Do you set your camera at high resolution?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by skarkada@gmail.com, May 25, 2007.

  1. Guest

    I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6
    most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be
    8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30.

    I do crop my images often, but not by much.

    In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by
    default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop
    the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can
    take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and
    don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture
    quality and picture resolution are not related.)

    Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something?

    If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported,
    please tell me why do you do that.

    Thank you for sharing your opinions.
    , May 25, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On May 25, 8:40 am, wrote:
    > I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6
    > most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be
    > 8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30.
    >
    > I do crop my images often, but not by much.
    >
    > In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by
    > default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop
    > the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can
    > take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and
    > don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture
    > quality and picture resolution are not related.)
    >
    > Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something?
    >
    > If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported,
    > please tell me why do you do that.
    >
    > Thank you for sharing your opinions.


    But many has been the time that I have ended up doing a lot with that
    I did not intend when I originally made the shot. Memory cards are
    coming down so much in price that this shouldn't be too much of a
    problem.

    I set cameras for highest res and lowest step of compression (HQ on
    most cameras). I use RAW only for stuff I know I will do a lot with.
    High res and moderate JPEG still results in a reasonable size file,
    but with not-that-bad a loss of information.

    Note that jpeg compression does NOT reduce the resolution of images,
    only color purity. Loss of resolution in my mind is a glaring factor
    in image quality. As long as you use JPEG only for the initial
    storage, and not for the file type while processing, you do not lose
    all that much. While you are working on a file, store it in the native
    format for your image processor (PSD, PSP, etc.).
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, May 25, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wrote:
    > I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6
    > most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be
    > 8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30.
    >
    > I do crop my images often, but not by much.
    >
    > In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by
    > default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop
    > the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can
    > take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and
    > don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture
    > quality and picture resolution are not related.)
    >
    > Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something?
    >
    > If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported,
    > please tell me why do you do that.


    Always. By tests, I have found that a full resolution, lower JPEG quality
    image provides better results that a lower resolution, higher quality JPEG
    image when, for example, you reduce to a lower resolution for the Web and
    (I suspect) when printing. Try it and see if you can see the difference -
    your camera may produce different results to mine.

    The cost of memory is now so low that it shouldn't enter the equation
    unless, perhaps, you were on a three week trip with no backup storage.

    David
    David J Taylor, May 25, 2007
    #3
  4. writes:

    > I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6
    > most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be
    > 8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30.
    >
    > I do crop my images often, but not by much.
    >
    > In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution
    > by default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1)
    > crop the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way
    > I can take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory
    > card and don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically
    > speaking, picture quality and picture resolution are not related.)
    >
    > Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something?


    You may be missing some quality in low-light. When there a
    significant amounts of noise present in your picture, you can
    improve the signal to noise ratio visibly by combining the values
    of adjacent pixels on the expense of resolution.

    Also, if your camera has a weak AA-filter, aliasing artifacts can be
    removed by oversampling (e.g. capturing at high resolution) and then
    downsampling in software.

    But these are rather special conditions. In general, provided that
    you never need to print larger than 6.67 x 10 in (6 Mpx at 300 ppi),
    6 Mpx is all the resolution you need.

    > If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported,
    > please tell me why do you do that.


    I shoot everything as RAW. Reducing the resolution is simply not
    an option if you shoot RAW.

    But even if I had the option (as JPEG shooters have), I wold have used
    highest resolution and best quality. Memory cards are very cheap
    these days, so always carry a couple of spare cards. I really see no
    point of not having max quality available for a mural print, just to
    save the minor inconvenience of carrying extra cards.

    YMMV.

    > Thank you for sharing your opinions.


    You're welcome.

    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
    Gisle Hannemyr, May 25, 2007
    #4
  5. AustinMN Guest

    On May 25, 8:55 am, Don Stauffer in Minnesota <>
    wrote:
    > Note that jpeg compression does NOT reduce the resolution of images,
    > only color purity.


    While I agree with the first part, I can't agree that jpeg compression
    only reduces color purity. Jpeg compression introduces image
    artifacts as well, some of which I find more offensive than loss of
    color depth/fidelity.

