Recommendations on Image Size and Quality Settings
It seems we have two selections for Jpeg images that would affect quality.
Image size - Large, Medium and Small and Jpeg quality - Fine, Normal and Basic.
I don't make too many enlargements. I usually do Jpeg that I end up viewing on a big screen HDTV. To insure the best quality I would normally chose Image Size - Large and Jpeq quality Fine.
I am not concerned about large file sizes but I guess that could ultimately be an issue when you have thousands of photos on your PC.
Am I overdoing here with these settings and would lower settings produce basically the same results for viewing purposes?
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#1. "RE: Recommendations on Image Size and Quality Settings" | In response to Reply # 0briantilley Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Sun 17-Apr-11 04:46 PM
>Am I overdoing here with these settings...
Only if you can be completely sure that you will NEVER want to make a huge print or enlargement of that unexpected "once-in-a-lifetime" shot...!
Preserving the maximum amount of information in the original image file keeps your future options open - which is why many choose to shoot in RAW rather than any of these JPEG options.
#2. "RE: Recommendations on Image Size and Quality Settings" | In response to Reply # 0Gamecocks Registered since 22nd Jul 2010Sun 17-Apr-11 04:56 PM | edited Sun 17-Apr-11 05:05 PM by Gamecocks
Using fine and large will give you the best results as the compression goes from 4:1 (fine) to 16:1 (basic) and file size down from 7.8mb (fine) to 2mb(basic). Also, use "optimal quality" in JPEG compression.
Remember, there is more compression for each lower quality that results in loss of detail.
Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. <><
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#3. "RE: Recommendations on Image Size and Quality Settings" | In response to Reply # 0four eighty sparky Registered since 08th Apr 2011Sun 17-Apr-11 05:12 PM
>I am not concerned about large file sizes but I guess that
>could ultimately be an issue when you have thousands of photos
>on your PC.
With the cost of memory consistently falling, it doesn't make any sense to shoot anything less than Large/Fine unless
1) you're just going to post the shot on Facebook or email it to Aunt Gertrude
or 2) you need the smaller file sizes to be able to keep shooting (ie, your buffer fills up).
I have a 1tb internal drive, as well as a 1tb external and a 2tb external drives. Even 500g externals can be had for $50-70.
#4. "RE: Recommendations on Image Size and Quality Settings" | In response to Reply # 0elec164 Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009Sun 17-Apr-11 05:19 PM
There are multiple ways of looking at this and this is just my take on it.
First, you are dealing with two different concepts that affect quality and they are MP resolution and file compression.
With MP resolution, if all you are doing is displaying you images on an HDTV then all you would really need is 2.07MP because that is the resolution specification for HDTV (1920x1080) and unless a program is doing on the fly scaling monitors and TV’s can only show actual pixels.
So in essence the 16MP of the D7000 is way overkill. Even if you set the camera to capture small JPEG’s you still have more resolution then you would need for the average computer monitor or HDTV (2464x1632=~4.02MP). But if you ever wanted to print an enlargement then you would wish to keep all that resolution and only down sample when necessary for once you down sample the extra detail is lost and unrecoverable. So to recap, if all you will be doing with the images is displaying them on a monitor or HDTV, then all you need is 2.07MP maximum. If on the other hand you may wish to print later, then you would want to keep the large/fine JPEG (personally I keep NEF’s and only make JPEG’s when needed for a specific purpose).
With file compression you are losing tonal information with higher compression. You will mainly notice the difference in areas of fine graduations such as skies. There is a loss going from a 14-bit NEF to an 8-bit JPEG, but with a setting of fine the loss is pretty much not perceptible. In fact I would think that the color gamut of the average HDTV would probably not have a perceptible difference with even a basic JPEG setting, although I would probably not recommend going below the normal setting just in case. Again when printing you would want to keep as much information as you could, so at a minimum I would shoot large/fine if printing was a possibility.
Personally I keep NEF's and only create JPEG's when need or sometimes 16-bit TIFF's when printing (depending on where the printing will be done).
Hope this helps clear things up for you a bit.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#5. "RE: Recommendations on Image Size and Quality Settings" | In response to Reply # 4mdallie Nikonian since 02nd Jan 2011Mon 18-Apr-11 08:34 AM
I agree with everything said here except that I would add that another reason for large files, in addition to a large print, would be cropping. If you shoot wide and would do a significant crop, then you would also want more pixels.
#6. "RE: Recommendations on Image Size and Quality Settings" | In response to Reply # 5richardd300 Nikonian since 19th Apr 2009Mon 18-Apr-11 02:31 PM
All good advice, but my take is this. A dSLR is an expensive purchase, the lenses too. However memory cards are a great price now and backup storage for the PC represents excelent value. So, why would anyone want to spend all that money on kit and not want the very best out of it?
I take BIF which takes loads of memory and landscapes which take little considering the number of shots needed. I take RAW and very occasionally JPG fine/large. I see little point in the other quality settings and as has been said the best quality allows for better cropping and as Brian said "who knows when you may take a fantastic competition winning image only to find it will only display on the web.
Visit my Nikonians galleryVisit my website www.pixels4u.co.uk
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. Einstein