Do you set your camera at high resolution?

On May 25, 5:44 am, "=\(8\)" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...







I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6
most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be
8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30.

I do crop my images often, but not by much.

In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by
default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop
the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can
take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and
don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture
quality and picture resolution are not related.)

Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something?

If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported,
please tell me why do you do that.

Thank you for sharing your opinions.

Only a moron would shot at a resolution lower than the camera's maximum. You
never know what you will want to do with the images in the future. This is
like people in the past when they threw out the negatives from the pictures
leaving only a crappy print on textured paper, that is now nearly totally
faded, yellow and glued on to an ugly ass album page. Basically they and you
are destroying the use of the pictures for your own future use and for the
use of your children and their children, etc. They need to take you out and
shoot you in the head and yes they should do this at the full resolution.

I shoot only in raw and so full resolution. With the cost of memory
cards so cheap it would rarely make sense to shoot in anything but the
highest resolution IMO.

Having said that your statement is somewhat over the top don't you
think?

There are times when shooting at less then full resolution might well
make sense, a vacation of several days when no access to a computer
might be one such case.

For myself I keep a full resolution copy (normally the raw file) of
all the photos I take, but this is a personal choice and there is a
cost to it, both in disk space used and the time it takes to do a
backup of the photo. And the detail loss in down sizing a photo from
8MP to 4MP is pretty small, try down sizing a photo to 70.7% and see
how much detail you loss, not much, if you wish to argue this point
please post a photo where you believe that this is not the case.

Scott

On May 25, 3:40 am, wrote:
I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6
most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be
8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30.

I do crop my images often, but not by much.

In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by
default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop
the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can
take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and
don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture
quality and picture resolution are not related.)

Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something?

If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported,
please tell me why do you do that.

Thank you for sharing your opinions.

In 2003 my wife and I were on a four month camping trip and I took a
lot of photos, something like 12,000. At the beginning of the trip
disk space was pretty limited, the laptop had something like a 20GB
drive but much of this was taken up with other stuff. So I was not in
a position to just photograph whatever I wanted without regard to the
disk space I was using up. Many of the photos were of a nature that I
did not think the resolution would really matter, shots through the
windshield that were mostly to give an idea of what the route was like
and the weather. For these shoots I would set the camera to a
resolution of 1024 x 768, down from 2048 x 1536. For a long time this
seemed like it as a good think to have done, but a few years later I
started making slide shows from the trip, these shots going down the
road added a lot to the slide show. The problem was that at 1024x768
the photos don't fill my computer screen.

I now to pan and zooms in my slide shows, which takes even more
resolution.

I have learned that at least for me having the full resolution photo
is worth the space it takes up.

Scott

In article , HEMI-Powered
writes
If the OP has a $150 P & S that maybe is a 6 MP, they may not want to
invest almost the price of the camera for a gig or 2 of memory.

Pardon? A slow 2GB SD card suitable for a P&S camera is 8 GBP, whilst I
do not know the exact exchange rate I very much doubt that 8GBP is
anywhere near $150 (is that USD? Others might be poorer). A fast card is
about double the price, but still a lot, lot less than $150!
--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

David J Taylor wrote:

By tests, I have found that a full resolution, lower JPEG quality
image provides better results that a lower resolution, higher quality JPEG
image when, for example, you reduce to a lower resolution for the Web and
(I suspect) when printing.

I should hope so. Simply tossing out most of the pixels is a very
crude lossy compression technique. JPeg is much more selective in how
it discards information.

wrote:
I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6
most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be
8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30.

I do crop my images often, but not by much.

In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by
default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop
the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can
take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and
don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture
quality and picture resolution are not related.)

Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something?

If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported,
please tell me why do you do that.

I keep my camera at highest jpeg mode (raw makes for a too-slow
workflow; I reserve it for situations where I need it, mostly when there
is high exposure uncertainty) because disk is cheap. I hate the idea of
sitting there whimpering and thinking "If only I had a high-res version
of this photo!".

In article .com,
Scott W writes
On May 25, 5:57 am, "HEMI-Powered" wrote:
Roy G offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of
the matter at hand:

Don't wish to deride anything you are saying, except that it
must be a very long time since you bought a 1 Gig card, if you
paid $80.

A year, I think, but I occasionally look at Circuit City and Best
Buy ads and I don't see CF cards dropping all that fast. I prefer
SanDisk or Lexar, not some no-name card, and I don't need ultra-
fast writes but that just comes along for the ride.

But, aren't SD cards much cheaper than CF?


The last CF card I bought was a 2GB SanDisk Ultra II, for $30, Costco
had them on sale.
Even without the sale price you can get the same card from Costco for
$34.

They are available for 14.49 GBP in the UK.

From what I have seen SD cards cost the same as CF.

