Yumology wrote:.
Ok, I just got the canon xt, my first dslr, so i'm learning things.here's my Q's:.
Congratulations on your new camera!.
When should I use RAW image write mode? (not sure if i'll ever turnit on..).
RAW allows greater leeway for your shots. When you shoot in JPEG or other standard formats, the image is locked in to the settings you make on the camera itself. With RAW you can reset many of these controls, AFTER the shot. In addition you have more leeway in altering the exposure. If the highlights are blown, you "might" be able to regain them if you had shot RAW..
There's more to it than that, but that's why some people shoot RAW..
What size resolution should I be on?Is there situations for different sizes?.
Resolution should be whatever you want. If the sole purpose of shooting is to e-mail an 640 x 480 image to your friend, you might not want additional size..
If I take a photo at max res (3456 x 2304) then resize it to 1728 x1152, will I be losing image quality compared to taking a shot at1728x1152 originally?.
If anything you should gain a bit of IQ..
If I send a photo at 3456 x 2304 to get printed at the lab, will theyreduce it's quality some?.
If they do, use a different lab... .
What's the best resolution to send to a lab for 4x6 printed photos?Here's a real dumb question,.
Send them the image at the resolution that you saved it at. It amounts to what your indidual needs are. Personally, I always save images at the highest possible resolution. It's both easier and better to downsize an image, if I have to, then upsize it if I found out it's to small..
If I don't shoot in max resolution, am Inot using all of my cameras Megapixels?.
Depends on the make and model of the camera. But it's always better to downsize, then upsize an image..
See I can't understand how the writing process works in my camera.Does the camera take all pictures the same no matter what resolution,then after the picture is taken the camera quickly converts it intothe resolution I set it to? For some reason, in my head, it makessense that smaller pictures should produce more detail, and largerpictures sacrifice detail for a larger size..
No, a smaller image may appear to be crisper, a characteristic of the human brain rather than the image..
Dave..
Chato wrote:.
If I take a photo at max res (3456 x 2304) then resize it to 1728 x1152, will I be losing image quality compared to taking a shot at1728x1152 originally?.
If anything you should gain a bit of IQ..
Dave.
Forgive me because I am new to how photography works. But I am well versed in television and the digital world in general..
In television's each pixel that makes up the image has a certain pixel width. When you present to many pixels in a small display you get what is refered to as pixel overlap. This can cause colors in an image to run together and create a very soft image lacking the fine edge sharpness that makes a clear picture..
Does this differ then from photography?..
JG30 wrote:.
Chato wrote:.
If I take a photo at max res (3456 x 2304) then resize it to 1728 x1152, will I be losing image quality compared to taking a shot at1728x1152 originally?.
If anything you should gain a bit of IQ..
Dave.
Forgive me because I am new to how photography works. But I am wellversed in television and the digital world in general..
In television's each pixel that makes up the image has a certainpixel width. When you present to many pixels in a small display youget what is refered to as pixel overlap. This can cause colors in animage to run together and create a very soft image lacking the fineedge sharpness that makes a clear picture..
Does this differ then from photography?.
I didn't phrase my remarks well, and should have made it clear that the "apparent" IQ would improve for specific purposes..
For example if I posted a 4288 pixel wide image here, it would not look crisp. You would be looking at the individual pixels. While if I posted an 800 pixel version it would look sharp and clear..
Another example is that I process my images in ACR at 6400 (?) pixels, but once loaded into photoshop immediately downsize them to the cameras actual resolution of 4288. To a small extent this cuts down on noise..
Dave..
Yes apparent does seem to be a better word. I pretty well know the effects of resizing when viewed on a fixed pixel display, what most people use anymore..
I wonder how that correlates to prints though? Same, similar, or vastly different? I know very little in that respect...
JG30 wrote:.
Yes apparent does seem to be a better word. I pretty well know theeffects of resizing when viewed on a fixed pixel display, what mostpeople use anymore..
I wonder how that correlates to prints though? Same, similar, orvastly different? I know very little in that respect..
I print at 16 x 20 or larger. I am forced to upsize to maintain a normal look. If I did not upsize, my images would contain the dreaded jaggies... .
I'm careful about this, have superb software, etc. But I would be happier if my camera took 100 meg images... .
There is a small loss of quality..
If I printed at 4x6, using normal screening techniques, I would be better off downsizing a bit. Since I use a form of Stochastic Screening, I don't bother..
Dave..
Let's address these questions out of order:.
Yumology wrote:.
