fine / normal / basic jpg? « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

fine / normal / basic jpg?

(25 posts) (10 voices)

Tags:

seba316

senior member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 62
offline

Hi guys, I normally take pictures on my D90 using a medium size / fine jpg set up. I recently shot some pictures using fine, normal, and basic and couldn't tell the difference on my computer screen. Maybe basic looked slightly different although I couldn't say worse... Now, the file size cuts in half (approx.) as you move down from fine.

What is your experience with this? Does it affect printing that much? I'm favoring medium / normal right now (KR suggests using simply basic jpg).

Please don't tell me to shoot raw instead. I understand the advantages (I think) but I'm not there yet. Maybe in the future (far future...).

Thanks.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Ken also suggest you only use a film camera !!! Seba I recommend you shoot at least in high Jpeg setting. The reason is once "your there" in your photography skills you'll regret having taken all of your pictures in low resoulution jpeg !!!

Yes on the LCD you wont see difference but you will if you ever decide to print a nice picture up to a larger size.

You spent BIG money on a D90 !!! Why do you only want to use it as you would a 2megapixel cellphone camera? I hope that makes sense to you.

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Yeah, I'm not sure how much of a difference it is. I mean, I don't mind shooting JPEG fine with a 6 megapixel D40, but I'm sure file sizes would be much larger if I shot JPEG fine on a D90.

I had thought about it, but it hurts my brain thinking about it.

I don't do much post processing (I will change that when I have more time in the future), so I don't think JPEG fine does anything for me- yet.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

Niko is right, you will regret that you used "lesser" file formats in the future when you look back on it. When I shot in JPG, I always used the large JPG fine. Because of this, when I look back, many of my shots are still well worth it and can be put side by side with my JPG converted from RAW shots.

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Yeah, good point guys. Either way, I gotta store those photos, might as well do it right the first time.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

NSXType-R: For you and what you do now, what you have is fine. I got some great shots when I had my D40 but for what I do, I quickly saw the limitations of it. With wildlife stuff, you will almost always crop so I need the highest quality files I can get. I also PP, not as extensively as many but almost every file has been screwed with a least a little. I tend to expose for highlights so I intentionally underexpose then bring out the shadow later. I also don't like using a flash.

Yes storage can become an issue if you're not the type to pop in another hard drive like I am whenever it's needed. I now have over a TB of hard drive space and about 700 MB free. That will disappear fast over the winter as my main shooting season picks up and I load all those 10-12 MB NEF files onto my system.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

If you have the space you may as well shoot in fine. That said, I know I never look at my pictures at 100% (unless I'm obsessing about some new lens I've bought). On my 24 inch iMac, I still can't see an entire picture at 100%.

There are times when it would make really good sense to shoot JPEG basic. If you are shooting pictures that will be displayed on the web for instance, those smaller file sizes will upload faster, and your viewers will never know the difference. I believe you also get faster FPS when you shoot in basic... And your buffer won't fill up as quickly.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Willis, if you want to email pictures then always scale down after with a computer! The picture you take in your camera for ONLY email might be that of bigfoot taking a dump in your garden or a Martian getting into his UFO with your dog and Time magazine or your girlfriend is going to want that picture printed at a higher resolution!

That and I guarantee your going to forget to reset the resolution when you go get your car washed at Hooters :^)

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Sure you can do it that way... but there are extra steps involved. I was thinking more along the lines of Live Blogging or something like that.

Admin doesn't want to wait for you to get home and post-process that picture of the D700x that you snapped a picture of on the shelf at Best buy. He wants you to take a picture on JPEG basic with an eye-fi card that instantly uploads it to flickr. That way you can e-mail him from your smart phone and he can post it here. By the time you get home we'll already be posting about how it was obviously photoshopped.

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

I guess you could always scale down your photos in camera if you hate hassle, but you can never upscale, of course.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

"If you are shooting pictures that will be displayed on the web for instance, those smaller file sizes will upload faster, and your viewers will never know the difference. I believe you also get faster FPS when you shoot in basic... And your buffer won't fill up as quickly."

