technical quality question

thebaz

Now that i have upgraded to the d 300 , the image size has got massive due to the bigger sensor.
As i take so many shots , i still use jpeg , so i increased the quality from Normal to Fine (lowered compression from 1: 8 to 1 : 4)

I don't notice much difference in quality , but its using up a lot more space , and a lot slower to upload images :mad:

Am i right to use the finer quality ?

Thanks,
b.

DotOrg

i could never buy a high end camera and then turn down the quality setting, even a bit.

It's like buying a ferrari and putting a speed limiter of 100km/hr on it
Most of the time you won't notice it, but ever so often you'll want to go 200

melekalikimaka

i agree

thebaz

cheers guys , the ever increasing pixel size , seams only relevent if you want to print very large prints , which i have never done.
I got the camea , more to improve image quality , rather than to print larger sizes.

anyway take your advice.
B.

Hugh_C

thebaz wrote: »

cheers guys , the ever increasing pixel size , seams only relevent if you want to print very large prints , which i have never done.
I got the camea , more to improve image quality , rather than to print larger sizes.

anyway take your advice.
B.

Big drives are cheap these days thebaz, better off taking the hit and storing RAW files. That's what I'd try to do ...

Paulw

Clearly, the smaller the file size, the smaller the possible print.

If you're only posting online, then small jpg will do you. If you ever have desire or ambition, or need to print larger, you're in serious trouble.

It's always better to generate large files, with as much detail as possible, and then shrink/resize.

melekalikimaka

thebaz wrote: »

I got the camea , more to improve image quality , rather than to print larger sizes.

B.

shooting in jpeg is worse quality than raw, artifacts are gonna pop up even on first gen copies

Covey

I only shoot raw Barry, the difference is just enormous. Just bought two 500 gig external drives also. Circa 200 Euro.

T.

thebaz

cheers guys , one of these days i'll make the jump ... i'm such a technophobe -- i can't wait to go back to paint and canvas

shepthedog

Better to have and not need than to want and not have

Definitely shoot bigger, theres no downside, memory both in form of memory cards and hard drives are both so cheap these days that it makes sense..

You never know when you might need the extra quality RAW may give you..
Best of luck with the new camera also..

snellers

the pricing on hard drives is falling drastically - recently seen plenty of 500gb units (western digital for less than €100) - I'm sure there are others

quilmore

thebaz wrote: »

and a lot slower to upload images :mad:

my internet provider offers an upgrade to 4 times my actual upload speed for 10 euro a month, that is less than 1% of what the camera costed, if upload speed is an issue may be consider to upgrade your upload internet connection

duffarama

thebaz wrote: »

Now that i have upgraded to the d 300 , the image size has got massive due to the bigger sensor.

You don't have a bigger sensor, you have more pixels and these are causing your files to be larger. You could try compress your photos before putting them online to increase the speed of upload.

Anouilh

duffarama wrote: »

You don't have a bigger sensor, you have more pixels and these are causing your files to be larger. You could try compress your photos before putting them online to increase the speed of upload.

I use Irfanview to prepare photos for upload to the net.

The resize feature allows for custom sizing, dpi and even the application of a
Bell or Mitchell filter (among others). It's quick and also means that people are not tempted to pirate the images as they are small.