in camera resolution change
Nov 3, 2017 07:20:08 #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
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?
Ah, yes, sorry -- and true. Better to start with what you might need and reduce later if/when you don't need it.
Nov 3, 2017 07:33:18 #
rdubreuil
Loc: Dummer, NH USA
jerryc41 wrote:
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.
As for the actual loss, you'll have to experiment to find out, zooming in to see how details look.
You can always down res in post but, you can't go up. Once the data is gone it's gone. Start with the best your equipment can produce. If one spends a boat load on a 36+ megapixel camera; why would you ever ham string it by telling it to through most of the data away? Otherwise, IMO it's just a case of quantity over quality.Nov 3, 2017 08:54:43 #
No reason with the cheap storage to shoot small or low quality images in my view today. I will say that I do still have a few 256mb CF cards from my 15 year old digital rebel camera. I can only get 9 or 10 RAW images full size on those cards with my 20mp camera today... Technology marches on...
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Nov 3, 2017 09:34:10 #
Not enough for your eyes to notice. The small size has less megapixels so you will be limited to the Internet use mainly.
Nov 3, 2017 09:53:56 #
I would switch to JPEGs if I were on a desert island and that was my last card.
Nov 3, 2017 10:00:49 #
Fotoartist wrote:
I would switch to JPEGs if I were on a desert island and that was my last card.
A great example of a unique situation in the tail end of the distribution of possible needs rather than a general use best practice! Hopefully, our OP can appreciate the difference.
Nov 3, 2017 10:27:31 #
Nov 3, 2017 10:35:37 #
Also a good reason.
OddJobber wrote:
What about continuous shooting with a limited buffer? (D7100)
Nov 3, 2017 11:12:20 #
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.
Simply said, "a lot." Having said that, you're camera and how it operates might be very different than my camera. You don't say why you want to downsize the resolution? If I were shooting JPEG and setting my camera, a Nikon D800, I would set it to the largest available size and then downsize in a software program. If I were going to send photos over wifi (which I do not do) and they were not going to be printed at all I might feel comfortable setting my camera at medium and letting the user downsize if they needed to. If I were going to simply email the photos to someone and they just wanted to look at them, do nothing else with them, I would feel comfortable setting my camera at small. Your question is a very technical one and the answer depends upon many things. In general, set your camera at the largest fine JPEG setting available then you can use the image for whatever purpose you want by putting it into software and exporting as needed.
Nov 3, 2017 14:45:58 #
The general wisdom is shoot at the best quality your camera can deliver and downsize in post. And shoot only at less than best quality when exigent circumstances require.
Nov 3, 2017 15:16:29 #
Why in the world would you spend X number of dollars on a camera and then turn around and make it deliver like the quality of a camera that is worth way less.
Nov 3, 2017 15:29:06 #
whitewolfowner wrote:
Why in the world would you spend X number of dollars on a camera and then turn around and make it deliver like the quality of a camera that is worth way less.
not very helpful but at least you were nice about it
Nov 3, 2017 19:04:18 #
mas24
Loc: Southern CA
The OP never mentioned what full frame camera he was using. The Nikon D700 is a full frame camera with 12.1 megapixels, while the D810 has 36 megapixels. Shooting JPEG with a D810 with at least a 32gb memory card really doesn't seem practical. However there are some Bridge cameras and pocket cameras that don't shoot RAW with small sensors of 16-20 megapixels. And you can set the resolution to your liking in JPEG only.
Nov 3, 2017 20:57:24 #
DavidPine
Loc: Fredericksburg, TX
Why would you wish to shoot lower quality images in JPG? I know a couple of terrific photographers, one being published with international recognition, that primarily shoot JPG fine. But neither of them would shoot less than fine.
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.
Nov 4, 2017 17:30:24 #
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.
Shoot raw, then decide on quality/image size later. No point in limiting your options at the outset. I would be sad if I had a really great image and used a "small jpeg" setting along with standard quality.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.