Photo sizes

[Fletch]

Not sure if this question has already been asked - did a search but couldn't find anything.

What size photo would you recommend setting my digital camera to take? I know you can get much more on the memory card if you reduce the size of the pictures, but would value an opinion on the quality of the picture if I do this.

[DarrenShort]

I usually stick to the 3megapixel option, but I guess it depends on the size of memory card you have....

[jolliffee]

You should go for the largest format your camera has vs the size of your memory card and the amount of pictures you would like to take. Remember the smaller the size the less information is stored, not a problem if you only want to email them or put them on a web page but if you want to print them then it is better to have a larger size.

I leave mine on its max/fine setting.

[Snapper]

I agree completely with Dave. Go for the largest possible image size. If you camera automatically jpegs the images then set it to the lowest possible compression and/or finest possible detail. If your camera supports a 'raw' or 'native' mode then use that and then jpeg the images when back on a PC.

The golden rule with digital is that once the camera goes snap that's the absolute maximum detail and image quality you will ever have. It's easy to remove detail and make the image smaller afterwards, but it doesn't work the other way. You can't add detail back into a compressed image.

This wasn't always the case, but with flash memory now so affordable there is no reason for compromising on quality.

The quality (or lack thereof) really only shows up when you try to print digital photos. A quick work-out shows what kinds of demands prints make. Even low cost desktop inkjets are now running at print resolutions of 600 dots per inch (dpi) or higher. So if you figure a normal sized 6" x 4" print, that needs 6 * 4 * 600 * 600 pixels worth of data. It doesn't sound a lot when you write it like that but it works out to over 8 megapixels.

[Nostromo]

Snapper, based on what you've just said, can I check that I am doing the right thing with my Monolta A1 (5MP). For most 'holiday' type photos that will never be larger than 5"x7" prints, I use an 'extra-fine' setting, which seems to be the best JPEG option available. But If I an taking something special, like wildlife, weddings etc, I go for TIFF or even RAW. I do it that way to make sure that my memory card does not get full too quickly while taking many holiday pics which have to be very good but not perfect. Is that OK?

[KJH]

Hello all,

As you may or may not remember, I eventually bought an Olympus C765,

The thing I have noticed (and which suprised me) is the slow reaction time in taking a picture from when I press the wotsit until the camera actually seems to take the picture. Is there anything I can do about this and do I need to do any of the above, ie. changing settings etc.?

Many thanks from a plonker who loves taking good pictures but hasn't a clue how to work the equipment.

ps. HAPPY NEW YEAR

Kaz[msnscared]

[Snapper]

It sounds like a sensible approach Nostromo, especially if you don't have a laptop handy to offload the images to. An alternative might be to shoot everything RAW and then get one of the camera shops on 192 (or wherever) to dump the flash cards onto CDs when they start to get full.

I'd always go for the RAW option over TIFF if it's available as you're getting the data straight off the camera's sensor without any 'interpretation' by the camera's software. RAW is always going to be at the top of the pyramid. You can go from RAW to TIFF but not vice versa, and you can go from TIFF to a compressed JPEG, but not the other way.

What we all really need is something like a 40Gb iPod that will allow one to dump images off flash cards but yet is small enough to fit in a pocket. I think the future will be devices like this but also with wireless, allowing the camera to offload images all the time without you having to connect any wires.

[Snapper]

Kaz - your small delay might just be a feature of the camera. Most of the pocket sized digis (my Canon included) are quite slow to autofocus, especially if the subject is moving. It could also be the camera's internal computer having to think a bit about the exposure.

[KJH]

Thanks Steve

[Nostromo]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Snapper
It sounds like a sensible approach Nostromo, especially if you don't have a laptop handy to offload the images to. An alternative might be to shoot everything RAW and then get one of the camera shops on 192 (or wherever) to dump the flash cards onto CDs when they start to get full.

I'd always go for the RAW option over TIFF if it's available as you're getting the data straight off the camera's sensor without any 'interpretation' by the camera's software. RAW is always going to be at the top of the pyramid. You can go from RAW to TIFF but not vice versa, and you can go from TIFF to a compressed JPEG, but not the other way.

What we all really need is something like a 40Gb iPod that will allow one to dump images off flash cards but yet is small enough to fit in a pocket. I think the future will be devices like this but also with wireless, allowing the camera to offload images all the time without you having to connect any wires.
[/quote]

Thanks snapper. I do have a 20Gb Flashtrax that can be used to dump images as necessary. But in Orlando and other 'touristy' area, one tends to keep on snapping as the opportunity arises and with higher settings, the card gets full before one can say Jack Robinson. My 256Mb Compactflash card is supposed to allow only 16 pics in the RAW mode while I can take 99 in the ususal 'extra fine' JPEG.

I am a bit scared to carry the expensive and delicate Flashtrax around with me in case I drop or lose it [msnembarrased]. Therefore, I tend to do my 'dumping' in the evening after I return to the hotel or villa.