D60 Image size and quality settings

[adrianweller]

I've had the D60 for a few months now and I always use the LARGE image size format on the basis that as I paid for 6 megapixels I might as well use them all. But I use the NORMAL compression setting as I'm going to compress them further anyway once I've edited them.

It seems to work out great that way but I have a 1Gb Microdrive and a couple of 128Mb cards so I'm not too worried about storage capacity and I was wondering if I'm losing out anywhere by not just sticking to the Large/Fine format ? (I think RAW would be a bit over the top)

For instance I was taking a sequence of shots of a glider landing the other day and the buffers must have filled just as it got real close to me so I missed the best shot. So would I have been able to have taken more multiple shots if I had been on a MEDIUM setting ? But then would there have been an appreciable difference in the image quality ?

What are the ppros and cons of these settings generally ?

[kd6lor]

Adrian,

while on vacation two weeks ago, I shot some interior tungsten balanced shots. Incidentally, the white balance was great. THese were just crazy pictures of my kids that will probably never be looked at again and were taken to keep me entertained, and the kids busy in a hotel room while my wife was getting ready to leave to explore SanFrancisco.

We left the hotel and ran around the city. I took about 40 pictures of places we were not going back to in short order before I realized that I had the camera on the Tungsten White Balance.... OOOPS.... But since I shoot in RAW format, the error was completely recoverable.

I shot RAW on my G2. No problems. The D60?? The RAW files are HUGE. I got a bigger CF card. I carry my laptop on vacation. I shoot RAW. I am quite glad I didn't learn this lesson on my vacation.

Moral of the story is, "Shoot with best 'film' because you never know which picture will be a keeper." ( also can change white balance after the fact )


Paul






adrianweller wrote:
I've had the D60 for a few months now and I always use the LARGE image size format on the basis that as I paid for 6 megapixels I might as well use them all. But I use the NORMAL compression setting as I'm going to compress them further anyway once I've edited them.

It seems to work out great that way but I have a 1Gb Microdrive and a couple of 128Mb cards so I'm not too worried about storage capacity and I was wondering if I'm losing out anywhere by not just sticking to the Large/Fine format ? (I think RAW would be a bit over the top)

For instance I was taking a sequence of shots of a glider landing the other day and the buffers must have filled just as it got real close to me so I missed the best shot. So would I have been able to have taken more multiple shots if I had been on a MEDIUM setting ? But then would there have been an appreciable difference in the image quality ?

What are the ppros and cons of these settings generally ?

[mrchips]

I have been reading the RAW vs JPG chats for quite some time.

To help me make a choice I asked 2 professional photographers (people who make a living taking photographs) One is a world renouned wedding/landscape photographer (2 published books and a list of awards as long as your arm)who uses Canon 1D and D60's what he uses and recommends. His answer was JPG and his words were "Take the picture right, know how to take it correctly and there is NO need for sharpenning and all the post processing".

The second person is a local 30 year professional wedding photograher who uses Nikon Digital equipment. Her answer was the same "JPG" Know your equipment and learn "The Art of Photography"

I am happy with large JPEG's and thats what I use.

Just my random thoughts!
Denny

[Roger_Cavanagh]

mrchips wrote:
I have been reading the RAW vs JPG chats for quite some time.

To help me make a choice I asked 2 professional photographers (people who make a living taking photographs) One is a world renouned wedding/landscape photographer (2 published books and a list of awards as long as your arm)who uses Canon 1D and D60's what he uses and recommends. His answer was JPG and his words were "Take the picture right, know how to take it correctly and there is NO need for sharpenning and all the post processing".

The second person is a local 30 year professional wedding photograher who uses Nikon Digital equipment. Her answer was the same "JPG" Know your equipment and learn "The Art of Photography"

I am happy with large JPEG's and thats what I use.

Just my random thoughts!
Denny


Well, that might be a fine strategy, if you have got 30 years of experience and can pretty much guarantee to "take the picture right". However, for us lesser mortals, things ain't always so perfect. You've paid for the technology why not use it to give you an edge? I always shoot raw with my D30 and I expect to do so if when I upgrade because raw format gives me more margin for error. I get more image data and cleaner image data to play with, if I need, and if I don't my standard linear workflow produces a balanced, sharpened image without any hassle.

I think the images I get shooting raw are better quality than shooting JPG, but I can't prove it to anybody on this forum because the only images we can post are 8-bit JPG with more or less compression and sRGB colour space. :eyes

I would suggest that you do some tests. Take different versions of the same image using different formats and see what you think. Your verdict may well depend on what you do with the images, if you only ever e-mail small files to friends or post 800x533 images on the web, or print 4x6, may be you won't see a difference. (I don't know if that is the case, I'm just postulating a hypothesis.)

