Which images are better Medium, Fine or Large Normal?
When shooting JPEGs, I always use Quality Priority. When shooting weddings, I set my cameras for RAW + Fine Large JPEG and nearly always use the JPEG. For Landscapes, I shoot Large, Fine JPEGs, but may also start shooting RAW. When shooting Events we have been using only Large Fine JPEGs with second card overflow, because we shoot thousands of images in a day.
Now that I have a D800 the JPEGs can often go over 30 MegaBytes. I need to reduce file size because we sell and e-mail many "FullSize" JPEGs. I am looking for file sizes close to my D600 when set for Large Fine and quality Priority (8-15MBs).
Keep in mind that we sell memories not Art Objects. My best ever sales, we at an Event where we shot basic JPEGs with a D1. But I want to give my customers better than that because we also print 17x25 posters.
I very rarely have a problem sending up to 20MBs. A CD is a lot more trouble and expense for me plus my clients do not like to wait for snail mail.. I usually only send CD's when 5 or more images on a CD is selected.
I just want to email the best quality I can. I would also like to know how the camera or firmware makes a Medium Fine and Large Normal JPEG as they are nearly the same size.
Roger, According to the information you posted here you have Photoshop CS5. I can't believe you've never seen the Image Size panel in Photoshop, but if you haven't, go there and you can make your images any size you want. Then, when you save the result as a jpeg you can make the file size just about anything you want as long as you don't mind losing some color.
>Roger, According to the information you posted here you have Photoshop CS5. I can't believe you've never seen the ImageSize panel in Photoshop, but if you haven't, go there and you can make your images any size you want. Then, when you save the result as a jpeg. You can make the file size just about anything you want as long as you don't mind losing some color.<Quote<<<
Yes I have PhotoShop amongst other software, but do not want to spend 5 minutes per file when there are thousands each Event.
You don't have to. Go into Bridge, select the pics you want to squeeze, click on "Photoshop," then select the Image Processor. Now you can tell Photoshop to save all the smaller versions of the shots you've selected in the same location. The squeezed shots will be saved in a new folder named "jpeg."
Next, pick JPEG as a File Type, pick a quality, and, if you want to reduce the size of the resulting pics, click Resize to Fit and choose a max pixel value for width and height. You don't need to convert to sRGB since, for some unfathomable reason you're already shooting jpeg with a camera that can produce wall-sized prints. You'll probably want to include the ICC profile. Now you're ready to click Run and save all your reduced shots.
It might take some preliminary experimentation to do this right. The only way I know of to determine what's a satisfactory JPEG quality (which actually is the reverse of jpeg compression), is to experiment with the pixel dimensions you've selected.
>I have a problem emailing images larger than 20 MegaBytes. >Using free services to deliver them is the best option I've >heard so far.
Free is hard to beat. "Photo Mechanic", see http://www.camerabits.com/ , has a function for extracting and saving a jpeg that already exists inside your NEF file as a jpeg file. I believe you can dowload a trial version.
There are other software that can do this also. The camera embeds jpeg blocks (for thumbnails etc) inside the raw file. An extracted jpeg from a D800 NEF will most likely be 4-5MB (full size, basic quality). -- Odd S.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you right, but I'd suggest you perform a test with JPG set to Medium, Fine compression and Quality Priority. The will be smaller in both pixels and file size than the D600, but still much bigger than the needs for 99% of people.
If that does not meet your needs try Large, Normal compression, and Quailty priority. The JPGs will have pixel dimension larger than the D600 image at the largest size, but a smaller file size than a D600 Large, Fine image - I think!
For the D800 you have three sizes to choose from Large - 7360 x 5520, Medium - 5520 x 3680, and Small - 3680 x 2456
And choose the compression ratio you want for the size JPG Fine - 4:1 compression, 16-18 MB for large size JPG Normal - 8:1 compression, 9.5-12 MB for large size JPG Basic - 16:1 compression, 4.8-5.5 MP for large size
In each one of those you can use a Quality Priority providing more quality or the Size Priority which will produce a file that may not have the high quality of the Quality Priority.
You also have the choice of shooting in a crop mode, 5:4, 1.2X, and DX. And through each of those you can again choose Large, Medium,or Small size as well as Fine, Normal, or Basic compression.
There are simply enough options here to confuse most anybody! I did try the crop sizes - but can't get used to staying within the lines in the viewfinder.
Mon 15-Oct-12 09:02 AM | edited Mon 15-Oct-12 09:04 AM by hujiie
For a business with clients, the best way is to set up FTP account. Many web hosting companies arrow you to set ftp account within your web account. I use Bluehost as a webhost for my site to use my allocated server space (in fast it is unlimited) for secure ftp for the clients.
1. create a simple on-line slideshow from LR to choose photo (uploaded to my web server) 2. Supply whatever the quality of photo (in any formats) for the clients' ftp.
You need to check with hosting company. Some discount ones can not allow you to give away any server space.
I have FTP images to client's accounts before. Reduced size images are now (FTP) uploaded to my site. My customers currently have Web Size (less than 1 MegaByte) images available for download after payment. I suppose, I could create a special folder to put those images greater than 20 MegaBytes into that are already paid for.
This will take more time than email but it is an option.
I have set my D800 up with Quality Priority Medium size Fine JPEGs. This nearly matches (in my tests) the size of the best D600 JPEGs my second shooter will be using. I will be using this setting at the next Event. Most of the buyers have either gotten 8x10 prints or ordered "FullSize" JPEGs from 12 MegaPixel cameras in the past. This should still be a big improvement in Image Quality. And working with 20MB files on the computer is a lot easier than 30MB.
