file sizes getting larger?

Files also 'grow' with certain drive sizes and file systems. Have you changed your computer or data card recently?

well as your camera gets older it gets fatter so stop feeding it carbs and it will start to lose weight. Done deal.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16089083
http://www.sigma-dp1.com/sample-photo/

But you're right, I try not to crop much and print 12*18 or less most of the time.

Nice shots. Sorry to go slightly off topic on this thread. You print 5mp photos at 12 x 18. Do you have to do anything special to get good quality or do you think that the approx 150ppi that this adds up to is sufficient and more really isn't required. Thanks

jaomul wrote in post #16090009
Nice shots. Sorry to go slightly off topic on this thread. You print 5mp photos at 12 x 18. Do you have to do anything special to get good quality or do you think that the approx 150ppi that this adds up to is sufficient and more really isn't required. Thanks

Well we are normally quite happy looking at an approx 100 PPI image at around 12×8 size. That covers the spec for most monitors. Depending on the image content, younot going to want something with huge amounts of fine detail, 100-150 PPI on glossy paper can look fine even for a hand held print. If your audince are not photographers then you can easily "get away" with printing at 100 PPI. As "photographers we usually apply far higher standards to our work than the consumer expects, or usually can even see. I have images with some really bad technical quality issues that others think look great. Even when I tell people about them they still cannot see what I'm talking about. I can see why so many are happy with 5-8 Mpix cell phone images at 100% on screen. They see the image not the noise/fringing etc that we photographers see.

Alan

mwsilver wrote in post #16088964
You obviously don't crop much. and display/print at fairly small sizes.

Couldn't agree more....printing large isn't the main reason for more pixels. Much more latitude in cropping pics and keeping them sharp...

ElectronGuru wrote in post #16089761
Files also 'grow' with certain drive sizes and file systems. Have you changed your computer or data card recently?

No, I have not.
It may have something to do with the processing parameters. I am going to take a photo of the same subject using different processing parameters and see what effect that has on file size.

chzuck wrote in post #16087016
It seems lately the file size of my photos are, on average, getting larger. I have not change the quality or size selections. Is it just what I am photographing or is there something else I could have inadvertently changed? I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT.

Shooting at higher ISOs, or getting more images in focus? Shooting more finely textured scenes?

More noise is the major cause of losing compression ratio.

You probably take photos in more challenging light and/or lowered your average exposure time.

Bsmooth wrote in post #16088027
Files will get larger, and take up more space, and also take longer to process.
As far as files getting larger, they shouldn't change by that much. How much of a difference are we talking about ?
Sure hard drives are getting bigger, just think of how much you'll lose as well.
I'm not buying into the more Mp the better image, at least not for now. We don't need more MP we need better quality ones.

Low density pixels are low-quality ones, even if they are excellent, noise-wise. A camera that can record one pixel with a very high contrast to one next to it, can not, by definition, have true pixel-level quality. A black-to white transition should take 3 pixels, exclusive, otherwise, the recording is distorted. Now some people prefer this aliased, snap-to-pixel-grid look, but it is not real quality; it the illusion of quality, an illusion that not everyone falls for.

That would be the beauty of a camera that was 200MP under the hood - it could downsample to what each user wanted. 200MP downsampled to 12 MP is much better than a 12MP Bayer capture, and you can do it any way you want if the camera allowed; it could be done without aliasing, or with extreme aliasing, or anything in-between. The 200MP gives vastly superior original information, spatially. It could do CA and geometrical distortion corrections in-camera, with no artifacts like you get doing such at low pixel densities, before down-sampling.

mwsilver wrote in post #16088964
You obviously don't crop much. and display/print at fairly small sizes.

Probably doesn't do much CA correction, rotation, perspective correction, or resampling to 3MP, either, or have much of a quality standard for those acts. All such things give the purest results when you start with a much higher original resolution.

jaomul wrote in post #16090009
Nice shots. Sorry to go slightly off topic on this thread. You print 5mp photos at 12 x 18. Do you have to do anything special to get good quality or do you think that the approx 150ppi that this adds up to is sufficient and more really isn't required. Thanks

I assume people look past resolution and just at the thing that's being photographed. Some off topic ideas.

At some point I've tried upsampling, but then I read noritsu and fuji frontier (which I use at costco) print at 120 dpi or lpi and I didn't want the hassle. Those printers upsample somehow themselves.

You're right. I don't. I shoot mostly for myself or in controlled environments for others... and I try to spend less time post processing. And I don't have to do CA correction cause I can't see it at 6 mp

I wasn't implying that more resolution is a bad thing. I'd be shooting with merrill sensors and 5d mkIII if had them.

Little off topic but able to share any picture samples shot with your DP1? Would love to see some real world samples....I have often thought of buying one but it is a large investment to play with when I am very happy with the results from my Canon equipment.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16090644
I assume people look past resolution and just at the thing that's being photographed. Some off topic ideas.

At some point I've tried upsampling, but then I read noritsu and fuji frontier (which I use at costco) print at 120 dpi or lpi and I didn't want the hassle. Those printers upsample somehow themselves.


You're right. I don't. I shoot mostly for myself or in controlled environments for others... and I try to spend less time post processing. And I don't have to do CA correction cause I can't see it at 6 mp

I wasn't implying that more resolution is a bad thing. I'd be shooting with merrill sensors and 5d mkIII if had them.

BigAl007 wrote in post #16090091
Well we are normally quite happy looking at an approx 100 PPI image at around 12×8 size. That covers the spec for most monitors. Depending on the image content, younot going to want something with huge amounts of fine detail, 100-150 PPI on glossy paper can look fine even for a hand held print. If your audince are not photographers then you can easily "get away" with printing at 100 PPI. As "photographers we usually apply far higher standards to our work than the consumer expects, or usually can even see. I have images with some really bad technical quality issues that others think look great. Even when I tell people about them they still cannot see what I'm talking about. I can see why so many are happy with 5-8 Mpix cell phone images at 100% on screen. They see the image not the noise/fringing etc that we photographers see.

Alan

I have huge amounts of nice photos - and nice prints from my Dimage 7. 5.2 MP in all its glory. 20MP of the 5D2 may sound like a huge improvement. But a crop halving the height/width of the 5D2 photo will end up at almost the same number of pixels as the Dimage 7.

aaxsherm wrote in post #16091255
Little off topic but able to share any picture samples shot with your DP1? Would love to see some real world samples....I have often thought of buying one but it is a large investment to play with when I am very happy with the results from my Canon equipment.

Sure. Do you want a small embed or full size?

I have both DP1 and DP2s. DP2 is used most of the time because the lens is faster and I like the normal FL better.

They're quirky cameras. You can AF ok in good light on static subjects. If it's anything less than an overcast day, they can't lock focus. But they have an uncoupled rangefinder which kind of makes up for it in a smena fashion. You can't track motion. You can't change lenses. ISO800 and up is very noisy. I usually convert high ISO to BW and it looks like pushed film. The battery lasts 50 shots on a good day.

I don't know how they compare to current cameras in canon lineup, but the dynamic range is better than 20d and 30d. I feel I can push the raw files much further from this cam. And it's very compact.

I got a DP1 for 250 bucks years ago and DP2 was around 400 later. If you can work around the limitations of the interface, the pictures are great.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16088078
I have a 5 mp camera. I can't imaging needing a larger resolution for what I do.

you must not shoot wildlife or anything else that involves cropping.