Does the camera take all pictures the same no matter what resolution,then after the picture is taken the camera quickly converts it intothe resolution I set it to?.
Correct. With a couple of exceptions in pro-level DSLRs, the camera always captures and processes the same amount of dataan entire sensor's worth. This is then converted to the size that you have specified and then stored onto the memory card..
For some reason, in my head, it makes sense that smaller pictures shouldproduce more detail, and larger pictures sacrifice detail for a larger size..
That's not the case. Although it should be noted that noise and demosaicing artifacts are usually partially canceled out at the smaller sizes. Not more detail, but maybe a cleaner looking picture..
However, you can get the same result (or almost the same result) by shrinking the picture yourself, or by letting the printing process shrink the picture..
If I take a photo at max res (3456 x 2304) then resize it to 1728 x1152, will I be losing image quality compared to taking a shot at1728x1152 originally?.
Not much, if at allany difference would generally be in noise and demosaicing artifacts, although certainly you could turn out a worse result by resizing using a terrible resizing algorithm. Try it and see..
Is there situations for different sizes?.
One big consideration is how you think of what the camera is doing. When you press the shutter button, is it capturing data or is it capturing a picture? If you think of it capturing data, then you won't want to throw any data away. If you think of it capturing a picture, then any data that doesn't make your picture visibly better is worthless..
When should I use RAW image write mode?.
This is a topic that leads to endless discussions. Many people believe that Raw is the One True Way to shoot pictures. Others don't. Yes. No. Yes.
Yes. No..
Blah..
If you're a data capturer, then Raw captures the most data and is the clear choice..
If you're a picture capturer, Raw gives you more flexibility in postprocessing your photos. One cost of shooting Raw is that you MUST postprocess your photos; a Raw file is just a dump of sensor data and not a picture until you use a Raw converter program to interpret the data and create a picture from it..
What size resolution should I be on?.
Not relevant to Rawonly the Canon 1DmkIII gives a choice of Raw resolution at the moment..
For JPEG: whatever suits your needs. Most people shoot nothing but maximum resolution. The only "cost" of the higher resolution is storage space and processing time, and not so much of the latter. I shoot small JPEGs when making test shots and for photos that are purely for uploading..
If I send a photo at 3456 x 2304 to get printed at the lab, will theyreduce it's quality some?.
They'll reduce the resolution unless you're printing poster-size. But you won't be able to tell because you can't see the difference at smaller sizes..
What's the best resolution to send to a lab for 4x6 printed photos?.
Whatever's convenient. The photo labs can only print up to about 320 pixels per inch, so anything above 1920x1280 is overkill. Your 1728x1152 will print at 288 pixels per inch, which is essentially as finely detailed as you'll be able to make out on a 4x6..
If you're uploading from your computer using a dial-up modem, you probably want to keep the file size small. If you've got broadband or are using the kiosk at the store, it's probably faster to just give 'em the big file than to go to the trouble to shrink it...
Another take on your questions:.
Yumology wrote:.
Ok, I just got the canon xt, my first dslr, so i'm learning things.here's my Q's:.
When should I use RAW image write mode? (not sure if i'll ever turnit on..).
Some people shoot RAW all the time. Main benefits - much greater flexibility to get the best out of the shot you took - greater ability to reprocess later to improve the image (either with the same software which you have learned to use better or with improved software) - Particularly useful, when stretching a cemara to it's limits e.g high dynamic range shots/difficult White Balance because of mixed lighting etc. For a begijner it can be instructive if you have good camera dedicated RAW sotware to take some photos and play with them in RAW to see how each control like White Blance affects the image. That should make you a better photographer..
What size resolution should I be on?.
Short answer always use maximum..
The real question is what compression should I be using? Fine? Normal? (or whatever Canon calls them). Fine jpegs will be a much larger file size. That gives two problems. The need for much larger storage capacity (C drive and back up drive etc). Secondly slower load time. When viewing your pics on you own PC this will hardly be a problem but if you store & display them on line or regularly email large numbers of photos it will become so.
Even if you have one do your friends and relations?.
Is there situations for different sizes?.
Not really. I find it difficult to understand why the facility is still on cameras. It is a legacy thing. You can just Right Click on a full size photo in Windows and get a reduced image size to email but equally you can send the full size image with a broadband connection or post the URL to a photo website by email. One may need to resize when building a website but chances are the size you require will not be standard sizes offered by your camera. I would prefer not to have the facility.