    Austin
    AustinMN, May 25, 2007
    #5
  6. HEMI-Powered Guest

    offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the
    matter at hand:

    >
    > I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only
    > print in 4x6 most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print,
    > it would only be 8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged
    > the picture to 20x30.
    >
    > I do crop my images often, but not by much.
    >
    > In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower
    > resolution by default and use higher resolution setting when I
    > know I will (1) crop the image eventually or (2) print a blown
    > up picture. That way I can take more pictures (and video)
    > before filling up the memory card and don't lose anything in
    > picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture quality and
    > picture resolution are not related.)
    >
    > Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something?
    >
    > If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution
    > supported, please tell me why do you do that.
    >
    > Thank you for sharing your opinions.
    >

    What IS your primary usage for the images you create, slide shows
    on your PC monitor, E-mail to friends and relatives, web hosting,
    what? Like you, I seldom print my car pictures and I find that
    Windows does a really crappy job of pixel resizing down, so for
    my 21" LCD monitor running at 1280 x 960, I usually save my
    images at 1400 x 1050 to allow for a reasonable print if I need
    it later, sometimes 1600 x 1200.

    Also, you didn't say what camera you have or the subject(s) and
    lighting conditions you shoot, not to mention any hints on your
    definition of a VERY subjective term, "quality".

    Given that your camera is capable of quality images overall, your
    technique is good, etc. most people would say that 200 PPI is the
    minimum for a "good" print, and I would generally agree, but at
    the sizes I save at to avoid the images being destroyed by
    Windows, I'm only at 120, maybe 150 PPI at 8.5 x 11.

    You mention that you want to conserve memory card space, but it
    is getting cheaper all the time. To avoid any camera-induced JPEG
    compression artefacts, I choose the higher quality, read: less
    compression, setting on my Rebel XT and usually shoot at the
    middle 5 mega pixel size.

    Why do you say that picture quality and picture resolution are
    not related? There are many other factors of course, but both
    displayed and printed images generally look better at higher
    resolutions, subject to the limitations I describe above.

    As to cropping, if I possibly can, I will compose to allow for
    20% excess foreground, sideground, and background than I will end
    up with because it allows me to crop for best resolution during
    post-processing and not have to make the complete decision when
    shooting. Naturally, it helps to compose roughly for the effect
    you want ... Let's say you're shooting at 2500 x 1660, the 4 MP
    size of my Canon Rebel XT, and I allow for 20% all the way around
    my main subject. That still leaves me at around 2000 x 1300,
    still well about my final image size.

    It has been awhile since I bought my last CF card, but I'd guess
    that a 1 gig card is under $80, my images are about 2 MB, so that
    gives me some 500 images, which is normally plenty. But, I do
    alter my settings in the field under two situations: if there is
    a small sign or owner's card I want to capture for later
    reference, I'll go down to the smallest size, but if I want an
    effective increase in focal length at my max telephoto, I'll go
    to 8 MP, the idea being that I can crop a decent size chunk out
    of the middle and gain an effective 2X tele range.

    --
    HP, aka Jerry
    HEMI-Powered, May 25, 2007
    #6
  7. HEMI-Powered Guest

    Don Stauffer in Minnesota offered these thoughts for the group's
    consideration of the matter at hand:

    > But many has been the time that I have ended up doing a lot
    > with that I did not intend when I originally made the shot.
    > Memory cards are coming down so much in price that this
    > shouldn't be too much of a problem.
    >
    > I set cameras for highest res and lowest step of compression
    > (HQ on most cameras). I use RAW only for stuff I know I will
    > do a lot with. High res and moderate JPEG still results in a
    > reasonable size file, but with not-that-bad a loss of
    > information.
    >
    > Note that jpeg compression does NOT reduce the resolution of
    > images, only color purity. Loss of resolution in my mind is a
    > glaring factor in image quality. As long as you use JPEG only
    > for the initial storage, and not for the file type while
    > processing, you do not lose all that much. While you are
    > working on a file, store it in the native format for your
    > image processor (PSD, PSP, etc.).
    >

    The OP was pretty vague, but I might suspect their camera is at
    the lower price end, so maybe the cost of a big memory card is
    important, but I fully agree with you. If I go to an all-day car
    show where there may be 300+ cars sitting there, I'll take all
    2.5 gig worth of CF cards with me and a 2nd battery. Also, I put
    a longer zoom lens and my external flash in the car out-of-sight
    if I see something that requires either. e.g., some car shows are
    combinations of outdoors and indoors, sometimes a car I'm
    shooting is in really deep shade, you get the idea.

    I don't have the time available to process hundreds of images in
    RAW, so I just choose the higher quality, i.e., lower compression
    setting on my Rebel XT. I experimented with my previous EVF, a
    Nikon 5700 that died, and discovered that it's "normal" vs.
    "fine" quality setting produced visible JPEG artefacts maybe 10-
    15% of the time, sometime more under certain conditions. I ran a
    few quick tests when I first bought my Rebel and found about the
    same. So, since I cannot predict which images are most likely to
    introduce compression artefacts, I agree with your analysis:
    memory is just too cheap to risk blowing some really nice shots
    to save a few MB.

