Is there any disadvantage to...

...shooting in a lower image size/quality, apart from the obvious - less pixels/smaller sizes?

If most of my images are being resized anyway for net use and small prints, and I have no requirement to print large in the future, am I wasting disk space and my own time (for resizing in post) shooting at the highest quality?

Does a photo have better quality if taken in the highest quality and then being resized, as opposed to just shooting in a lower quality mode?

Also, will shooting in a lower image size increase my burst speed?

Any help appreciated. Warning, I might just be missing something really obvious in my logic.

p.s. shooting in jpeg, of course.

Yup, if you are sure that you never need a larger image and are cropping/resizing anyway, you can safely shoot at a smaller size and save space. Just be aware that you can never get that data back. Once saved small, it's small from then on.

gjl711 wrote in post #13869310
Yup, if you are sure that you never need a larger image and are cropping/resizing anyway, you can safely shoot at a smaller size and save space. Just be aware that you can never get that data back. Once saved small, it's small from then on.

Thanks. I was just thinking that maybe the smaller sizes are inherently poorer quality, not just smaller sized. It would save me a lot of time to just shoot closer to web/print size. Not all the time, obviously, but i shoot my friends rollerblading sometimes and they only print small.

danjama wrote in post #13869464
Thanks. I was just thinking that maybe the smaller sizes are inherently poorer quality, not just smaller sized. It would save me a lot of time to just shoot closer to web/print size. Not all the time, obviously, but i shoot my friends rollerblading sometimes and they only print small.

Well, in a way they are. You are using fewer pixels to describe an image so the quality will be less. However, you are scaling the image anyway so wheather you shoot full resolution and then resize the image to a smaller size of shoot with a smaller size to start with, the end product will be the same.

Dont you retain the info if you crop using lightroom? Im still new so chances are Im wrong lol.

Dragoro wrote in post #13869834
Dont you retain the info if you crop using lightroom? Im still new so chances are Im wrong lol.

Yes, unless you export the cropped images and delete the originals (and unless you do that, you're not saving space anyway)

Hehe isnt that what external hard drives are for? Can get a WD 1 terrabyte drive for around 100 bucks.

Plus, after the in-camera processing, the jpeg compression will strip away about all latitude for further image adjustments, leaving you with the net of what came out of the camera.

Assuming the OP is using Light Room or a similar software editor, shooting large jpeg and then exporting a smaller version for use would be a better option than shooting small.

I do use LR but i am sick of the workflow/organisation etc of shooting in one size and sharing in another. Any and all HD space is taken up with my personal photog projects and video, i don't want it cluttered up with photos i don't need @5mb+.

Thanks for the replies guys

A one terrabyte hard disk costs about as much as a dinner for two. Why not get one just for your photos?

I already do have a 1tb external, as well as 600gb+ internal, I'll probably pick up another 1tb soon but it'll have to wait. It's crazy to think how cheap HD space is now.

Consider shooting in a relatively high resolution RAW and a very low resolution JPEG (something that makes a decent 4 x 6 print). The write speeds to the memory card will be quicker and the RAW will always enable you to get a big print or zoom in on a particualr area if you get that rare shot.