The SD version of the 2GB SanDisk Ultra II is 13.99 GBP, so yes, about
the same.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

AustinMN wrote:
On May 25, 8:55 am, Don Stauffer in Minnesota
wrote:
Note that jpeg compression does NOT reduce the resolution of images,
only color purity.

While I agree with the first part, I can't agree that jpeg compression
only reduces color purity. Jpeg compression introduces image
artifacts as well, some of which I find more offensive than loss of
color depth/fidelity.

But your image becomes a jpeg at *some* point -- either when
printed or shrunk to fit on a monitor.

So I gather that what you are saying is that you are happier
when *you* control the compression rather than the camera.
I can agree with that.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
wrote:
I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6
most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be
8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30.

I do crop my images often, but not by much.

In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by
default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop
the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can
take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and
don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture
quality and picture resolution are not related.)

Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something?





If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported,
please tell me why do you do that.

I keep my camera at highest jpeg mode (raw makes for a too-slow
workflow; I reserve it for situations where I need it, mostly when there
is high exposure uncertainty) because disk is cheap. I hate the idea of
sitting there whimpering and thinking "If only I had a high-res version
of this photo!".

That just about sums it up for me too. My digital cameras are normally
set to highest res-jpeg. Occasionally, I'll shoot raw when I think it
best to do so. At such times, I may opt to shoot a scene in both raw
and high res-jpeg mode (not too often). I would guesstimate up to 15%
of the time I'll shoot raw and the remainder of the time I'll shoot
high res-jpeg.

On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:06:32 GMT, "HEMI-Powered" wrote:

=(8) offered these thoughts for the group's consideration of the
matter at hand:

Only a moron would shot at a resolution lower than the
camera's maximum. You never know what you will want to do with
the images in the future.

SNIP

HEMI-Powered,

Forgive me for placing you last sentence 1st but I did so in
support of your position & the maturity of your response.

I think it may be better for you to allow for the possibility
that other people may have different views of fitness of purpose,
and that hardly makes them morons just because they don't do what
you do.

Then, I guess I am a moron. That seems to be a rather strong,
judgemental assertion. But, being the moron that I am, shooting
well over 15,000 images in the last 5-6 years gives me a pretty
good idea what I want to do with the images, and there simply is
NO justification for me to greatly increase my editing time and
HD storage for the 1% when I want to print.

CUT

Well FWIW, considering your replies it seems that your very
much *not* a moron. It is interesting that in some areas we have
*very* different views on what we consider worth saving & why.

For me, I save every picture I take no matter how bad they are
but maybe do so for what most people would consider wastefully stupid
reasons. The main reason is so that I can always go back & see my
learning curves with different digital cameras, both P&S & DSLR.

Also they all have other potentially useful information
encoded in the META/EXIF DATA, such as:

1 Date & time.
2 Shutter & aperture information.
3 ISO setting.
4 WB setting.
5 Picture mode, such as P, Tv, Av, M or etc.
6 Focal length & etc.

You & I are largely in the same boat with shooting mostly jpeg
though since I added a Canon 30D to my 300D (Digital Rebel), I often
shoot *both* "RAW+jpeg" so if I really need it @ some future point &
have the time I can learn more about RAW & get the benefit of it on an
as needed basis.

Off topic but it might be of comic interest to you, I have
owned 2 HEMI engine powered vehicles but they both only had 2 wheels,
a Suzuki 250cc twin & a Kawasaki 600cc water cooled, shaft driven
quad. Unlike most people I like *smooth* power on 2 wheels rather
than being *pulsed* down the road on 2 big cylinders or head 1st on a
cafe` style racer but I respect opposing views/preferences!

Best of luck in your auto show photographic efforts, I know
that on many vehicles/colors/polish, it can also be a challenge to
avoid your own reflection as well as those of other people & other
nearby vehicles too.

Bottom line, we each do what works best for *our needs* but
with flash memory & external USB/FireWire/Network hard drive prices
dropping & capacities rising, it's relatively painless (for many of
us) to save everything & just sort the cream of the crop.

Respectfully, DHB

PS www.bhphotovideo.com has a Sandisk 2GB Extreme III CompactFlash
Card on sale for $29.95 US after a $15 mail-in rebate, so you may want
to check around, prices have dropped considerably @ least in the US &
I would expect this is also true world wide though maybe not as low.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

"David J Taylor"
wrote:

By tests, I have found that a full resolution, lower JPEG
quality image provides better results that a lower resolution, higher
quality JPEG image

A finding absolutely in agreement with my similar tests back in the days of
1 and 2 MP cameras when one wanted to maximize the number of useful images
on the tiny media we used then. Low resolution limits what you can do with
an image later, but a high resolution image usually views and prints
decently even when very highly compressed. Most low-end photographers
(yes, they can be as low-end as their camera) never notice compression
artifacts.