoot at the largest image "size" available. I submitted a photo that I cropped approx. 5%, and it was rejected because it was not 5mb. So, I figured one must need a "larger" camera if cropping is needed.
Anyway, I guess you can't simply multiply pixels-by-pixels and assume an image "size."

mooseeyes Loc: Sonora, California

How best can we state this issue, so that it is simple and makes clear sense to all? Here is how I look at the question.

First, lets imagine a man in his workshop building a project. He grabs his last board, measures it finding it to be too long. So, because he is a master craftsman, he measures again, then he cuts his board to the proper length and finishes his project.

Now imagine the same man, who grabs his last board only to find that the board is too short. He cannot finish his project.

Add to this simple concept, one more thing that I have always followed: Always shoot loose! Think back to the old film days, when many of us were shooting medium format cameras using 120/220 film. Many shot square format, resulting in 12 images per roll of 120 film. You had to shoot loose in order to get a print out of your square image. . .either vertical or horizontal. Then there were those of us who shot 645 format, as this gave the shooter 15 images out of a roll of 120 film and best fit standard print sizes. . .one would shoot either vertical or horizontal; however, the smart ones would still shot loose.

You never really know for sure what your captured image has until you take a real hard look at each image after the fact. Over the years, I have found several images where upon close review, the subject matter mandated that a vertical needed to be changed to a horizontal, or vice versa. When this happens, and you have not shot loose, you become the man with the short board.

Always capture the biggest and best quality image that your camera will record. . .and shoot loose!

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

4X5 was shoot loose. but some of us used 35mm and it was crop in the camera. You need all the negative to get good prints. Of course you had to think about the ends not being there to do 8x10s. So if you are shooting with a 10 meg camera you should probable crop in the camera so you will have all the megs when you print. - Dave

flyguy Loc: Las Cruces, New Mexico

Excellent advice! :thumbup:

Photog1 Loc: North America

That is correct. I would bet your cropping process also re-compressed the file. One realizes now that there is a difference between the "size of an image", and the "size of an image file". I can print an image at 30 inches by 60 inches, out of a 7MB file. I can also print that exact same 7MB file at 4x6 inches. If you need a 5MB file, you are best served by capturing at least 150% of that size, just to be safe. And then watching out for your PP program that may be doing a lot of "save for the web" or "save for email" kind of compressing, and that's where you lose a lot of file size.