Shoot small raw?
Jan 17, 2018 18:53:16 #
Bill_de wrote:
I'd get so excited I'd die of a heart attack.
--
--
LOL
For your earlier comment a few above, for online viewing and the "quality / size" of the image captured? No, it wouldn't matter. But Bill, I sense your a bit older than an Instonly capture master.
Jan 17, 2018 20:03:11 #
Bill_de wrote:
If you know you are shooting for the web only, is it better to set the camera to small or set to large and downsize later in post?
--
--
You don't state what you are shooting. If you are shooting items to post to sell on the web shooting a small jpeg should work just fine as I doubt you would want a poster of that old dinghy typewriter, but then again, maybe.... If you are shooting anything else, for the most part, shooting the largest file possible, wither RAW or JPEG, is preferable providing you have a way to downsize the file. I normally photograph wildlife, nature and landscapes and I always shoot in RAW at the largest size for my gear and then downsize as needed.
Jan 17, 2018 21:19:47 #
Jan 18, 2018 06:28:08 #
Bill_de wrote:
If you know you are shooting for the web only, is it better to set the camera to small or set to large and downsize later in post?
--
--
Aside from taking up slightly less room on a memory card, I don't see any reason to shoot small.
Jan 18, 2018 06:29:04 #
Large and reduce size. Though that can produce its own set of issues. However, those issues can be taken care of if one knows how. Regardless, I'd rather shoot for prints and post to web than the other way round.
--Bob
--Bob
Bill_de wrote:
If you know you are shooting for the web only, is it better to set the camera to small or set to large and downsize later in post?
--
--
Jan 18, 2018 07:43:36 #
Jan 18, 2018 09:10:59 #
James Slick
Loc: Pittsburgh,PA
via the lens wrote:
You don't state what you are shooting. If you are... (show quote)
It's quite possible that SOMEONE wants a poster of a dingy typewriter, given what passes for art.
Jan 18, 2018 09:18:41 #
Bill_de wrote:
I'd get so excited I'd die of a heart attack.
--
--
Cool.
Jan 18, 2018 09:48:43 #
RRS
Loc: Not sure
wilsondl2 wrote:
If you like to shoot machine gun style as many sports and wildlife photographers do your memory will fill up and slow you down in Large. - dave
Not really, it all depends on what camera your using and if you are using a C Fast card or a very fast memory card. I think my battery would die first.
Jan 18, 2018 09:54:40 #
I have 1000 pictures from a Southwest trip and two wonderful photos of an ice-covered lighthouse made back when I had a Kodak EasyShare digital. I set it to take small images so more would fit on the memory card. Stupid move! Now that I know what I'm doing and have Lightroom to do it with, many of the photos I would have liked to print out larger than 4x6 I can't because of the small jpg size. They look nice onscreen, but my wants have changed, and so might yours. Shoot big. Big you can make small in post-processing, but small you can't make big and get any kind of good resolution.
Jan 18, 2018 09:56:03 #
RRS
Loc: Not sure
Bill_de wrote:
They are stored with compression to save card and drive space, but with all the available pixels. What I am referring to is the camera's ability to actually provide an image with few pixels.
What I was trying to get at but didn't ask properly was the quality of the final image. Would it make a difference if I shot full size and reduced it on the computer after editing, as opposed to choosing a smaller size in the camera and then editing on the computer?
---
What I was trying to get at but didn't ask properly was the quality of the final image. Would it make a difference if I shot full size and reduced it on the computer after editing, as opposed to choosing a smaller size in the camera and then editing on the computer?
---
Bill, to answer your question just look at your camera menu and see the size difference in MP between large, medium and small. There is a difference, no free lunch, bigger is better. The advantage is that if you are out on vacation say in Europe and you don't have an extra memory card and you see that you are running low on space, you can switch over to small and still capture some images. In that case something even if small is better then nothing.
Jan 18, 2018 10:20:26 #
In some cameras, small raw is not far removed from a jpeg since it Compress some settings such as white balance. I might be more inclined to shoot large jpeg instead if I am looking to save space.
Jan 18, 2018 10:20:28 #
In some cameras, small raw is not far removed from a jpeg since it Compress some settings such as white balance. I might be more inclined to shoot large jpeg instead if I am looking to save space.
Jan 18, 2018 10:26:19 #
James Slick
Loc: Pittsburgh,PA
BlueMorel wrote:
I have 1000 pictures from a Southwest trip and two... (show quote)
Yeah, Same with audio recording. I record uncompressed WAV at insane bit rate even if the end product will be an Mp3. It allows for lossless editing and I will always have the best copy if I ever want something "higher quality" than just something for earbuds later on. Even my P&S snapshots are done at the highest resolution - Even a quick snapshot can accidentally be an absolute "keeper". Fortunately today, SD cards are cheap!
Jan 18, 2018 10:28:21 #
James Slick
Loc: Pittsburgh,PA
RRS wrote:
Bill, to answer your question just look at your camera menu and see the size difference in MP between large, medium and small. There is a difference, no free lunch, bigger is better. The advantage is that if you are out on vacation say in Europe and you don't have an extra memory card and you see that you are running low on space, you can switch over to small and still capture some images. In that case something even if small is better then nothing.
True enough, But If I ever have the money for a once in a lifetime trip, I'm bringing a few cards and at least a P&S as a "backup"!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.