I think you are on the right track. Even the small size at 3600x2400 would provide all the resolution required for an 8x10 inch print (at 300 ppi). I would select Fine quality, but Medium quality would be adequate for most people and get teh file size down to something more manageable.
The benefit of the D600 or D800 over earlier cameras 12 megapixel images is in downsizing. With downsizing you will have all the benefits of high resolution downsized to a small size. That means noise levels will be minimal and you will see little pixelation compared to earlier cameras.
One thing to watch for is you might get some moire in resizing that is not present in the RAW file or a JPEG that is not resized.
You can get moire if the resizing of the image has a highly patterned area that loses resolution through resizing. It does not happen often, but is the same reason you can see moire in an image on your computer screen and have no moire when you zoom in to look closer.
The opposite could also occur. You could have a little moire in an image and have it simply be blurred so no moire is visible with a resized image.
This should not be a big deal - just something to be aware of with resizing to a small output. If you run into the issue you can change the size or quality of the JPEG and probably produce an image without moire (assuming you have a RAW file).
please don't consider me arrogate but I don't quite understand the problem. First you buy a premium camera with 36 megapixel sensor and then you worry about squeezing the images small enough so that they are easier to send to the clients (via email, FTP or by other means).
To me the solution is obvious and simple. The net is full of web hotels for less than $100 a month. I manage three already, each with 5 GB of space. A 25 GB site costs about 70 € ($100) annually in Finland.
Why not to upload the images to a subfolder in your own site and let the client do the dowloading at his/her own pace. If necessary, you can restrict the access easily via username and password. You don't need to provide any flashy web pages or even FTP instructions in order to distribute images this way. Just let the client know the correct URL to the folder; a web browser shows the list of files promptly. Anyway, it is just a snap in Lightroom and many other post processing tools to generate slide shows for easier viewing, if or when you feel like it.
The only issue I know in the above way of doing things is the upload speed; it could be just 1 Mbps which means it could take awhile to upload large files. Managing the web/FTP site is very simple and should not be a problem.
I bought the D800 for Landscapes, Videos, and Events. I use all 36 MegaPixels pretty often. We also use a D600 for Events and I will nearly match that image and file size by setting the D800 to shoot Medium JPEGs.
As for web space. We shot way less pictures at our last Event (only 1647) and it still took up 17.5 GB on my computer. I had one Event last year that used 211 GB. Can you imagine how much that would cost on your "Web Hotels"? With Photo Shoots and sales down, this is probably more than I gross in one years photo sales.
there's one more choice, which I also use frequently to share photos between friends and family members and which is technically not very challenging nor does it cost you a penny (well, depending on whether you already keep your computer humming 24/7 or not).
Set up a web server to run on your own computer (or another computer in your local network). Configure your ADSL modem to forward the HTTP connection requests to your computer. Just make sure not to open and use the default HTTP port (80) in the web server or firewall; use some other number between 1 and 65535 instead. That significantly reduces the number of attempts to try to crack your web server (at least from botnets which do not specifically target you). A web server of some sort can be installed on any computer.
If you want to use a non-default IP port, you need to embed the port number in the address, for example (at my home):
(remove spaces from the above string; Nikonians web system does not seem to allow special ports in the links!)
The image in the site described above is only 8 MBs but it demonstrates the idea. I'll keep the site alive for a couple of days. The 'robots.txt' file instructs Google and other search engines from indexing the site.
Allowing your clients to download images from your home computer will slow down your upload speed (from your point of view) but usually that is not as much of an issue as reducing the download speed. Of course, with 1 Mbps upload speed it could take ages for them to download your 211 GB of images. However, it's the same limit you will find with any online transactions from your computer, leaving only portable USB drives as the only alternative to be used for large image store distribution.
If you don't have a static IP address - I don't have either - you can use one of the dynamic IP address services allowing your clients to connect using a fixed URL even if the address changes. If you keep your modem (with NAT service) connected 24/7, it probably doesn't change - unless your operator makes major configuration/routing changes to your subnet.
There is one potential problem with your suggestion, and that is that some (Cox, for example) ISPs block this approach. I found this out the hard way when I did the same thing a few years back, but could never access the web server from the other side of my firewall, despite setting up the port forwarding. The FTP server worked fine, but Cox didn't want people running web servers on home accounts. Something to check on, although if it doesn't work, you're not out anything more than some time to learn how to set up the feature on your computer.
I don't think you will find much benfit to compressing (zipping) an already compressed jpg file. When using zip programs that were included in server fuctionality I think the best I ever got was about a 4% reduced file size . Since the zip compression is reversible you should not see any degradation in image quality.
With WinZip you can use a another method to compress jpg files about 20%, but you will see a degradation in image quality.
Degrading a Large Fine JPEG that was taken with Quality Priority by zipping it does not seem like a good option to me, especially if it reduces file size by only 20% . I will be shooting the next Event with my D800 set for medium size instead. This will nearly match the size and quality of the D600 that my second shooter will be using and make for a lot easier workflow.
I think NX2 can convert files to resized images in batches / folders . Photoshop has save for web. & devices under file . Both you pick any pixel / lengths . A good proof could go as small as 300 - 600 K . Even if automated I'm guessing its slow .
You can do this very simply in either NX2 or in ViewNX. In ViewNX select all files or the files you want to batch, then under File, Convert Files, there you specify the exact size of the images you want, click convert and it is done. Incredibly simple.
It is even more simple and efficient to do it in camera. You not only get a lot more images on a SD or CF card, but any post processing is much easier too.
Today we shot an Event using the D600 with Large Fine JPEGs and Quality Priority. The D800 Medium size Images were nearly the same size and Quality, Plus I had the advantages of more controls and comfortable grip.
I will continue to shoot the largest and best quality images when I need them, but I have found the solution for my Event Photography.