JPG quality L(fine) & (normal) differents?

Hi

i used to shoot at L(fine)
but i did the same shots in L (normal)

but i can't find quality differents!

outside RAW(that i often use) , is there a visible different between L fine vs L normal?

outside raw , which setting do u use?

kinds regads

I allmost allways use L fine Jpeg.
My reasoning is that The best Jpeg gives stunning results and saves me a whole lot of grief in the image proccessing workflow area.

Going the next step down from large/fine jpeg to normal jpeg saves very little space on the card so i would simply never bother with it.

That said i sometimes use small/fine jpeg when taking lot's of pics for ebay.It saves upload/editing time.
It has the drawback of requiring that the camera be reset to L/fine afterwards or so i don't often take the risk .I sometimes forget to do it!

The difference is small but will show up more on some subjects than others. The 'normal' setting will compress the data more, this won't show on a busy scene but may be more obvious if the shot has large areas of similar colour (a pic of a red car for example) as the extra compression may start to show noticeable banding as the tone changes. The same is also true of a clear blue sky.

There won't be much difference on the original jpeg even so, however when you start working on it and saving it and compressing it again, the differences may well be magnified.

I have never used anything over than 'fine' setting, so I can't compare directly. This answer is based on general experience with compressing images. If you are short of memory card space then I can see a point in using 'normal', otherwise though, why compromise on IQ by storing less data than you can. The reason RAW works so well is because you throw NO data away, 'fine' throws less away than 'normal'.

The NORMAL setting gives you just as many pixels as the FINE setting. The only difference is NORMAL uses more JPEG compression.

JPEG uses lossy compression. The more compression, the more loss.. Excessive compression can cause banding in large areas of similar colors (like the sky). It can also cause 'artifacts'. These are little blotches that usually occur where dark and light images meet.

But.... I've comprared FINE and NORMAL quite closely. I've taken identical shots, put them side by side on my monitor and zoomed in on different areas up to 800% and I really can't see any noticeable difference.

If you consider the price of CF cards these days, there really isn't much need to conserve memory. When I shoot JPEG I always use large FINE.

thanks for your advises

by the way , resizing photos i notice that i loose quality , which is the best software for resizing? i use ps cs2 and i found quality loss

mantra wrote in post #2288455
thanks for your advises

by the way , resizing photos i notice that i loose quality , which is the best software for resizing? i use ps cs2 and i found quality loss

There will always be some slight loss when resizing, as you are throwing pixels away, but they should still be perfectly acceptable. What sort of loss are you getting?

If you don't sharpen the image, after resizing, they will appear to have a quality loss. Resizing always causes a softening of the image which you need to remove.

I always use PS CS2 and I am perfectly happy with my resized images for the web.