When I'm PP, I get more accurate results viewing 100% of the original files. I do resize them after I'm done so I never know how fast an unsized file would upload. As far as faster FPS, not in my experience with my cameras, especially the D300. The only time it slows down is if for some reason I shoot in 14 bit vs 12 bit RAW. In all other RAW and JPG formats I have no trouble fire off 6FPS almost continuously. Granted, I've not shot more than 10 in a row at that rate. Perhaps if I attempted 100 in a row I might have problems. Then again, if that's the case, it may be best to just shoot a video (hence video capabilities of newer SLR's).

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

"Willis, if you want to email pictures then always scale down after with a computer! The picture you take in your camera for ONLY email might be that of bigfoot taking a dump in your garden or a Martian getting into his UFO with your dog and Time magazine or your girlfriend is going to want that picture printed at a higher resolution!

That and I guarantee your going to forget to reset the resolution when you go get your car washed at Hooters :^)"

Thanks Niko! I now have to clean the soda I just spit all over my monitor due to the uncontrolled laughter your post just induced on me LOL.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

I get you Willis, but in your D700x scenario why not just use a 2megapixel cellphone camera and email it instantly? Your using the wrong tool for the wrong job if you walk into BestBuy and take a picture of it with a D300S.

Oh yeah you can now shoot both with the D300S ! Low rez saved in one memory card and full rez in the other card !!! Problem solved and now everyone's happy. Thanks Nikon !!

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

Exactly what NSXT said. Once you lose the data it's gone forever. Better to downsize as up sizing never works well.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Ha Ha Gentoo.... Laughter recharges one's soul !!!

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Niko Doby "I get you Willis, but in your D700x scenario why not just use a 2megapixel cellphone camera and email it instantly? "

Don't you people read engadget? Do you really want them to call you Mr. Blurycam?

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Maybe they already have Willis....maybe they already have....

*Niko lights a cigarette and slowly moves back into the shadows*

Posted 3 years ago #
seba316

senior member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 62
offline

You guys are funny. Well, you bring up good points... will continue with fine then.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

I know you said dont bring up RAW.. but for the same reasons RAW is better..... Lets say in 10 years time when you are a photo shop wizz .. You want to to fix up a few photos of junior for his 21st you will be glad you had RAW as well!.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

seba316 - comming back to Your first question, why You don't see a difference, once You see the picture on computer screen? if You go through Your picture in full screen mode, than no matter what kind of screen You have the picture will be displayed in the screen resolution which is (usually) no more than 2mpx - this means that no matter what settings You have, till the time Your picture will be more than 2Mpx, You wouldn't see a difference, unless You zoom in to 100% crop.
as for RAW, using the ability to store RAW+Jpg allows You to save some time in PP, as most of the PP software (Lightoroom, Aperture) uses the jpg's instead of generating their own preview images.

Posted 3 years ago #
RobertD

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 142
offline

I have always, as long as I have been shooting digital, gone for the largest file size and the highest resolution. Spending $120 for a 1TB external USB drive for storage is a lot less painful than the kicks in the butt you give yourself when you need that 30x40.

The ACDSee Pro software I use for photo management, lets me choose the file size I want for e-mailing and automatically sets that value, and e-mails right from the program using your default e-mail.

The only time I shoot RAW is if I want a TIFF for some reason. I figure that the D90 is a lot smarter in figuring out the correct JPEG file than I can do converting from RAW. Of course, that's just me. Some shooters really enjoy the RAW to whatever conversion process.

Posted 3 years ago #
jbl

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 266
offline

I did not read the whole thing, but do like everyone probably said: if you don't want to shoot raw, at least shoot jpeg large fine.

Once you start doing more post processing, you might want to upgrade to raw because what you get in return really worths it.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

For me and many others, once you go RAW it's hard to go back.

Posted 3 years ago #
jjsifo

new member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 2
offline

Well,, I always shoot jpeg large fine and if there were a superfine, I would use that too,, there is a difference and you notice it mostly when trying to enlarge cropped sections of an image,and I have to admit I am not crazy about post processing. anyway, have fun! jjsifo

Posted 3 years ago #
jjsifo

new member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 2
offline

Maybe I should give RAW a try,,,,again, thanks Gentoo, jjsifo

Posted 3 years ago #