    BTW, do you use any kind of auxilliary storage device to off-load
    your memory cards in the field? I tried an Epson something or
    other that had a 40 gig HD and all kinds of supposedly neat
    features for this purpose, but it was SO slow at uploading or
    previewing the images on its large LCD, I returned it. And, do
    you ever run into a situation where you run out of battery and
    there's no place to recharge? Two batteries will get me thousands
    of images, so I'm OK locally, but I think if I were traveling
    out-of-state, I'd buy one of those $50 D.C.-to-A.C. inverters and
    charge a battery while I'm eating dinner or driving someplace
    else.

    You comment that you've seen JPEG do something you don't like to
    color purity. Since I don't use RAW and a Rebel can't save to
    TIFF, I don't know if I do or don't have "good" purity, nor do I
    even know what that means! <grin> Could you explain, please?

    Finally, as to the usual argument that JPEG destroys images, I've
    not seen that except if I find myself in some unusual situation
    where I MUST save, re-edit and re-save again later, and maybe do
    one more cycle after that. That's a sure way to introduce damage.
    For the rare cases that I want to totally re-edit, e.g., I decide
    I want to print really large but what I'd previously done is far
    too few PPI, I just start over with the camera JPEG(s), which I
    store in a sub-folder under where my finished images are stored
    on my HD.

    --
    HP, aka Jerry
    HEMI-Powered, May 25, 2007
    #7
  8. HEMI-Powered Guest

    David J Taylor offered these thoughts for the group's
    consideration of the matter at hand:

    >> If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution
    >> supported, please tell me why do you do that.

    >
    > Always. By tests, I have found that a full resolution, lower
    > JPEG quality image provides better results that a lower
    > resolution, higher quality JPEG image when, for example, you
    > reduce to a lower resolution for the Web and (I suspect) when
    > printing. Try it and see if you can see the difference - your
    > camera may produce different results to mine.


    Huh? Ya lost me, David! There's no need to re-debate what people
    think their "best" or "optimal" pixel resolution is and I
    understand why you save at max, but I don't understand why you
    accept the risk of getting home and discovering image(s) with
    JPEG compression artefacts that make getting a truly quality
    final image and/or a quality print impossible, more than the loss
    of PPI. I'm not arguing, just asking.

    Several people have made statements today that I simply don't
    understand, and I'd like to learn, not dispute. Thanks.

    > The cost of memory is now so low that it shouldn't enter the
    > equation unless, perhaps, you were on a three week trip with
    > no backup storage.


    I agree. I just asked another replier if they have an aux storage
    device for long trips, do you? Or, do you just go someplace that
    will burn you a CD or DVD, you reformat your memory, and
    continue?

    If the OP has a $150 P & S that maybe is a 6 MP, they may not
    want to invest almost the price of the camera for a gig or 2 of
    memory. But, if I had that kind of camera, I'd likely long ago
    done some controlled testing to see if the higher MP ranges do or
    do not really produce superior images. e.g., both my wife's and
    daughter's Kodak P & S's have a "quality" setting, but all it is
    doing is changing the MP; I've tested my theory that these
    cameras cannot produce enough quality to go beyond 2 MP, and
    barely that, because they save at a JPEG=20+ on the 1-100 scale
    and artefacts are easily visible.

    The thought that has crossed my mind many times in these debates
    this week about how many PPI you need et al is the old saw "all
    other factors being equal, but they seldom are." People want to
    form an absolute opinion and rigidly conform to it wrt mega
    pixels without doing any controlled testing at all or giving any
    thought to subject type, lighting conditions, etc. And, as you
    and I have debated a bit, lots of folks today do little or no
    post-processing, and I'd bet that them that do aren't very
    skilled at it, which further negates the absolute advantage of a
    higher resolution image. And, one more time, I believe strongly
    in fitness of purpose being the main criteria, AFTER you've
    gotten opinions from others and read the lab tests.

    --
    HP, aka Jerry
    HEMI-Powered, May 25, 2007
    #8
  9. HEMI-Powered Guest

    Gisle Hannemyr offered these thoughts for the group's
    consideration of the matter at hand:

    > You may be missing some quality in low-light. When there a
    > significant amounts of noise present in your picture, you can
    > improve the signal to noise ratio visibly by combining the
    > values of adjacent pixels on the expense of resolution.
    >
    > Also, if your camera has a weak AA-filter, aliasing artifacts
    > can be removed by oversampling (e.g. capturing at high
    > resolution) and then downsampling in software.


