| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/09/2004 11:49:03 AM · #1 |
I have a Minolta A1, 5mp camera.
I have so many options to shoot at.
640x480 which would fit perfectly in the challenges but then no room for cropping......
So i can go to the next larger size or the next or like the biggest 2460x.... or something.
Then i have the choice of fine, extra fine, tiff or raw.
When i do a shoot for a challenge i take quite a few pictures and then decide on my best so raw format doesnt seem to work well for me unless i want to take a few, load them into my comp and go back for more.
What quality do most people shoot for the challenges and for every day pictures?
Just curious
Chas
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 11:59:46 AM · #2 |
For challenges you usually want to shoot at your highest resolution and compression. This leaves room for cropping and the picture quality looks better overall. My 717 does not have Raw, but I hear thats what a lot of people prefer to edit in then they turn them into Jpegs, even for everyday stuff I like to shoot at highest quality because you never know when that shot will come and u wont have to fiddle with the quality controls and let the shot pass you by.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:13:32 PM · #3 |
Hi Chas,
I shoot with the largest format possible, and in my case, it's 2240x1680, with the lowest compression (1:2.7) in jpeg mode. The initial image is about 2.2MB in file size. I could shoot in RAW or TIFF, but for web images, there really isn't an advantage. If rapid shot-to-shot sequences are needed, perhaps a higher compression rate may help to keep the camera's buffer from being filled to fast. There have been only a few times I wish I had a little more than 3FPS.
You paid for the MegaPixels, use them. It's easier to bring an image down in size later, than trying to enlarge it and suffer image quality loss.
Just my 0.02¢
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:15:50 PM · #4 |
I always shoot at the highest jpeg setting on my camera,avoiding the 18mb tiff option.
You never know when you might get that magic shot you want for a decent sized print,at 640 you haven't a chance.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:16:28 PM · #5 |
hmm.. let say if you are on an outing and u realize you do not have sufficient memory space, do you
1> shoot at highest res, lower quality compression? or
2> shoot at lower res, highest quality compression? |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:17:05 PM · #6 |
| I always shoot at the highest resolution and in raw mode, with the intention of being able to make a 300dpi 8x10 print from my submitted challenge entry. I know a lot of people crop the heck out of their photos and get away with a lot of "stuff" that results in an image that is perfectly OK for a 600-pixel web-based photo, but make it difficult to produce a 150dpi 16x20 print of the same image. This makes it a little more challenging for me, but that's the way I do it. If you look at my challenge submissions, you'll see that the vast majority are 1.25:1 aspect ratio (or 1.5:1 for my earlier ones) for this very reason. |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:27:07 PM · #7 |
Always shoot highest resolution you can. Quality is a one way road. You can go down it, but going back up is impossible.
As far as quality, raw eats up memory too fast for my tastes, as does tiff. Using highest quality jpeg (extra fine for you or equivelant) gives great quality images, and is a fraction of the size raw / tiff.
For me, highest resolution, highest quality jpeg, is the best of both worlds. (quality / quantity) |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:28:55 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by zerocusa:
hmm.. let say if you are on an outing and u realize you do not have sufficient memory space, do you
1> shoot at highest res, lower quality compression? or
2> shoot at lower res, highest quality compression? |
Another good point!
I have a 256mb card and have found myself in a position where i can shoot in highest quality and only have 8 pictures left to shoot, so i have to decide to use lesser quality or switch to fine rather than extra fine.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:36:24 PM · #9 |
| I prefer RAW but was shooting high quality jpegs because my computer was running out of space. I take a few shots at low quality and check the results before I change over to highest quality (that's if I can find the time for it, of course). I have installed a 200GB harddrive day before yesterday and I will be shooting RAW since I will not have to worry about storing the images. |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:36:25 PM · #10 |
A lot of pros with shoot high quality Jpegs over Tiffs and Raw.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:37:26 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by ChasSourek:
I have a Minolta A1, 5mp camera.
I have so many options to shoot at.
640x480 which would fit perfectly in the challenges but then no room for cropping......
So i can go to the next larger size or the next or like the biggest 2460x.... or something.
Then i have the choice of fine, extra fine, tiff or raw.
