Quality settings+Making sense of...

[mikeg]

OK, friends,

The Quality options in the Nikon D40 are:

3,008 x 2,000 [L], 2,256 x 1,496 [M], 1,504 x 1,000 [S]

Compression options are:

RAW, Fine, Norm [Default], Basic, RAW+Basic [2 images]

In Compression, Nikon says that "Norm," the middle setting, is sufficient for most shooting situations.
And, in using "Norm," the compression ratio is approximately 1:8.
So, I'm left wondering what do others do with their dSLR's and why :confused: ?

Thanks, mike

[peterc]

I have a Fuji S2 and generally shoot in the large/fine mode. This results in a 4.5-5MB jpeg file, which is more than enough for most uses. The quality is slightly better than the medium/fine setting. Either setting is more than is required for web or an 8x10 print.
And my photography isn't that critical that I feel I need to go with RAW files that clock in at 12+MB.
I'd suggest making some shots of the same subject at different settings and see what the differences are and then decide what works best for you.

Peter

[mikeg]

Good thinking, Peter...
Thanks, mike

[Doug]

Hi Mike -- A few years ago we did some tests with my wife's Nikon digicam to see what quality variations appeared in 8x12 prints using combinations of those settings. We found that we really wanted ALL the pixels we could manage to record, as cutting resolution had a noticeable effect on the prints. The compression level had a more subtle effect.

We'd always choose Fine unless card space becomes a limiting problem. At the time we were planning an overseas vacation, and we were looking for ways to get the most pics with the best quality using the least storage space. Going with more JPEG compression to reduce file size resulted in better looking prints than cutting back on resolution.

You might have fun doing your own series of tests to see if they come out the same.

[mikeg]

Hi there Doug, and thanks for the input.
Characteristically, on digital cameras, I've gone with L [Large] as the top setting... and with Compression, one below the highest. On the P & S with a tiny 1/2.5 inch sensor, I now jack up the Compression up to the highest, which is "Superfine" in the Canon menus. See photo:

http://www.dslrexchange.com/photopostdslrx/showphoto.php?photo=2897&limit=recent

As for the Nikon D40, two tests will follow:

L Large for quality [top setting]
Norm for Compression [middle setting, Nikon recommends]

Another option is:
RAW+Basic... in other words, the D40 is producing 2 images: one in RAW and
a 2nd at Large/Basic. "Basic" is the setting with the most amount of jpeg compression.

Given prior experience, I don't think that going "down" to the Norm or middle D40 compression setting, will yield much loss in theD40 image quality...

More later with pix.
Cheers, mike
BTW: Hows your dSLR?

[w3rk5]

So, I'm left wondering what do others do with their dSLR's and why :confused: ?


I shot with a D1H mostly in FINE/JPEG. Fortunately/unfortunately the JPEG/FINE setting (1/4 compression) @ 2000 x 1312 produces a file size approx 1.3 MB. So the space to quality ratio doesn't really apply to me. :)

Even when I decide to shot in RAW, the file size is only approx 3.8 MB. :D

[Doug]

I shot with a D1H mostly in FINE/JPEG. Fortunately/unfortunately the JPEG/FINE setting (1/4 compression) @ 2000 x 1312 produces a file size approx 1.3 MB. So the space to quality ratio doesn't really apply to me. :)That's a nice compact file size, but surely the D1H can output higher resolution than 2.5 Mpixels, and why wouldn't you choose to?

[Sylvaticus]

If you define your final use as posting permitted sizes to forums or making not too large prints, from uncropped exposures, then any digital camera will probably have adequate pixel counts and image compressions (at less less bulk and weight than a DSLR). But you will likely find that digital noise (image grain) is a strongly limiting factor for many cameras. And if you want to crop, you hit the ceiling very quicly, if you're not there already. Furthermore, JPEG is a lossy compression method (you can't restore the information that gets discarded, the compressed version is permanently degraded), and you lose more every time you edit and save a .jpg image.

So yes, I start with raw, and edit and archive in Tiff (lossless). Then I'm free to make .jpg copies in any smaller size and compression grade, for whatever purpose, The idea is to degrade an image to a tolerable limit for what it's intended for.

[mikeg]

Hi...
This is for Sylvaticus and anyone else:
What Editing software do you use? I have Irfanview v 4.0, the latest, and something has to be fixed in the Desktop, so that I can view and edit the images, and then save them in Tiff.