    Here's yet another opinion I simply do not understand. That I'm
    aware of, there is no user-controllable setting for AA on my
    Rebel XT, but there is for contrast, sharpness, and saturation. I
    really don't know if it does or does not have a "strong" AA
    filter, although at least I understand anti-aliasing.

    That said, old-fashioned AA REALLY reduces actual sharpness and
    detail with all of those off-colored pixels designed to fool the
    human eye into thinking there's less jaggies. As to your comment
    about oversampling, in general I would agree, but it isn't quite
    that simple to me in practice. What I mean is, let's say for
    discussion I shoot at 8 MP but decide to save finished images at
    2. My testing has shown that a resample down that large can
    destroy a good image, introduce artefacts, aliasing by itself,
    sometimes even posterization and other undesireable effects.

    There are mathematical theories and plenty of proponents for
    resampling down in 2, 3, or maybe 4 steps, with mild smoothing of
    obvious aliasing and mild sharpening between downsize steps. But
    trying to put the theory into practice at my level of
    understanding has proven elusive.

    > But these are rather special conditions. In general, provided
    > that you never need to print larger than 6.67 x 10 in (6 Mpx
    > at 300 ppi), 6 Mpx is all the resolution you need.


    I have never been able to achieve total "system" quality in
    images I process that will support 300 PPI, so I gave up trying
    long ago. And, although we debated this for days, choice of
    subject(s) you shoot and each person's definition of "quality",
    which almost always is subjective, I find that for the low
    percent I actually print, 120-150 PPI satisfies my requirements.
    I am NOT saying I get super prints at that PPI, I CAN see the
    aliasing, but at normal viewing distances for a borderless 8.5 x
    11, it isn't nearly bad enough to bother me.

    >> If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution
    >> supported, please tell me why do you do that.

    >
    > I shoot everything as RAW. Reducing the resolution is simply
    > not an option if you shoot RAW.


    True. I'll bet, though, when the OP comes back and tells us more
    about their camera and what they're trying to do, they may not be
    even capable of shooting in RAW, and almost certainly not skilled
    in how to use it. I do not know how myself because I know that my
    standards for image quality don't require it and I just don't
    have the time to devote to really doing RAW well.

    > But even if I had the option (as JPEG shooters have), I wold
    > have used highest resolution and best quality. Memory cards
    > are very cheap these days, so always carry a couple of spare
    > cards. I really see no point of not having max quality
    > available for a mural print, just to save the minor
    > inconvenience of carrying extra cards.
    >

    If one has a $1000+ DSLR body and several thousand dollars
    invested in good glass and maybe a decent external flash, then ou
    are entirely correct. I have 2.5 gig right now, which is more
    than enough for a day's shooting, but then, I don't shoot RAW.
    But, if one only has $100, $150, maybe $250 invested in the
    camera, they may view $80 for a gig memory card to be excessing.
    The problem with these open-ended "what's your opinion?" OPs is
    that not nearly enough information is provided for repliers to
    give an intelligent answer.

    --
    HP, aka Jerry
    HEMI-Powered, May 25, 2007
    #9
  10. HEMI-Powered Guest

    AustinMN offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of
    the matter at hand:

    >> Note that jpeg compression does NOT reduce the resolution of
    >> images, only color purity.

    >
    > While I agree with the first part, I can't agree that jpeg
    > compression only reduces color purity. Jpeg compression
    > introduces image artifacts as well, some of which I find more
    > offensive than loss of color depth/fidelity.
    >

    At the "fine" setting on my Rebel XT, whether I shoot at 2, 4 or 8
    MP, I have NEVER seen a single traditional JPEG compression
    artefact. Now, if I choose the lower quality, then, yes, I see
    artefacts in enough images that I don't want to risk ruining an
    otherwise good photo.

    If we can agree that JPEG is really a unitless 1-100 scale and not
    a percentage, then I do not at all agree with some who say that
    JPEG=15 or higher is OK. I seldom go over 10, and sometimes get as
    low as 6. Since I cannot see JPEG damage while the image is in
    memory, I always reopen just-saved files to check for it, and
    reduce compression and/or alter my favorite 4 of the available
    Chroma subsampling choices in PSP 9.

    As to color depth/fidelity, I understand the term, but have no
    knowledge of how to know if I am or am not losing it. But, for me,
    it is an academic question since I don't shoot RAW ...