It doesn't seem sensible to me to capture 12-bit data and then throw a huge chunk of that data away before you even get to look at it. 8-bit data gives 256 levels per colour, 12-bit gives 4096. You can't see the 4096 levels in Photoshop, but they are there and they will make a difference. If course, in PS, the images will be in 16-bit, so any edits will take place on 65k levels.

Anyway, what fun would it be, if we stopped arguing about the meaning of life, sorry, raw vs JPG. :D

Cheers,

[mrchips]

Roger,
I have tested and to me its in the print not PS or the web. I believe there is no difference in an 8 x10 print from my D60 when I shoot JPG vs RAW using an Epson 1280 with premium matt paper.

... and yes we have paid for the technology BUT remember photography is an "ART FORM" not a simple techical process. Sure we can do more with digital but taking the time to learn (as I am doing) what happens before and when the shutter is clicked will make me a better photographer not a picture taker.

Just my thoughts.
Denny

[Roger_Cavanagh]

mrchips wrote:
... and yes we have paid for the technology BUT remember photography is an "ART FORM" not a simple techical process. Sure we can do more with digital but taking the time to learn (as I am doing) what happens before and when the shutter is clicked will make me a better photographer not a picture taker.

Just my thoughts.
Denny

Denny,

I never said that shooting raw should used to take the place of photographic creativity, merely, that it can compensate for some technical errors in exposure and white balance.

Your comments prompt a further thought as you imply that artistic vision stops when the shutter is depressed, which is absolutely not the case. You only have to think of the time that Ansel Adams spent in the dark room to get the print that matched his vision. I recall reading Michael Reichmann (I think it was he) writing about the hours he can spend with Photoshop to get the image he desires.

So I now offer another reason for shooting raw: it offers greater opportunity for artistic creativity in the digital darkroom to ensure the final image matches your vision when you pressed the shutter.

Regards,

[gorham]

For me it comes down to pragmatism. Well and economics.

I shoot large fine JPG because I cover sporting events and need to take a bucket of shots for every one that I use.

Plus most of my stuff is for the web anyway - with occasional prints and reprints.

Plus both I and the state I work for (the Great State of Maine!) are in a budget crisis so I/we can't afford larger or more CFs.

I've tried RAW and would like to play with it more sometime but for now LF JPG works, well, fine! :)

Gorham

[jdavis]

mrchips wrote:
"Take the picture right, know how to take it correctly and there is NO need for sharpenning and all the post processing".


This may be a great photographer but I can assure you he knows little about the tools he uses. Too bad... if he knew more about his tools, his great photos might become masterpieces.

John

P.S. - Ansel Adams always explored the full potential of his tools, films and processing techniques. He would have a ball with today's top digital techniques, and yes... I'm pretty sure, he would shoot RAW no less.

[mrchips]

Please show me some of your sharpened work in print, I would love to see what you do with your tools, No one has yet to show me the BIG difference it makes.

Take the original and print an 8x10 then sharpen and do what ever you need to do to it. print an 8x10 and mount the 2 on a wall, from 4 feet away tell me you can see the difference in the photos.

or burn a video cd and show them on a TV, can you see the difference between JPG and RAW.

Show me and I will become a believer

[Kevin Connery]

IF the scene's tonal range fits within 8 stops/bits (and many do), the RAW over/under exposure controls aren't necessary.

IF you will not be doing extensive tonal adjustments to the image after capture, the RAW 12-bits of data isn't necessary. ("Wxtensive" means serious curve/levels tweaking, not the common 1-5 point tone tuning.)

IF you will be doing extensive selections of objects, JPEG artifacts may have an affect on your software's ability to find the edges smoothly, and thus requring a lot more manual effort.

Oversimplified, and in general, JPEG is acceptable for 'properly exposed' images that will not be heavily composited, dramatically color/tone shifted, etc., and that RAW is more suitable for images that will be stripped, color-changed, composited, etc.

(If space were free, I'd say to use RAW always, but it's not, and the Real World does impinge...)

[kd6lor]

"Take the picture right, know how to take it correctly and there is NO need for sharpenning and all the post processing".


Wow, the guy must be good, or is this an attempt at mystifying and postering.

JPG or RAW? I have not had any problems with resolution or errors induced by JPG compression, but to alter the color or white balance, it is tough to beat the flexibility of the RAW mode. The first time you shoot a large number of pictures in the wrong white balance mode, you will be glad you shot RAW.

Using RAW mode is a pain in the arse with respect to processing time, hard drive space, CF size, etc. I think if I were a pro I might be less inclined to use RAW, but when I take photos it is for fun and I don't find the extra space, time, etc. a burden. I am not anxious to get home to the family after "work," because this is my hobby.


Try both methods, use whatever one you are most comfortable with.

