High quality jpeg L vs low quality S

None scientific test of the two straight out of the camera with no processing. Other than the sun may have came out a little on one of the photos.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Conclusion?

Sam6644 wrote in post #12726102
Conclusion?

I am not sure. When I shoot jpeg I always use the highest quality L but the lowest S may work for general pics that are not going to be enlarged. My next test will be to enlarge a couple up to 8x10 after doing some processing. I guess I expected to see a big difference in the quality.

Top one looks sharper.

shedberg wrote in post #12726282
Top one looks sharper.

I think it is because the sun came out for a second. Top one is actually the lowest S and the bottom one is the highest L.

Because the best way to compare two different resolutions is to shoot under changing lighting, resize them both to a web sized image and then save them at a low enough jpeg quality to comply with this site's limits on file size...

{insert random 'face palm' image here}

Really hard to tell the L, M, or S apart. I am sure the enlargements will be more noticable. I guess I just expected a really big difference because honestly I had never ventured off of the High L setting when I did jpeg. For prints I want to hang on the wall I shoot raw.

stlouis_26 wrote in post #12726119
I am not sure. When I shoot jpeg I always use the highest quality L but the lowest S may work for general pics that are not going to be enlarged. My next test will be to enlarge a couple up to 8x10 after doing some processing.

What are you processing Jpegs with, and what kind of processing are you doing to them?

I guess the next question should be, if you're post processing your pictures, then why are you shooting jpeg rather than Raw?

stlouis_26 wrote in post #12726119
I guess I expected to see a big difference in the quality.

With jpegs you won't see a difference because they are processed in the camera with all the camera settings and then reduced in size. The only difference you should see is the dimensions and file size.
If on the other had you were to perform the same comparison tests on Raw, mRaw and sRaw you would notice differences to some extent, especially where noise is of concern.

For jpegs I use Elements 6 (thinking about going to 9) and generally adjust whatever needs to be done with the picture. Ok I was not aware there would be no difference. I guess the difference would show up in the enlargements then? I just shoot Raw and process it in DPP or CS4 depending on what computer I am using at the time.

Missed part of your question, I mainly adjust color and sharpen the jpegs.

Since you are compressing your images to a Web-size image then techinically there is no difference. There is, of course, a difference in how you might process an image, especially if you compare Raw to a jpeg for processing, but taking a Large jpeg and shrinking that down and comparing it to a Small jpeg should show little if any difference, depending on whether the camera uses a different process for the different formats.

krb wrote in post #12726439
Because the best way to compare two different resolutions is to shoot under changing lighting, resize them both to a web sized image and then save them at a low enough jpeg quality to comply with this site's limits on file size...

{insert random 'face palm' image here}

My thoughts exactly!

You cannot compare images like this in changing lighting conditions and as 'krb' says ^^^, at this size you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a point and shoot and a 1Ds Mk3

If you are just shooting for web or monitor resolution you can probably get away with a smaller/lower quality setting.

stlouis_26 wrote in post #12726095
None scientific test of the two straight out of the camera with no processing. Other than the sun may have came out a little on one of the photos.

Not that different on this size.

Now, print both at 12x18" and look again.