Resizing is my nemesis :-( ... the moving around of the pixels + saving in jpeg, results in serious loss of image quality. BTW: I can get Photoshop 7 free, but Photoshop and me do not get along so well :rolleyes:

So, let's hear it for some editing software and input on Resizing and file saving.
Thanks, mike

[Doug]

So, let's hear it for some editing software and input on Resizing and file saving.Hi Mike -- You seem to be successful in getting a few well-sized edited images uploaded, so you're doing something right. :) I'm puzzled about your statement something has to be fixed in the Desktop, though.

Anyway, starting with a copy of the original file, I do all my editing in the full-size image... crop, rotate, curves, etc. Once I have it looking the way I want, I may then apply a bit of sharpening, add a border, and use "Save a Copy As" to make a full-size source-file for printing later and save it in the "To Print" folder.

Then I Undo the border and sharpening steps before Scaling it down to smaller size. Most programs have a way of "zooming" the view to see the picture in different sizes on the screen. That's handy, but won't change the actual pic. Most also can change the "Canvas size" and that too is not what we're after here. Nor do we want to Crop. We want to "Scale" the photo down to a smaller number of pixels.

There's usually a "Keep Proportions" checkbox so that the scale is applied equally both vertically and horizontally. The display shows the current dimensions. You can enter the number of pixels you want for one side, and the other side will recalculate automatically due to the proportional constraint. I usually set 798 pixels on the long side for the galleries here, or 510 pixels wide for p.net. Then I apply a little sharpening and my border, and "Save As" to one folder where all my small uploadable image files are kept.

The JPEG Save As window includes a slider to control the degree of compression, and as I move the slider I can see the file size display change. So, for our galleries here, I bring the file below 150k (yeah, I know DSLRX allows 180k and supposedly the RFF limit is now 300k). For the smaller 510-pixel wide ones destined for p.net, I have to make sure file size is below their 100k limit. I'll often save my pics in two sizes each to conform to these different requirements.

Most programs have a "Save for Web" option, in one way or another, and this is what you want to do. For all this I use a Mac shareware program called GraphicConverter from http://www.lemkesoft.com/ a developer located in Germany. It's frequently updated, and over the years has added a lot of useful features beyond the nominal task of converting graphics from one file format to another. It's a pretty capable graphics editing program now, even featuring a "browser" catalog view with thumbnails of all files in any designated folder.

Does this help with your concerns, Mike?

[w3rk5]

That's a nice compact file size, but surely the D1H can output higher resolution than 2.5 Mpixels, and why wouldn't you choose to?

The D1H is a 2.6 megapixel camera. :o

[mikeg]

Thanks so much, Doug, Sylvaticus and w3rk5.
I take something useful from ALL your comments above. Yes, the D40's default Large-Norm is 1:8 compression, and Large-Fine is 1:4. I also want to try editing and archiving in Tiff. Doug, I'm going to check out the Link to GraphicConverter.
More later... mike

[Doug]

The D1H is a 2.6 megapixel camera. :oOh, er, obviously I didn't know that!:eek:

[Sylvaticus]

MigeG

I have an EOS camera, so I use the Canon EOS raw viewing software to convert raw to tiff. I can also adjust the whitepoint setting if necessary.

I edit in Photoshop. Straighten, perspective, crop if necessary. Optimize contrast, colour correction etc.

Photoshop has several options for resizing: Image/Image size (both up or down by resampling), File/Automate/Fit image (e.g. to make an image 500px wide or tall for posting to a forum), Help/Resize image (to spcified dimensions in inches for printing or pixels for screen).

I use Unsharp mask to sharpen for screen (50%) or printing (100%), i.e. just enough to compensate for losses in either medium. That's what unsharp mask is for.

Regarding compression and degradation, I've found that jpg grade 5 is OK for screen viewing including the web.

A jpg copy is the end of the road - do everything like resizing and sharpening first, than save the jpg. If you need to rectify something later, go back to the good tiff version, do what you have to do and finishing by saving the new jpg version. That's your protection on the web. Never post a jpg that's better than it need be, then if someone nicks it and starts playing around with it, their results can only get worse.

The final edited tiff file is backed up and cleared from the hard disk. Ultimately, the only version that gets left on the hard disk is 1600x1200 jpg, that I can view full screen with e.g. IrfanView, and is incorporated in an image database (ACDSee) so I can keep track of everything and see where the original is in the back-up archive.

If you have the opportunity to get PS, even an earlier version like 7, I would take it. I agree it's daunting, but get a good book like Martin Evening's "Adobe Photoshop 7.0 for Photographers" (Focal Press 2002), you might have to go secondhand in view of its version. It's the same whatever you want to do, you need to master the tools of the trade. Some people think they can do carpentry with a loose hammer and a firewood saw. The softest option is put the camera on full auto and take the result to a shop for processing, but you're obviously eager to be more ambitious than that.