Image size

[SimesWales]

Firstly, apologies if I have posted in the wrong forum.
I have been reading different website and now I am confused.
Should I set up any digital camera to use largest image or not?
Opinions say yes to make the most of the sensor on any digital camera. Is this correct or an over simplification?

Thanks all.

[Dave Humphries]

This is probably as good a place as any.

If you are shooting jpg; yes, use the largest size - and the highest quality (usually called "Fine").

[SimesWales]

Agreed for jpeg but does it make any difference for raw? I have only been shooting raw for about 6 months now.

[Shadowman]

The final choice is really yours, if you can get an acceptable capture at the minimum settings then do so. There's always a reason to use the maximum setting, the decision depends on how you plan to use the medium. I've tried capturing images at the settings and for online viewing only, the results are acceptable, however if I'm planning to print; especially through an online printing service and I'm required to downsize before uploading I want the best possibly capture prior to downsizing.

[Inkanyezi]

Agreed for jpeg but does it make any difference for raw? I have only been shooting raw for about 6 months now.

Unless you shoot a smaller format in RAW, it makes no difference. I.e. with a full frame camera, shooting in APS-C mode may generate an image that is smaller, by cropping.

[SimesWales]

Current digital camera is Fuji Finepix S1, six months of using it.
Maximum print size is A4. Usually 7x5 inches that is, UK here.
Usually view images full size on a 21" monitor.
Don't really post to online sites and since I have got back into photography, now, digital, using raw, I keep visiting my images and try to improve on post production.
Sorry if it seems a bit vague. I have been bitten by the photography bug again, just now it's digital after knowing what to do with emulsion.

[DanK]

Hi. Can you please add your name to your profile? We address each other by real names here.

It's true that you could store less than the full 16 MP your camera can capture and still print fine at 5 x 7, but I still see no reason to do it. When you store at a smaller size, you are throwing out information that you can never recapture. If you decide at a later date, for example, that you want to crop substantially or to print larger, then you may want those pixels. And there is almost no downside. Storage is very cheap now, and if you cull out some of the photos you know that you don't want to keep, storage shouldn't be a burden.

[Geoff F]

Yes, as Dan and others have mentioned, there is little point in reducing your image size at the time of shooting.

For example, supposing you were set up small just for 7 x 5 prints and you happened to witness something really exciting happening where the world's newspapers etc would be clamouring for your image and waving fist fulls of cash in front of you. Would you then be happy to say 'Sorry, I only have a very small size image available so no deal' !

[rpcrowe]

Yes, as Dan and others have mentioned, there is little point in reducing your image size at the time of shooting.

For example, supposing you were set up small just for 7 x 5 prints and you happened to witness something really exciting happening where the world's newspapers etc would be clamouring for your image and waving fist fulls of cash in front of you. Would you then be happy to say 'Sorry, I only have a very small size image available so no deal' !

Totally agree with Dan. A 16 GB card will store a great number of RAW full size images. I see no reason for shooting in any mode except full-size RAW. My main CF cards are three 16GB and four 4GB cards and I almost never need to revert to my slower speed CF cards. I have been using these cards for years with no problems. They are like the Energizer Bunny, they just keep going and going

[marlunn]

agree with shooting to the highest file quality either jpg or raw, you may at the moment only print small - but next month - two months you may want to go to A3. If your images are all max size for camera - no problem, would say if you are re-bitten by photography (same as a few more of us) , look around at local camera clubs - there are a few here in south wales that are excellent at helping people with this kind of thing and chatting with them and seeing is believing in many cases! They will show you prints up to A3 + so you see the benefit of it with your own eyes.

[SimesWales]

Thanks guys, storage and costs for storage are not a problem. Looks like my camera is going to be set largest size and highest quality in the morning.

[SimesWales]

Name added to profile. Sorry, thought it was there.

[Dave Humphries]

Simon,

I'm not familiar with your camera, but I very much doubt the size setting affects RAW files captured.

Those size settings (L, M, S) will affect the size of the jpg files when shooting "jpg" and "jpg+RAW", but not the RAW files AFAIK.

Some cameras (e.g. my D7100) do have a 'reduced frame size' RAW capture; effectively a crop (e.g. the central 15MP area of sensor is used), but that's not the same thing as those file size settings in jpg, since these just 'throw away' (over simplification) some of the data, by making files with less pixels in, but gathering data from the entire sensor area and averaging it.

I reviewed the S1 specs and do not see the Fuji S1 having a 'reduced frame size' RAW capture feature.

Cheers, Dave

[SimesWales]

Thanks for that input Dave. Looks like I have some late night reading/research to do now. So much for an early night.

[Manfred M]

Simon - you are shooting a superzoom with a tiny sensor, so in spite of the 18.4MP rating, you really have a relatively limited amount of data to play with. If you look at this editing illustration from Wikipedia, it shows the relative sensor sizes (yours is 1/2.3"), so it is nestled in there just a bit larger than the smallest sensor shown:



You came from film (I assume 35mm), so this should show you how much magnification (in digital parlance; upsampling) the image will require to produce an A4 or 5" x7" print. Digital upsampling relies on data interpolation and the more you upsample, the softer your print will be. Your computer display is likely to have a pixel density somewhere just above 100 pixels / inch, put printers use a native resolution of 300 dots / inch (for HP and Canon printers) and 360 dots / inch for Epson.

As others have stated, the jpeg are where you get smaller image sizes (as measured by pixel height and width), but in raw, you get the maximum resolution your camera can produce.

[SimesWales]

Thanks for the above Manfred, that's made things plain now. One less niggle now.