image size setting on the 400d.

[AussieCat]

just a quick question.

what is the difference with the "L" and the "L" size photo size option on the 400d when u go into picture quality setting.
both have the same dimensions 3888 x 2592.

ofcourse the 2nd "L" which has a step symbol next to it gives more photos on
your film count.

yet

[Collin85]

The letters like L and M refer to size.

The different symbols, or as you refer to them smooth vs. 'step' etc. refer to quality.

[AussieCat]

yeah
i know that

but how about what elese i posted?

why would u use one l over the other l

when they have same dimesnions?

ye one lets u use up more memory . / pics

The letters like L and M refer to size.

The different symbols, or as you refer to them smooth vs. 'step' etc. refer to quality.

[Collin85]

Because it can allow you to take more shots on a card if you're getting stumped for space.

[AussieCat]

u serious

so, there is no difference between the 2 "large file" formats on the 400d.

one gives u 200 extra shots,



Because it can allow you to take more shots on a card if you're getting stumped for space.

[tzalman]

The more compressed jpg (stair case) will show more artifacts in a large print and during editing such as sharpening or increasing contrast these artifacts will become even more visible. Also, any resaving of the file will more quickly cause deterioration. OTOH, if the shot is destined to be printed as a 4x6 or reduced in size for the web without much editing, the smaller jpg may be acceptable.

For highest quality large prints most experienced photographers would not use even the best jpg, opting instead for RAW converted to 16 bit tif.

[AussieCat]

ill be shooting a major public event

and be selling the jpegs online

so people may want to print thme

in this case ill just use the maximun qualirty

The more compressed jpg (stair case) will show more artifacts in a large print and during editing such as sharpening or increasing contrast these artifacts will become even more visible. Also, any resaving of the file will more quickly cause deterioration. OTOH, if the shot is destined to be printed as a 4x6 or reduced in size for the web without much editing, the smaller jpg may be acceptable.

[Collin85]

u serious

so, there is no difference between the 2 "large file" formats on the 400d.

one gives u 200 extra shots,

There is - quality. You asked for why one would use it over the other.

[tzalman]

See the edit that I added to my previous post

[AussieCat]

your right

but i need to buy more memory cards to do that

so at thius point, i'll just stick to jpeg.

plus - i wont be able to edit 1000 shots in raw unless i have days to do it.

its gonna be a more quick assignement just on sweet jpeg.

cheers.

im looking forward to learning about raw soon though

The more compressed jpg (stair case) will show more artifacts in a large print and during editing such as sharpening or increasing contrast these artifacts will become even more visible. Also, any resaving of the file will more quickly cause deterioration. OTOH, if the shot is destined to be printed as a 4x6 or reduced in size for the web without much editing, the smaller jpg may be acceptable.

For highest quality large prints most experienced photographers would not use even the best jpg, opting instead for RAW converted to 16 bit tif.

[Doug Pardee]

As others have noted, the difference is a quality vs. size tradeoff.

While it's true that the "Fine" setting is better quality than the "Normal" setting, you'll probably never see the difference. The compression artifacts at the Normal setting are minuscule and they completely disappear under the sensor noise and demosaicing artifacts.

I've looked and looked, and I just can't see any visible quality difference. In my opinion, if you think that you need better than JPEG/Normal then you probably should shoot Raw. At least then you stand a chance of getting a visible difference.

[rowdyred94]

You wouldn't edit 1000 shots in RAW. You'd edit the handful (dozens?) that are worth selling or printing. The extra control over exposure, white balance, and sharpness are invaluable. For the cost of a good 2GB CF card - $40 - you really have no reason not to.

[AussieCat]

i know raw is heaaaaps better


but i sold pics last years as high quality jpegs and it was fine

its just normal public.

and i only sold them for like $4 each...

i just dont have the time to edit well over 300 pics that i'll upload to my web site.

but i do know raw is worth it

on furture events

You wouldn't edit 1000 shots in RAW. You'd edit the handful (dozens?) that are worth selling or printing. The extra control over exposure, white balance, and sharpness are invaluable. For the cost of a good 2GB CF card - $40 - you really have no reason not to.