    --
    HP, aka Jerry
    HEMI-Powered, May 25, 2007
    #10
  11. HEMI-Powered wrote:
    []
    > Huh? Ya lost me, David! There's no need to re-debate what people
    > think their "best" or "optimal" pixel resolution is and I
    > understand why you save at max, but I don't understand why you
    > accept the risk of getting home and discovering image(s) with
    > JPEG compression artefacts that make getting a truly quality
    > final image and/or a quality print impossible, more than the loss
    > of PPI. I'm not arguing, just asking.
    >
    > Several people have made statements today that I simply don't
    > understand, and I'd like to learn, not dispute. Thanks.


    As I suggested, when you get a new camera you may try out the different
    JPEG compressions to see which works to an acceptable standard for your
    own work. Although it depends on camera type and model, I have found that
    using the highest available resolution, with a "medium" JPEG quality can
    actually produce better visible results (on the screen or print) than
    using a lower resolution setting but with a higher JPEG save quality.
    Were I to discover such poor quality images as you mention, I would revise
    the save JPEG quality setting I use in the camera.


    > I agree. I just asked another replier if they have an aux storage
    > device for long trips, do you? Or, do you just go someplace that
    > will burn you a CD or DVD, you reformat your memory, and
    > continue?


    I would normally try and take enough card memory for a trip. We also have
    an Epson P2000 was can use if necessary.


    > If the OP has a $150 P & S that maybe is a 6 MP, they may not
    > want to invest almost the price of the camera for a gig or 2 of
    > memory. But, if I had that kind of camera, I'd likely long ago
    > done some controlled testing to see if the higher MP ranges do or
    > do not really produce superior images. e.g., both my wife's and
    > daughter's Kodak P & S's have a "quality" setting, but all it is
    > doing is changing the MP; I've tested my theory that these
    > cameras cannot produce enough quality to go beyond 2 MP, and
    > barely that, because they save at a JPEG=20+ on the 1-100 scale
    > and artefacts are easily visible.


    With 2GB SD cards at about US $15 over here, I would hope that even the
    $150 cameraman would buy enough memory!

    > The thought that has crossed my mind many times in these debates
    > this week about how many PPI you need et al is the old saw "all
    > other factors being equal, but they seldom are." People want to
    > form an absolute opinion and rigidly conform to it wrt mega
    > pixels without doing any controlled testing at all or giving any
    > thought to subject type, lighting conditions, etc. And, as you
    > and I have debated a bit, lots of folks today do little or no
    > post-processing, and I'd bet that them that do aren't very
    > skilled at it, which further negates the absolute advantage of a
    > higher resolution image. And, one more time, I believe strongly
    > in fitness of purpose being the main criteria, AFTER you've
    > gotten opinions from others and read the lab tests.


    The difficulty, though, for your "$150 cameraman", is likely to be
    understanding all the various factors involved. More likely, he will ask
    you or me "What settings should I use?", and of course the answer can take
    as long or as little time as you have to bother with the particular
    person!

    <G>

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, May 25, 2007
    #11
  12. Roy G Guest

    "HEMI-Powered" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns993B70535AC23ReplyScoreID@140.99.99.130...
    > Gisle Hannemyr offered these thoughts for the group's
    > consideration of the matter at hand:
    >
    >> You may be missing some quality in low-light. When there a
    >> significant amounts of noise present in your picture, you can
    >> improve the signal to noise ratio visibly by combining the
    >> values of adjacent pixels on the expense of resolution.
    >>
    >> Also, if your camera has a weak AA-filter, aliasing artifacts
    >> can be removed by oversampling (e.g. capturing at high
    >> resolution) and then downsampling in software.

    >
    > Here's yet another opinion I simply do not understand. That I'm
    > aware of, there is no user-controllable setting for AA on my
    > Rebel XT, but there is for contrast, sharpness, and saturation. I
    > really don't know if it does or does not have a "strong" AA
    > filter, although at least I understand anti-aliasing.
    >
    > That said, old-fashioned AA REALLY reduces actual sharpness and
    > detail with all of those off-colored pixels designed to fool the
    > human eye into thinking there's less jaggies. As to your comment
    > about oversampling, in general I would agree, but it isn't quite
    > that simple to me in practice. What I mean is, let's say for
    > discussion I shoot at 8 MP but decide to save finished images at
    > 2. My testing has shown that a resample down that large can
    > destroy a good image, introduce artefacts, aliasing by itself,
    > sometimes even posterization and other undesireable effects.
    >
    > There are mathematical theories and plenty of proponents for
    > resampling down in 2, 3, or maybe 4 steps, with mild smoothing of
    > obvious aliasing and mild sharpening between downsize steps. But
    > trying to put the theory into practice at my level of
    > understanding has proven elusive.
    >
    >> But these are rather special conditions. In general, provided
    >> that you never need to print larger than 6.67 x 10 in (6 Mpx
    >> at 300 ppi), 6 Mpx is all the resolution you need.