If the shot is worth keeping you might as well have it at full res and reduce it if needed. Photo storage sites like Zenfolio automatically produce a range of sizes from every full size image you upload. e.g.:.
580 x 386.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
1110 x 733.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
I just uploaded the original and I can link to a choice of 8 sizes to post here or wherever including linking into any website.
If I take a photo at max res (3456 x 2304) then resize it to 1728 x1152, will I be losing image quality compared to taking a shot at1728x1152 originally?.
I asked the same question myself a good while ago (There must be some reason why I have these other settings I reasoned - There is not!).
If I send a photo at 3456 x 2304 to get printed at the lab, will theyreduce it's quality some?.
I sincerely hope not..
What's the best resolution to send to a lab for 4x6 printed photos?.
Full resolution..
Here's a real dumb question, If I don't shoot in max resolution, am Inot using all of my cameras Megapixels?.
You are using all the pixels.The camera interpolates down to the resolution you have chosen. Why should you want to do that? - Good question!.
See I can't understand how the writing process works in my camera.Does the camera take all pictures the same no matter what resolution,then after the picture is taken the camera quickly converts it intothe resolution I set it to?.
Already answered above..
For some reason, in my head, it makessense that smaller pictures should produce more detail, and largerpictures sacrifice detail for a larger size..
That is only correct when you have passed the optimum size for producing the picture with your chosen output medium..
It is generally accepted that an output resolution of 300 DPI (dots per inch i.e pixels per inch) will give a good sharp print. So a 6 megapixel camera at 3000 x 2000 full resolution can produce a 10" x 6.6" or in practice an A4 sort of size print. Your XT will produce A4+.
Hope that helps. But I cannot sign off without saying it is a pleasure to answer an intelligent question. I get very tired of people asking questions that are easily answered by reading their instruction manual!.
Chris Elliott.
*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.
Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..
Being an ever unskilled amateur, to me the simplest approach is, provided you have PS or something that allows you to handle raw files easily enough: RAW at maximum resolution.Why?.
About RAW:.
*Easier to correct exposure. I know you don't need to neither, but just in case.
*You can forget about WB, which is awfully convenient if you don't use AWB all the time. If you've gone outdoors with your tungsten setting sometime, you know what I mean..
About size:.
*Quality wise It's usually better to have to downsize than to upsample. Specially for a newbie or not having specialized software.*Do you crop? Fancy the occasional 8X10"?.
Above all, fact is you likely don't know what you want. Imagine that you say "Well Ok, I'm 99.9% sure I'll never print bigger than 4x6" so what's the use of large pics" 6 months later you realize that you're looking at your pics in your 17" LCD that you soon replace for a 21". Then you realize a year after that you're pickier and pickier about those jpeg artifacts, clipped highlights, colour hues etc. It's definitely safer to have the maximum data to work with..
In a nutshell, low rez jpgs is for those who really know what they're doing :o).
The only real drawback is storage quite minor if you ask me. Post processing is not such a burden if you're not a really heavy shooter..
Regards.
My Galleries:http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html..
Yumology wrote:.
Does the camera take all pictures the same no matter what resolution,then after the picture is taken the camera quickly converts it intothe resolution I set it to?.
Doug Pardee wrote:Correct. With a couple of exceptions in pro-level DSLRs, the cameraalways captures and processes the same amount of dataan entiresensor's worth. This is then converted to the size that you havespecified and then stored onto the memory card..
Doug that answer clears up a LOT of questions I had..
Yumology wrote:what resolution should I be on?.
Chris Elliot wrote:The maximum always!.
It's funny that you wonder why they even haven an option on the camera to change res since you never will use any other resolution. Anyways, your comments are very enlightening too and thanks..
Everyone else, I really appreciate the help and I feel smarter coming to this site. Thanks so much for all the responses. My guesses were not correct and I'm glad I asked!..
A quick addition re RAW..
I now use it but for 6 years shot JPEG. Much of my shooting is now available light theatre photography - at the margins stuff. There it is very useful. I tend now also to take less demanding shots in RAW because I am used to it..
RAW works well and is easy to use WITH THE RIGHT SOFTWARE. Good software will read the settings in your camera and produce a photo as soon as you load your files and click on the thumbnail. You will straight away have an image that is ready to print. If you are 100% happy you can print, save a jpeg copy etc. If you are happy with the first couple of a batch - say all shot at a birthday party - you can batch process them all to turn them into jpegs with no change in the settings (or maybe just one e.g changing the White Balance.).
RAW is definitely more fiddly than JPEG but it does give you more control. If you are like me and tweak most of you better output (Even if only to tighten the shot with a 5% crop) then it is not much more effort to use RAW..
