Image recording quality

[dadoallen]

I always shot jpegs in large fine format but the other day I was running out of space on my card so I went to take the quality down a notch. I then realised that I do not know the difference between large normal and medium fine. Both produce the same size files so which is best?

[AjP]

I don't shoot JPG at all but as far as I remeber different level could be either size/dementions of file or compression, large and medium are definately not the same result.. so you should check your preferences on quality and printing and choose what file is suit you better

[jfrancho]

Print quality will be diminished using anything less than the maximum resolution. Get another card, they are relatively inexpensive.

[dadoallen]

Lots of cards but all in my kit bag at home, still interested in the answer to the question.

[Grampaw]

Large normal and medium fine will take up approximately the same amount of space on the card. The difference is quality. Fine quality will have less compression than the normal, resulting in a larger file.

[tzalman]

In general, if you have to conserve card space full resolution and more compression is preferable. However, the decision can be influenced by the target end-use of the image. If, for instance, the shot will always be viewed on a computer display the smaller resolution will look the same as full resolution. The same is true if it will never be printed larger than 4x6 inches.

[jfrancho]

Lots of cards but all in my kit bag at home, still interested in the answer to the question.You haven't said what camera you are using! I think we've answered your general question, anyway. Compare the EXIF data of both to find the difference in the actual numbers.

[Bob_A]

For the 20D, Large Fine jpegs are 3.6 MB, Large Normal are 1.8 MB, Medium Fine are 2.2 MB and Medium Normal are 1.1 MB.These numbers are all approximate and can vary depending on exposure, ISO, if being shot in monochrome, etc.

Again, for the 20D, shooting Large you are shooting at 8.2 MP, for Medium you are shooting at 4.3 MP. Fine and medium are compression rates, with fine producing better quality for the MP chosen.

[Jim_T]

As far as quality goes, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference if you lined up images taken in RAW (converted to TIFF), Large Fine JPEG or Large Normal.

I've done this.. I've put the camera on a tripod and taken three identical images.. One at each quality.

I've cropped the exact same small area from all images and opened them in my editor.. Side by side, zoomed to 800% you really have to look hard to see any difference at all.. If you were to print them as-is, you couldn't see a difference.

RAW is a hands down winner when it comes to editing latitude. You can do far more effective correction and enhancing to a RAW image.. There's no question about that........ But for image quality , there's very little difference between a RAW file and a Large medium quality JPEG right out of the camera....

[dadoallen]

Thanks guys. I did run out of cards last year when I did a trek in the Himalayas. The views are so incredible that you just keep on shooting. I am going again later this year so if the same happens (and I have more cards) I will not be worried about going down to large medium format.

[jfrancho]

As far as quality goes, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference if you lined up images taken in RAW (converted to TIFF), Large Fine JPEG or Large Normal.

I've done this.. I've put the camera on a tripod and taken three identical images.. One at each quality.

I've cropped the exact same small area from all images and opened them in my editor.. Side by side, zoomed to 800% you really have to look hard to see any difference at all.. If you were to print them as-is, you couldn't see a difference.

RAW is a hands down winner when it comes to editing latitude. You can do far more effective correction and enhancing to a RAW image.. There's no question about that........ But for image quality , there's very little difference between a RAW file and a Large medium quality JPEG right out of the camera....I have a hard time believing that a 1.8 MB image can stand up to a full size image made from a RAW file. Is this a picture of a white wall you were comparing. At what size print won't the difference matter - wallet? I'll have to try this out myself.

[Perfect_10]

Large normal and medium fine will take up approximately the same amount of space on the card. The difference is quality. Fine quality will have less compression than the normal, resulting in a larger file.

Now I'm confused .. :confused:
If fine has less compression than normal and results in a larger file, won't it take up more space on the card ?? How can they take up approx the same space ??

[Bob_A]

Fine and Normal do not take up to even close to the same amount of space. Large Normal and Medium Fine are about the same ... Large Fine and Medium Fine are not.

Large, medium and small refer to the MP size, while normal and fine refer to the amount of compression. The final file size depends on both the megapixels of the image and the compression.