When i do a shoot for a challenge i take quite a few pictures and then decide on my best so raw format doesnt seem to work well for me unless i want to take a few, load them into my comp and go back for more.
What quality do most people shoot for the challenges and for every day pictures?
Just curious
Chas |
always always always shoot at your highest resolution jpeg which is Large/Fine since you never know when you'll get that great photo...I don't know a single 'professional' photographer that shoots raw, it's not necessary really. On that note, I've never met anyone who uses Tif's either. In fact I had a band agent ask for some photos in Tiff and I just had this wierd look on my face [good thing it was via email] and I asked some pros and they had the same wierd look...I said no.
Message edited by author 2004-07-09 12:38:45. |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:46:36 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I don't know a single 'professional' photographer that shoots raw, it's not necessary really. On that note, I've never met anyone who uses Tif's either. In fact I had a band agent ask for some photos in Tiff and I just had this wierd look on my face [good thing it was via email] and I asked some pros and they had the same wierd look...I said no. |
I have read many statistics etc, and from speaking to the few professionals I know the split is actually about 50-50 as for Raw and Jpegs.
Reason being that the RAW lovers like the extra freedom in post processing - Andy Rouse (arguably one of the worlds most famous wildlife photograhers)shoots in RAW. They also like the option of supplying high res .TIFFS to clients when needed.
The others that shoot JPEGS do so as they feel the extra pixels are not worth the extra file size.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:50:59 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I don't know a single 'professional' photographer that shoots raw, it's not necessary really. On that note, I've never met anyone who uses Tif's either. In fact I had a band agent ask for some photos in Tiff and I just had this wierd look on my face [good thing it was via email] and I asked some pros and they had the same wierd look...I said no. |
I have read many statistics etc, and from speaking to the few professionals I know the split is actually about 50-50 as for Raw and Jpegs.
Reason being that the RAW lovers like the extra freedom in post processing - Andy Rouse (arguably one of the worlds most famous wildlife photograhers)shoots in RAW. They also like the option of supplying high res .TIFFS to clients when needed.
The others that shoot JPEGS do so as they feel the extra pixels are not worth the extra file size. |
That's why I said "I" don't know anyone.....and I don't know any wildlife or landscape/nature photographers as it's really not my thing so it sounds like they shoot differently. Is there a reason for using Tiff's? I know when I did print design work sometimes shops asked for tiff's, even then there were always ways around it. |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:53:30 PM · #14 |
I shoot with my camera on Large / Fine (highest quality) and JPG. I don't shoot RAW because I find it annoying that I can't view my images in Windows Explorer (and that's how I organize my files). I don't mind not being able to tweak in PS on that level yet. I am not a pro though, just love photography :)
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:54:27 PM · #15 |
Much better than Jpegs because they are not compressed. That's the only difference.
A TIFF is pure raw uncompressed data so is the better quality.
Also a Jpeg will loose quality overtime every time it is opened and saved. A Tiff doesn't.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:57:05 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
I shoot with my camera on Large / Fine (highest quality) and JPG. I don't shoot RAW because I find it annoying that I can't view my images in Windows Explorer (and that's how I organize my files). I don't mind not being able to tweak in PS on that level yet. I am not a pro though, just love photography :) |
Thus far I've never had a problem with a jpeg edited in PS...I actually just sold a promo shot for a band that I heavily edited in PS and they're using it poster size...then again, I haven't seen it yet so now my PS skills are being put to the test! *please don't suck please don't suck* |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:58:10 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Much better than Jpegs because they are not compressed. That's the only difference.
A TIFF is pure raw uncompressed data so is the better quality.
Also a Jpeg will loose quality overtime every time it is opened and saved. A Tiff doesn't. |
That's why you ALWAYS save a copy of the original to work with. I never open the originals after the initial look, there's no need. |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 12:59:51 PM · #18 |
I shot a band too a while ago with my old Olympus E20 and the blew one up to A2!! I was so scared it would be crappy but it came out 'top-notch'
Can I see some of your band images? How did it feel?
I was very nervous on mine, one of the band members is in Primal Scream and had just finished a shoot with kate Moss which made me feel even worse!
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 01:05:53 PM · #19 |
I always shoot the largest images possible, but with the MIDDLE compression. I did several comparison photos, and never saw any difference between the highest quality, and the second highest quality. But the file size is about 1/2 as big. This makes storage easier, and transfers faster.
