Image file size and resolution

[nisolow]

As a new owner of a canon rebel xt, I am very happy with the images and functioning of the camera. I just returned from a trip to Europe and took tons of photos on the high res setting (files are about 3 mb on average) and am faced with HUGE files. Most of these will never go beyond the 4x6 print size and will be printed on an online service; a few will be edited, cropped, enlarged, etc. In the interest of saving hard drive space and expiditing upload times, what is the best way to decrease the file sizes (I have already saved the original files on cd)? Should I just use a higher jpeg compression on my computer (I can get the file sizes to 400 kb or less and the image still seems great) or should I resize to 4x6 (and lose actual pixels)? Any thoughts?? I hate to have 3 mb images on my hard drive that will never be printed beyond 4x6 inches.

[tim]

Welcome to POTN :)

I suggest you don't reduce them down at all, but instead buy a new, large hard drive. Hard drive are cheap, images are priceless. I shoot RAW, 6-10MB per file, and I have around 50GB of data saved, though i'm going to go back and delete some at some point. I have about 350GB of internal drives, and a backup 80GB external drive.

If you know you really don't need them to be good enough for a decent sized print, you could resize them down to whatever resolution you like (eg 6*4 inches at 300dpi), then save them as a Q10 JPG. They should look and print fine. I wouldn't do it, but if hard drive space is more important to you than the images it'd work. Remember once you do it you can't get the images back.

CDs aren't to be trusted with images, in my experience they fail more often than they work, especially after a few years storage.

[2112]

Photoshop is your friend :) I resize every picture I take. I don't print anything out and pictures that are 3 times bigger than my monitor where I have to scroll around to see the whole thing irritate me to no end.

[tim]

Photoshop is your friend :) I resize every picture I take. I don't print anything out and pictures that are 3 times bigger than my monitor where I have to scroll around to see the whole thing irritate me to no end.

This is one time the ppi/dpi does come into play. A screen has about 72dpi, a printed picture typically uses 300dpi. That means if it's 3 times as wide as your screen, a print of the same quality will be about 2/3 the width of your screen.

Why buy an expensive digital SLR with great image quality then throw detail away for the sake of a few MB? Seems like madness to me. If you don't want good quality shoot on medium or small JPG.

[FlyingPete]

A slightly more creative way to win a bit of space back particularly if you shoot at high ISO JPG’s is to use a noise removal program such as NeatImage.

Noise is perceived as detail by JPG, therefore noisy images are larger than clean ones. I often see 3MB ISO1600 images drop closer to 2MB in size after a clean.

[Rigrider]

i would normally agree with most of the others here and say don't drop the size. But you said you had already saved the origionals on disk, so, if you need them, you CAN always go back to them. So in your case, what I'd do is drop the size down to as close to 4x6 as you can get without cutting out any pixles, set you resolution to around 240 (which is an acceptable print resolution for smaller sizes) and save them as High quality .jpg's. This way you can send 'em off for quick prints if you want them, otherwise, they're there to pic through when you get bored.

But I guess my main question would be, why spend the money on and XT and NOT shoot RAW?!?!!? But that's just my opinion.

L8r,

[tim]

But you said you had already saved the origionals on disk, so, if you need them, you CAN always go back to them.

You can't say CAN when it comes to CDs, you can only say maybe. There are plenty of threads on backups, my personal backup strategy backs up full sized photos onto 4 hard disks in 3 locations. It might sound like overkill, but it's the minimum a professional should consider, though hobbiests who aren't so worried probably don't need that level of paranoia.

[MadMesh]

i agree with Tim, harddrives are cheap, get one. I built a PC file storage system, i got 5 hard drive (120 gigs each, 7200 RPM SATA drives, paid about 80/each) I run them in a raid 5 config, which not only is fast, but also writes the same file on different drive for redundancy, should one hard drive fail... =) You can spend $500 on 8 gigs of CF cards, i spent $500 on over 500gigs of storage.

[FlyingPete]

You can't say CAN when it comes to CDs, you can only say maybe. There are plenty of threads on backups, my personal backup strategy backs up full sized photos onto 4 hard disks in 3 locations. It might sound like overkill, but it's the minimum a professional should consider, though hobbiests who aren't so worried probably don't need that level of paranoia.

So true on the CD's, they cannot be trusted. If you are going to use them, only use good archival quality disks, burn them at a low speed, and make multiple copies that are kept in different locations, then regularly check them to make sure they are readable. Sounds too hard, then don't use CD's.

I have had good quality (Imation) disks kept in a CD wallet that verified OK after burn and kept in a datacentre storage room become unreadable sometime between when they were written and when I tried to read them 6 months later. Fortunalty I made copies. Like Tim I go for the multiple removabel harddisks is multiple locations now, I have had four hard disk failures caused by four different causes in the last 8 months.

Backup Backup Backup!

[nisolow]

thanks for all of the input! don't get me wrong, the "good" images all get backed up and stored in full format. I did not realize that cd backup can be so unreliable. I guess that I will just save the images in their full size. I print my own prints except when I want to print a large number of 4x6's and then I upload them to Ofoto for printing. Again, is it best to just resize these before I send or use a higher jpeg compression to get the file size down???

[lost]

At $.41 per GB you could build a terrabyte worth of storage for $410. Now thats a bargain.

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=894639

[prime80]

thanks .... Again, is it best to just resize these before I send or use a higher jpeg compression to get the file size down???

I've started using my local Walgreens to print my 4x6's, but when I used Ofoto, I always cropped and sized to 4x6 @ 300ppi prior to uploading them. If you're not cropping the pics, then you'll just need to resize to 4x6 300ppi. I always save at Q12 as well, although I doubt Q10 is much worse. I just can't see the point of degrading the image any more than necessary to save a little upload time.

[Rigrider]

My bad, I just sort of assume that everyone knows about the problems with low grade CDs/DVDs...or "dollar store disks."

But guys, while your touting the woders of the oh so cheap HD's, remember, they can corrupt too!!

L8r,

[robertwgross]

But guys, while your touting the woders of the oh so cheap HD's, remember, they can corrupt too!!

That's why they developed RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks).

---Bob Gross---

[lost]

Bob, Didn't you know that was changed by SCSI. It is now Redundant Array of Independent Disks. No kidding, with the price SCSI had achieved the moniker no longer worked. I learnt that in a Continuing Ed class I attended a few years back.

[tim]

Put IDE/SATA disks in and it's still inexpensive.

[lost]

That was kinda my point but I must remember where I am posting this. LOL. I made a couple photography jokes at work last week and all I got was funny looks. My fault.

You are correct currently you can get ATA drives for 41 cents a GB. Thats 61.5 running Raid 5. That calculates to about $621 for a frigin Terabyte of fault tolerant storage. That is just amazing to me.