A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Thoughts about File Size



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 17th 04, 06:51 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thoughts about File Size


I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
for about a month now.
I've experimented with everyhing from
scenics to close-ups.

So far, I've been storing my pics
as 100 200Kbyte JPG files.

On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.

I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom.
At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player.
once again, I can't see any noticeable difference
between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files.

First premis;
Why bother with the mega-size photo files ?
Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic,
or making poster-sized enlargements ??
Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ?


rj
  #2  
Old December 17th 04, 07:03 PM
Robertwgross
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RJ wrote:
I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
for about a month now.
I've experimented with everyhing from
scenics to close-ups.
So far, I've been storing my pics
as 100 200Kbyte JPG files.
On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.
I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom.
At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player.
once again, I can't see any noticeable difference
between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files.
First premis;
Why bother with the mega-size photo files ?
Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic,
or making poster-sized enlargements ??
Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ?


I sense a troll here. Try printing out at 8x10 with a poor resolution image
like that, and use a very good printer. You will see the problems. Also, if
your telephoto lens is not long enough, then your captured image will have a
tiny subject in the center, which forces you to crop. So, you take your 3 MP
image and take 10% out of the center. Now what do you have? With a high
resolution camera, you can print and get good results, and you can also crop a
center and still have enough data to produce a decent one. Viewing on the
screen is a bad way to judge it.

---Bob Gross---
  #3  
Old December 17th 04, 07:03 PM
Robertwgross
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RJ wrote:
I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
for about a month now.
I've experimented with everyhing from
scenics to close-ups.
So far, I've been storing my pics
as 100 200Kbyte JPG files.
On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.
I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom.
At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player.
once again, I can't see any noticeable difference
between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files.
First premis;
Why bother with the mega-size photo files ?
Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic,
or making poster-sized enlargements ??
Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ?


I sense a troll here. Try printing out at 8x10 with a poor resolution image
like that, and use a very good printer. You will see the problems. Also, if
your telephoto lens is not long enough, then your captured image will have a
tiny subject in the center, which forces you to crop. So, you take your 3 MP
image and take 10% out of the center. Now what do you have? With a high
resolution camera, you can print and get good results, and you can also crop a
center and still have enough data to produce a decent one. Viewing on the
screen is a bad way to judge it.

---Bob Gross---
  #4  
Old December 17th 04, 08:21 PM
Reverend Lovejoy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RJ wrote:
First premis;
Why bother with the mega-size photo files ?
Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic,
or making poster-sized enlargements ??
Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ?


1) To have greater freedom to "digitally zoom" (crop) later

2) To record/capture greater detail of your subject.

Just two off the top of my head.

  #5  
Old December 17th 04, 08:21 PM
Reverend Lovejoy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RJ wrote:
First premis;
Why bother with the mega-size photo files ?
Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic,
or making poster-sized enlargements ??
Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ?


1) To have greater freedom to "digitally zoom" (crop) later

2) To record/capture greater detail of your subject.

Just two off the top of my head.

  #6  
Old December 17th 04, 08:57 PM
David J Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RJ wrote:
I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
for about a month now.
I've experimented with everyhing from
scenics to close-ups.

So far, I've been storing my pics
as 100 200Kbyte JPG files.

On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.


On your monitor, you may only be displaying the images at (for example)
1024 x 768, so about 3/4 MP. If you were to print out at 8 x 10 then the
difference in using a lower compression (bigger file size) might be more
apparent. But if the smaller size is good enough for what you need, keep
using it!

Cheers,
David


  #7  
Old December 17th 04, 08:57 PM
David J Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RJ wrote:
I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
for about a month now.
I've experimented with everyhing from
scenics to close-ups.

So far, I've been storing my pics
as 100 200Kbyte JPG files.

On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.


On your monitor, you may only be displaying the images at (for example)
1024 x 768, so about 3/4 MP. If you were to print out at 8 x 10 then the
difference in using a lower compression (bigger file size) might be more
apparent. But if the smaller size is good enough for what you need, keep
using it!

Cheers,
David


  #8  
Old December 18th 04, 12:01 AM
Tony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You won't see a difference on your monitor, and if that is all you intend to
do you will be fine. I wouldn't want to print them though.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"RJ" wrote in message
...

I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
for about a month now.
I've experimented with everyhing from
scenics to close-ups.

So far, I've been storing my pics
as 100 200Kbyte JPG files.

On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.

I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom.
At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player.
once again, I can't see any noticeable difference
between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files.

First premis;
Why bother with the mega-size photo files ?
Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic,
or making poster-sized enlargements ??
Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ?


rj



  #9  
Old December 18th 04, 12:01 AM
Tony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You won't see a difference on your monitor, and if that is all you intend to
do you will be fine. I wouldn't want to print them though.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"RJ" wrote in message
...

I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
for about a month now.
I've experimented with everyhing from
scenics to close-ups.

So far, I've been storing my pics
as 100 200Kbyte JPG files.

On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.

I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom.
At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player.
once again, I can't see any noticeable difference
between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files.

First premis;
Why bother with the mega-size photo files ?
Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic,
or making poster-sized enlargements ??
Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ?


rj



  #10  
Old December 18th 04, 02:40 AM
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RJ wrote:
I've been using a KODAK 3mp camera
for about a month now.
I've experimented with everyhing from
scenics to close-ups.

So far, I've been storing my pics
as 100 200Kbyte JPG files.

On my monitor, I really can't see any difference
between these pics, and higher resolution/file-size shots.

I've started to "album" my files on a CD-rom.
At last, slide shows thru the TV using my DVD player.
once again, I can't see any noticeable difference
between the 200K files, and the mega-sized files.

First premis;
Why bother with the mega-size photo files ?
Unless you're selling your pics to National Geographic,
or making poster-sized enlargements ??
Is this a case of "mine's bigger than yours is" ?


rj


No reason. If you are satisfied with the quality, I see no reason to
try to make you dissatisfied. I have a 4mp Kodak, and the file sizes
are about the same as yours, which is just a bit TOO much compression.
I wish Kodak had given me an option for larger files, with less
compression, although this only matters on 10% or less of my photos, it
DOES matter sometimes. The larger the file, the more information that
is stored. JPEG compression discards picture information. Usually, you
can't notice, but on some subjects, it becomes noticeable.


--
Ron Hunter
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Newbie: file size after editing . ABC Digital Photography 8 March 3rd 05 08:30 PM
Question about RAW file and image size Anynomus Digital Photography 9 November 7th 04 11:51 PM
Reducing File Size / Sharing Photos / Album Help Dave Digital Photography 10 September 16th 04 10:36 PM
ISO and File Size Question David J Taylor Digital Photography 7 July 15th 04 12:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.