I might add, I don't own a laptop or other portable storage device, and have only 352 MB of storage ( 3 cards) which is not much when you are away from your computer for a while! |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 01:10:06 PM · #20 |
I have a 1Gig card but if I shot Tiffs I can only get 52 on it!
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 01:23:41 PM · #21 |
If possible I shoot in RAW mode. One of the main reasons I am doing this as of late is to intentionally limit the number of photos I take. I am trying to A) be more thoughtful about the shots I am taking and B)avoid blasting away just because I have a 1GB card and can do so. This is not to infer that anyone else is blasting away just because they shoot jpg, it is just something I catch myself doing sometimes and am trying to work on.
I can still get about 130 RAW images on a single card, so most of the time space is not an issue, really. And I enjoy the exposure and white balance control I have over a RAW file over that of a JPG.
Having said all that, I am sure there are lots of professional situations where JPG is simply more practical over RAW for either space limitation reasons, or perhaps writing more quickly in a sports environment for example, where a lot of burst shooting is taking place.
The following article on Luminous Landscapes is a very good take on RAW files, some of their advantages, and even a little bit on why some people choose JPG anyway. Happy reading!
Understanding Raw Files
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 01:35:03 PM · #22 |
I typically shoot in my cam's lowest compression .jpg now, but shot exclusively RAW until I became more confident in my ability to get my exposure, WB etc correct.
However, contrary to popular opinion, there are reasons for shooting RAW even if you know precisely what you're doing. One example that comes to mind is shooting a night scene with a full moon. The only way to get decent exposure across the whole pic is to layer bracketed photos (expose one for the moon, another for the subject/landscape/whatever, then layer them so it's all correct). Shooting RAW allows you to save multiple copies of the same photo with varying degrees of exposure. One RAW file requires less space than multiple .jpgs, and you don't have to worry about changes in the scene, or your camera moving.
I'm sure there are lots of other reasons, I just haven't got time to think of them at the moment. :)
P
Message edited by author 2004-07-09 13:58:56. |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 02:34:46 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by ChasSourek:
Originally posted by zerocusa:
hmm.. let say if you are on an outing and u realize you do not have sufficient memory space, do you
1> shoot at highest res, lower quality compression? or
2> shoot at lower res, highest quality compression? |
Another good point!
I have a 256mb card and have found myself in a position where i can shoot in highest quality and only have 8 pictures left to shoot, so i have to decide to use lesser quality or switch to fine rather than extra fine. |
Hi Chas
I've been using an A1 for about 6 months and for challenges (and other web shots) JPEGs are just fine and take up much less space on the Compact Flash cards. I use Extra Fine for quality and 2560 x 1920 for Image Size. If I'm running short of card space while out shooting the first thing I do is to playback what I have already shot and delete as many as I can bear to part with. Sometimes I switch down to 2080 x 1560 to save space too, still plenty big enough for some cropping if the intended use is web.
A pecularity of the A1 is that it can shoot longer continuous bursts when set to the larger file size RAW quality. But it will take some time to write the files to memory before you can shoot again. If set to RAW the A1 will capture 5 images at 2 frames per second and then require about 30-45 seconds to write the files to the card and clear the buffer. In JPEG you can only do 3 shots in one burst but the write time is considerably less before you can shoot again. |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 09:27:12 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I shot a band too a while ago with my old Olympus E20 and the blew one up to A2!! I was so scared it would be crappy but it came out 'top-notch'
Can I see some of your band images? How did it feel?
I was very nervous on mine, one of the band members is in Primal Scream and had just finished a shoot with kate Moss which made me feel even worse! |
That sounds cool, do you have the photos online somewhere? I wasn't so much nervous as stoked, wanted to 'prove' myself so to speak. I've only shot one band [twice] and they're more big in France than Canada. But they called yesterday to rave about the shot and quote "it's the best promo shot in the history of the world!" lol. I'm still waiting to hear from House of Blues, they're dragging their heals, I'm supposed to shoot the Warped Tour next week...which has Bad Religion and stuff like that. |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 09:28:18 PM · #25 |
| I always shoot low quality |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/24/2025 08:44:39 AM EDT.