Do try it. I know very liitle about Canon software but I know you do get good free RAW software with the cam. Take some test shots in particular:.
1. Take one shot of a totally grey object close up to fill the frame and watch what happens to your RGB histogram when you change the White Balance settings..
2. Take another shot in a situation of bright contrast and change the EV up and down to see what happens both to the photo and your RGB histogram.3. Oversharpen an image and watch the histogram change..
4. Play about with levels and curves making a S shapes and watch the image and histogram change.
A good task for a wet day!.
Give it a try so you are not afraid of it. It might be just what you need to save the day some time in the future..
Chris Elliott.
*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.
Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..
If you are somehow low on storage..
As for "extra data are worthless for typical prints unless you are pixel-peeper", - Generally yes, but if you, say, shot something without even being able to look at the LCD, you may need radical crop. Also if it turns out that heavy postpro is needed to recover the shot, bigger is better. And, frankly, I like more control resizin on the PC does provide...
RAW..
If for some reasons you don't want to use RAW, then maximum resolution, maximum quality jpegs..
Edvinas..
Edvinas wrote:.
If for some reasons you don't want to use RAW, then maximumresolution, maximum quality jpegs..
I have to disagree with this sentiment..
The reason that one doesn't want to use Raw is certainly going to be that something else is more important than image quality (IQ). The "maximum resolution, maximum quality" recommendation assumes that IQ is paramount, but if IQ *was* paramount then you'd be shooting Raw. Whatever reason you're *not* shooting Raw is probably going to also mitigate against shooting "max resolution, max quality"..
In particular, the "maximum quality" setting almost never provides a visible benefit to the picture. The "normal quality" setting on most modern digital cameras is equal to the "maximum quality" of older digital cameras, and about what Photoshop produces when saving a JPEG at "Maximum (10)" quality yes, I know that in a "Spinal Tap" moment Photoshop offers quality levels 11 and 12..
Not everyone is totally obsessed with IQ. Some of us are shooting pictures for less demanding uses. For a photo to be slapped up on a web site, minimum resolution and minimum quality is quite sufficient...
First, re>It's funny that you wonder why they even haven an option on the camera to change res since you never will use any other resolution. <.
Yeah, but there are lots of features on modern cameras that are completely unnecessary, including all those fancy modes with the little icons for taking pictures of figure skaters on mountains, and so on..
ABOUT RESOLUTION.
The only time I've ever needed lower resolution was when shooting pinstriped shirts, and then making small and medium sized prints, and web images. The parallel lines started to create a mosaic..
You see the same think of television when a person is wearing a herringbone jacket, or a narrow stripped tie..
When prints are made on big machines at labs, where low-priced like Costco or at fancy expensive places, the machines automatically adjust the resolution, for the best quality..
When you make your own prints on an inkjet printer, or have them made for you on an ink jet printer, it is often, but not always, a good idea for you to set the resolution, in the sense of 3000 pixels by 2000 pixels, not in the sense of 72ppi or 300ppi. Usually your software will automatically make adjustments for you..
But software varies, so there's no constant rule..
WHEN TO CHANGE RESOLUTION FOR SHOOTING.
Pretty much the only reason I can think of with modern digital SLR cameras is when you are running out of memory on your card, or shooting large numbers of pictures you know you will not print large, and are worried about hard drive space. Say, 500 shots of stamps that will never be printed more than 4x6..
WHEN TO CHANGE RESOLUTION FOR PRINTING.
IF you want to combine several images on the same new print, you need to pay attention to the ppi kind of resolution. I do this all the time..
Example: I make a 4x6 print that contians small images from five different frames, plus some type, and use these as business cards..
So I open a new blank Photoshop Elements image, and size it to 4 x 6 images at 300ppi..
Then I edit a frame I want to include. For a picture fill half a card, I'd set the resolution to 300ppi, and crop the shot so it was only containing what I wanted, in proper porportion..
Then, I'd reduce the "absolute" resolution (the 3000 x 2000 stuff) so that the shot was 1200 pixels high (that is 4 inches at 300 pixels per inch)..
Save it, and drag it onto the new blank Photoshop Elements file, where it will fill half the card..
Repeat for other pix to fill the other half, add type, etc..
By getting every image to 300ppi, we keep consistency onthe new 4x6 image..
Once it goes to the lab (Costco, in my case, usually) the machine tehre will adjust the resolution again to fit it's own technology..
BAK..