    >
    > I have never been able to achieve total "system" quality in
    > images I process that will support 300 PPI, so I gave up trying
    > long ago. And, although we debated this for days, choice of
    > subject(s) you shoot and each person's definition of "quality",
    > which almost always is subjective, I find that for the low
    > percent I actually print, 120-150 PPI satisfies my requirements.
    > I am NOT saying I get super prints at that PPI, I CAN see the
    > aliasing, but at normal viewing distances for a borderless 8.5 x
    > 11, it isn't nearly bad enough to bother me.
    >
    >>> If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution
    >>> supported, please tell me why do you do that.

    >>
    >> I shoot everything as RAW. Reducing the resolution is simply
    >> not an option if you shoot RAW.

    >
    > True. I'll bet, though, when the OP comes back and tells us more
    > about their camera and what they're trying to do, they may not be
    > even capable of shooting in RAW, and almost certainly not skilled
    > in how to use it. I do not know how myself because I know that my
    > standards for image quality don't require it and I just don't
    > have the time to devote to really doing RAW well.
    >
    >> But even if I had the option (as JPEG shooters have), I wold
    >> have used highest resolution and best quality. Memory cards
    >> are very cheap these days, so always carry a couple of spare
    >> cards. I really see no point of not having max quality
    >> available for a mural print, just to save the minor
    >> inconvenience of carrying extra cards.
    >>

    > If one has a $1000+ DSLR body and several thousand dollars
    > invested in good glass and maybe a decent external flash, then ou
    > are entirely correct. I have 2.5 gig right now, which is more
    > than enough for a day's shooting, but then, I don't shoot RAW.
    > But, if one only has $100, $150, maybe $250 invested in the
    > camera, they may view $80 for a gig memory card to be excessing.
    > The problem with these open-ended "what's your opinion?" OPs is
    > that not nearly enough information is provided for repliers to
    > give an intelligent answer.
    >
    > --
    > HP, aka Jerry


    Don't wish to deride anything you are saying, except that it must be a very
    long time since you bought a 1 Gig card, if you paid $80.

    Roy G
    Roy G, May 25, 2007
    #12
  13. ray Guest

    On Fri, 25 May 2007 06:55:42 -0700, Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:

    > On May 25, 8:40 am, wrote:
    >> I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6
    >> most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be
    >> 8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30.
    >>
    >> I do crop my images often, but not by much.
    >>
    >> In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by
    >> default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop
    >> the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can
    >> take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and
    >> don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture
    >> quality and picture resolution are not related.)
    >>
    >> Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something?
    >>
    >> If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported,
    >> please tell me why do you do that.
    >>
    >> Thank you for sharing your opinions.

    >
    > But many has been the time that I have ended up doing a lot with that
    > I did not intend when I originally made the shot. Memory cards are
    > coming down so much in price that this shouldn't be too much of a
    > problem.
    >
    > I set cameras for highest res and lowest step of compression (HQ on
    > most cameras). I use RAW only for stuff I know I will do a lot with.
    > High res and moderate JPEG still results in a reasonable size file,
    > but with not-that-bad a loss of information.


    But many has been the time that I have ended up doing a lot with that
    I did not intend when I originally made the shot. Memory cards are
    coming down so much in price that this shouldn't be too much of a
    problem.


    >
    > Note that jpeg compression does NOT reduce the resolution of images,
    > only color purity. Loss of resolution in my mind is a glaring factor
    > in image quality. As long as you use JPEG only for the initial
    > storage, and not for the file type while processing, you do not lose
    > all that much. While you are working on a file, store it in the native
    > format for your image processor (PSD, PSP, etc.).
    ray, May 25, 2007
    #13
  14. ray Guest

    On Fri, 25 May 2007 06:40:19 -0700, skarkada wrote:

    >
    > I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6
    > most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be
    > 8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30.
    >
    > I do crop my images often, but not by much.
    >
    > In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by
    > default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop
    > the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can
    > take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and
    > don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture
    > quality and picture resolution are not related.)
    >
    > Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something?
    >
    > If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported,
    > please tell me why do you do that.
    >
    > Thank you for sharing your opinions.


    I mostly leave mine set for max res because that's the only one that will
    store raw files. I much prefer the additional latitude afforded by
    processing raw files.
    ray, May 25, 2007
    #14
  15. Steve Guest

    On 25 May 2007 06:40:19 -0700, wrote:

    > (Technically speaking, picture
    > quality and picture resolution are not related.)