Paul

[adrianweller]

Thanks everyone for the comments but as I said in my initial posting I think RAW would be over the top, for me at this early stage of the learning curve anyway. And I have taken quite a few JPEG shots with the wrong colour balance and so far I've been able to sort them with ACDSee

No, it's the compression issue I don't fully comprehend. So far I can't see any difference, either on my PC or when printed at A4, between shots I've taken at Large/Fine and Large/Normal and this does make a big difference to the storage capacity not just on the CF card but on the PC too and the backup discs I've started to make (I guess I will have to be more selective and delete a lot of these eventually)

Bottom line question I guess - is there a minimum file size (approximately of course) for a picture with a lot of detail in it, below which there is sufficient degradation in the image that would be noticeable in an A4 print made on a quality printer ?

Adrian

[Roger_Cavanagh]

adrianweller wrote:
Bottom line question I guess - is there a minimum file size (approximately of course) for a picture with a lot of detail in it, below which there is sufficient degradation in the image that would be noticeable in an A4 print made on a quality printer ?

Adrian

Adrian,

The difficulty of answering that question is that the amount of compression is affected by the subject. I save images for my web galleries as 720x480 (25% D30) with a medium setting for JPG. I recently processed some images for my web galleries of brown boobies, so the background was water. The images ranged in size from 17k - 34k. The previous gallery I processed contains images ranging from 54k to 97k.

This is obviously a much higher level compression than is used in-camera, but the same principle applies. For instance, images with lots of noise will not compress so much.

What you should avoid doing is editing JPG images as each time you save there will be degradation of quality. Load the downloaded JPG into Photoshop (or whatever editor you use) and save as a PSD or TIFF file. Only convert back to JPG (if you need to) as the very last step after you have completed all other edits.

... Large/Fine and Large/Normal and this does make a big difference to the storage capacity not just on the CF card but on the PC too and the backup discs I've started to make (I guess I will have to be more selective and delete a lot of these eventually)

:) Ah well, you've hit on on one of the problem areas for digital. You don't pay for film, so you take more pictures; you don't pay for developing, so you take more pictures; you experiment more, so you take more pictures. By all means, delete crappy images, but it doesn't matter how selective you are, you will eventually need to have a systematic method of archiving your images. I would think about it now before you throw away anything that you might regret later. I've had my D30 for about 18 months. I've got 14gb of images burned onto CDs not counting the copies in case of failure.

Regards,

[adrianweller]

Thanks very much for that advice. At the moment I've been downloading and backing-up images at around 1mb. I've already learned that lesson having overwrittten what could have been one of my best pics ever with an over-edited copy. I then save further copies as I play around with them via ACDSee (usually) at the default setting of 65% compression so it looks as if my files are still a lot bigger than I need. But I'll take note of that PSD or TIFF file advice and read up on it too. There's a lot to learn eh ? Anyway - better get some work done now.

Cheers

[Kelvin]

I don't care who shoots what or why. All I can add is my personal preferences and leave it at that.

I shoot RAW. For one, I like having personal creative control over post-processing. Seeing as it's part of the creative process, why would I want the camera to do some of it for me in JPG mode? Secondly, I can adjust exposure & white balance after the fact. No matter how good you are, this can and will come in as very handy sometimes, especially for those quick shots and fleeting moments when you don't have time to think, only react. Thirdly, my own tests have shown that JPG artifacts (Large/Fine) are visible with certain subjects when I looked very closely. Also, loading and resaving in JPG does indeed degrade image quality very quickly, again discovered by my own tests, which is why I use TIF with LZW (lossless) compression. And speaking of TIF, I prefer to convert & post-process in 16-bit (I use Photoshop 7) to avoid getting spikes and gaps in my histogram and avoid possible color posterization, which I found happens relatively easily with 8-bit files. And last but not least, using YarcPlus to convert RAW files gives me the lowest possible image noise, a very useful feature when using any ISO (and especially high ISO's), and helps a great deal to keep the noise from building up during post processing.

The way I look at it overall is that if I were using a film camera (I also own an EOS 3 and EOS 630), I would want to use the best slide film available. So it is, also, with my choice to use RAW. That doesn't mean I won't use Large/Fine JPG. It's great for taking lot's of snap shots, stuff that is going to most likely be printed as 4x6's and not going to be turned into fine art. I look at that mode as being a lot like consumer print film. Film is also a tool, just like the rest of my equipment. And so I pick the best tool for a given job. It's as simple as that.

[gorham]

I've already learned that lesson having overwrittten what could have been one of my best pics ever with an over-edited copy.

That's my nightmare and I'm compulsive to a fault to avoid it. After using Downloader to get the files from the card to a directory on my 'puter, the first step is to make a subdirectory called "edited". I then copy all the files again to that one. That's where I look at them first; eliminating and editing for however I'm going to use them. Only after I'm completely finished do I go back into the first bunch and Breeze Browse through them eliminating *only* those that are out of focus or pointed at the ground and the like. Then I copy both directories to an external (40GB) hard drive that's just photo archives. And periodically, I back *that* up to CDs. Redundant? You bet.

Gorham

[reittila]

Shooting jpegs with D30/60 to me it's like bying a Porsche and driving 50km/h.