    Huh? They are very much related.
    Steve, May 25, 2007
    #15
  16. =\(8\) Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6
    > most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be
    > 8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30.
    >
    > I do crop my images often, but not by much.
    >
    > In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by
    > default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop
    > the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can
    > take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and
    > don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture
    > quality and picture resolution are not related.)
    >
    > Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something?
    >
    > If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported,
    > please tell me why do you do that.
    >
    > Thank you for sharing your opinions.
    >


    Only a moron would shot at a resolution lower than the camera's maximum. You
    never know what you will want to do with the images in the future. This is
    like people in the past when they threw out the negatives from the pictures
    leaving only a crappy print on textured paper, that is now nearly totally
    faded, yellow and glued on to an ugly ass album page. Basically they and you
    are destroying the use of the pictures for your own future use and for the
    use of your children and their children, etc. They need to take you out and
    shoot you in the head and yes they should do this at the full resolution.

    =(8)
    =\(8\), May 25, 2007
    #16
  17. HEMI-Powered Guest

    David J Taylor offered these thoughts for the group's
    consideration of the matter at hand:

    >> Huh? Ya lost me, David! There's no need to re-debate what
    >> people think their "best" or "optimal" pixel resolution is
    >> and I understand why you save at max, but I don't understand
    >> why you accept the risk of getting home and discovering
    >> image(s) with JPEG compression artefacts that make getting a
    >> truly quality final image and/or a quality print impossible,
    >> more than the loss of PPI. I'm not arguing, just asking.
    >>

    > As I suggested, when you get a new camera you may try out the
    > different JPEG compressions to see which works to an
    > acceptable standard for your own work. Although it depends on
    > camera type and model, I have found that using the highest
    > available resolution, with a "medium" JPEG quality can
    > actually produce better visible results (on the screen or
    > print) than using a lower resolution setting but with a higher
    > JPEG save quality. Were I to discover such poor quality images
    > as you mention, I would revise the save JPEG quality setting I
    > use in the camera.


    That's my line, David! <grin> There is no substitute for
    controlled testing. OK, so then you're saying for your camera
    system, the total process of taking the photo and post-
    processing, you experience is what it is. I only have 2 JPEG
    settings, not 3, and the higher compression/smaller file size
    just doesn't cut it. Now, what I haven't specifically tried is
    shooting at 8 MP instead of 4 and trying the lower quality
    session. I shall do that!
    >
    >> I agree. I just asked another replier if they have an aux
    >> storage device for long trips, do you? Or, do you just go
    >> someplace that will burn you a CD or DVD, you reformat your
    >> memory, and continue?

    >
    > I would normally try and take enough card memory for a trip.
    > We also have an Epson P2000 was can use if necessary.
    >

    I tried an Epson some model number thingy for off-loading to a 40
    gig HD. What attracted me more, though, was the relatively large
    LCD that I could use while still in the field to decide if I did
    or did not achieve my desired goals. The trouble was, for
    something that cost almost $500, paint on grass growing is fast
    comparison. Uploaded from my CF card was slow enough, but to
    scroll through several hundred images was just impractical, so I
    returned it. I'd still like to have a portable device with a
    larger LCD that I could use to verify the correctness of my
    exposure, my main problem, but I don't know what brand(s) to
    investigate, there just aren't that many sold locally.

    >> If the OP has a $150 P & S that maybe is a 6 MP, they may not
    >> want to invest almost the price of the camera for a gig or 2
    >> of memory. But, if I had that kind of camera, I'd likely long
    >> ago done some controlled testing to see if the higher MP
    >> ranges do or do not really produce superior images. e.g.,
    >> both my wife's and daughter's Kodak P & S's have a "quality"
    >> setting, but all it is doing is changing the MP; I've tested
    >> my theory that these cameras cannot produce enough quality to
    >> go beyond 2 MP, and barely that, because they save at a
    >> JPEG=20+ on the 1-100 scale and artefacts are easily visible.

    >
    > With 2GB SD cards at about US $15 over here, I would hope that
    > even the $150 cameraman would buy enough memory!


    2 gig for $15? I have CF, not SD, but I don't recall seeing any
    decent brand for less than maybe $60 a gig, but then, I haven't
    looked closely in a while.

    >> The thought that has crossed my mind many times in these
    >> debates this week about how many PPI you need et al is the
    >> old saw "all other factors being equal, but they seldom are."
    >> People want to form an absolute opinion and rigidly conform
    >> to it wrt mega pixels without doing any controlled testing at
    >> all or giving any thought to subject type, lighting
    >> conditions, etc. And, as you and I have debated a bit, lots
    >> of folks today do little or no post-processing, and I'd bet
    >> that them that do aren't very skilled at it, which further
    >> negates the absolute advantage of a higher resolution image.
    >> And, one more time, I believe strongly in fitness of purpose
    >> being the main criteria, AFTER you've gotten opinions from
    >> others and read the lab tests.

    >
    > The difficulty, though, for your "$150 cameraman", is likely
    > to be understanding all the various factors involved. More
    > likely, he will ask you or me "What settings should I use?",
    > and of course the answer can take as long or as little time as
    > you have to bother with the particular person!
    >

    I'm not suggesting that we or anyone on this NG get into newbie
    training, there's more productive uses for our time and more
    efficient ways to learn for the newbie. I was mainly commenting
    that in my casual experience, hardly scientific, an increasing
    number of people are buying low-end but high MP cameras and doing
    no post-processing at all, they just haul their memory to a store
    and dump what they like to the print size(s) desired. My other
    point was that what gets lost in these theoretical and
    philsophical debates about "how many MP is enough and what size
    should I shoot at?" cannot be answered by anyone at all reliably
    without knowing more about what the OP wants to do and what their
    expectations are.

    --
    HP, aka Jerry
    HEMI-Powered, May 25, 2007
    #17
  18. HEMI-Powered Guest

    Roy G offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of
    the matter at hand:

    > Don't wish to deride anything you are saying, except that it
    > must be a very long time since you bought a 1 Gig card, if you
    > paid $80.
    >

    A year, I think, but I occasionally look at Circuit City and Best
    Buy ads and I don't see CF cards dropping all that fast. I prefer
    SanDisk or Lexar, not some no-name card, and I don't need ultra-
    fast writes but that just comes along for the ride.

    But, aren't SD cards much cheaper than CF?

    --
    HP, aka Jerry
    HEMI-Powered, May 25, 2007
    #18
  19. HEMI-Powered Guest

    ray offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the
    matter at hand:

    > I mostly leave mine set for max res because that's the only
    > one that will store raw files. I much prefer the additional
    > latitude afforded by processing raw files.


    How did you originally learn how? I bought Raw Shooter Premium just
    before Adobe gobbled them up but the manual is just reference, no
    help in learning. And, when I just started it up, the usual image
    alteration features that ordinary editing apps have seemed to be
    there, but without some hint as to a starting place, it was
    hopeless for me, so I gave up. And, I can find no books that don't
    discuss RAW in other than PS CS2 or Elements terms.

    --
    HP, aka Jerry
    HEMI-Powered, May 25, 2007
    #19
  20. HEMI-Powered Guest

    =(8) offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the
    matter at hand:

    > Only a moron would shot at a resolution lower than the
    > camera's maximum. You never know what you will want to do with
    > the images in the future. This is like people in the past when
    > they threw out the negatives from the pictures leaving only a
    > crappy print on textured paper, that is now nearly totally
    > faded, yellow and glued on to an ugly ass album page.
    > Basically they and you are destroying the use of the pictures
    > for your own future use and for the use of your children and
    > their children, etc. They need to take you out and shoot you
    > in the head and yes they should do this at the full
    > resolution.
    >

    Then, I guess I am a moron. That seems to be a rather strong,
    judgemental assertion. But, being the moron that I am, shooting
    well over 15,000 images in the last 5-6 years gives me a pretty
    good idea what I want to do with the images, and there simply is
    NO justification for me to greatly increase my editing time and
    HD storage for the 1% when I want to print.

    As to my child, that is her problem. She has no interest in any
    of our own family pictures, that of relatives she knew, she just
    doesn't care. So, neither do I.

    As to the other morons in my family, they fit your profile as
    well. I have thousands and thousands of snapshots, the drug store
    kind, but no negs. But, given the quality of the cameras these
    people were using - yes, I remember - and the quality of the
    developing process which includes the negs, I get what I want
    from scanning the print.

    I think it may be better for you to allow for the possibility
    that other people may have different views of fitness of purpose,
    and that hardly makes them morons just because they don't do what
    you do.

    --
    HP, aka Jerry
    HEMI-Powered, May 25, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dan Pidcock

    High resolution fixed focus camera?

    Dan Pidcock, Sep 22, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,955
    Don Stauffer
    Sep 22, 2003
  2. KL234
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    913
    Dave Hau
    Feb 26, 2004
  3. Elijah Bailey

    high resolution digital camera

    Elijah Bailey, Apr 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    628
    Ray Fischer
    Apr 4, 2004
  4. HS Crow
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    738
    HS Crow
    Sep 23, 2005
  5. Scott W

    High resolution photos from a digital camera.

    Scott W, Nov 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    77
    Views:
    1,173
Loading...

Share This Page