Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Downsizing

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
January 10, 2005 12:57:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I would be interested in hearing some examples of using less than
maximum resolutions in cameras, or, as I can do in my Oly 5060,
downsizing high res ones to, say 650x... Do some readers do this on
long trips for photos which would only appear on the web, or be used in
relatively small prints to save card space? Or to back up onto a second
card in the camera. Yesterday, I mistakenly took some photos at a very
low res setting and was really surprised at how good they looked. Of
course, when I decided to do some A-B experimenting later I discovered
some loss of sharpness in the low res pics, but I had to get very deep
into the detail by doing some extreme cropping to see it.

There must be a reason why manufacturers put these setting on their
cameras and I am just curious to know if, when, why, and how serious
photographers use them.

/ron

More about : downsizing

Anonymous
January 10, 2005 12:57:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:57:11 -0500, Ron <rgood@netzero.com> wrote:
>I would be interested in hearing some examples of using less than
>maximum resolutions in cameras, or, as I can do in my Oly 5060,
>downsizing high res ones to, say 650x... Do some readers do this on
>long trips for photos which would only appear on the web, or be used in
>relatively small prints to save card space? Or to back up onto a second
>card in the camera. Yesterday, I mistakenly took some photos at a very

I base that decision on what the final use is to be. If I'm taking the
pictures for an ebay auction, or a forsale ad, there's absolutely no point
in taking a picture with a res greater than 1024x768.

If the pictures are for prosperity -- vacation pictures, etc. -- then I use
the highest resolution available. If I have to downsize for email, I do that
from the hires pictures.

I see no reason to use any resolution in-between.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 12:57:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a 5MP Nikon 5700 and shoot mainly car pictures. I
shoot at 1600 x 1200 at "fine" compressions, crop, process
in PSP 9, then reduce to final size 1280 x 960.

I have found these setting more than adequate for
displaying my pictures on my PCs monitor. And, I can print
as large as 8.5 x 11 so long as I view the prints from a
few feet away.

If I know I'm going to be printing large, or if I want to
"simulate" more zoom than I have, I'll shoot at the full
resolution.

I used the same MO on my 2001 Fuji 4900 4MP.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Related resources
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 1:11:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron wrote:

> I would be interested in hearing some examples of using less than
> maximum resolutions in cameras, or, as I can do in my Oly 5060,
> downsizing high res ones to, say 650x... Do some readers do this on
> long trips for photos which would only appear on the web, or be used in
> relatively small prints to save card space? Or to back up onto a second
> card in the camera. Yesterday, I mistakenly took some photos at a very
> low res setting and was really surprised at how good they looked. Of
> course, when I decided to do some A-B experimenting later I discovered
> some loss of sharpness in the low res pics, but I had to get very deep
> into the detail by doing some extreme cropping to see it.
>
> There must be a reason why manufacturers put these setting on their
> cameras and I am just curious to know if, when, why, and how serious
> photographers use them.

Obviously it saves you having to downsize later.. It also conserves
memory on your storage media so you can squeeze in more images.

If you're only viewing the shots on your monitor, emailing, posting on
the web, then you really don't need much more than 1024x768 (Which is
about 3/4 Megapixel).

Just be aware that you'll never be able to get decent prints at
anything over 6" x 4"

With the cost of memory nowadays, I always shoot at the highest
resolution. If I need the image for the web or email, then I
just downsize it.
January 10, 2005 5:10:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron wrote:
> I would be interested in hearing some examples of using less than
> maximum resolutions in cameras, or, as I can do in my Oly 5060,
> downsizing high res ones to, say 650x... Do some readers do this on
> long trips for photos which would only appear on the web, or be used in
> relatively small prints to save card space? Or to back up onto a second
> card in the camera. Yesterday, I mistakenly took some photos at a very
> low res setting and was really surprised at how good they looked. Of
> course, when I decided to do some A-B experimenting later I discovered
> some loss of sharpness in the low res pics, but I had to get very deep
> into the detail by doing some extreme cropping to see it.
>
> There must be a reason why manufacturers put these setting on their
> cameras and I am just curious to know if, when, why, and how serious
> photographers use them.
>
> /ron
>
I have enough memory cards so that I normally have no concern about how many photos I take. There have on a few occasions,
nera the end of a long trip, when I've cut back on the number of pixels in photos. If you can, though, look up sompleplace
where you can download your pix to a computer and burn them on a CD.

I normally shoot at the maximum megapixel setting, but not at the least file compression. When my camera was new, I
experimented with different compression settings, and found how much compression didn't affect the photos enough for me to
notice.

Taking little videos makes big files. I rarely use that capability.
January 10, 2005 6:13:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <8UwEd.59772$ns2.20510@fe05.lga>, rgood@netzero.com says...
>
>I would be interested in hearing some examples of using less than
>maximum resolutions in cameras, or, as I can do in my Oly 5060,
>downsizing high res ones to, say 650x... Do some readers do this on
>long trips for photos which would only appear on the web, or be used in
>relatively small prints to save card space? Or to back up onto a second
>card in the camera. Yesterday, I mistakenly took some photos at a very
>low res setting and was really surprised at how good they looked. Of
>course, when I decided to do some A-B experimenting later I discovered
>some loss of sharpness in the low res pics, but I had to get very deep
>into the detail by doing some extreme cropping to see it.
>
>There must be a reason why manufacturers put these setting on their
>cameras and I am just curious to know if, when, why, and how serious
>photographers use them.
>
>/ron

With tongue only partially in cheek: I only use "small sized, low-rez"
settings when I want my client to suddenly add that the last image produced
will have to go up to 11x17 for a double-truck ad in a high quality magazine!

Actually, I've never used less than Fine-Large for any of my images, and shoot
95% in RAW at the highest setting. I keep a handful of 2GB cards around with
more smaller backups (they were the largest that I could get, when they were
purchased). The only images that are not done in RAW are ones that I do for
myself, but even then, I probably resort to over-kill, just to be sure.
However, I used to only shoot double-trucks on 8x10!

Manufacturers allow for Normal-Small images for those who will ONLY put images
onto a monitor and so they can be accommodated without having to resort to
software downsizing, or to ONLY print 4x6 prints directly from card/camera.

It depends on what limits one is willing to place on their images.

Hunt
January 10, 2005 6:25:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I find this comment very interesting and useful and somewhat confirming
of my experience.

Actually, I cannot see any discernable difference between the TIFF, SHQ
and HQ settings in my Oly and so I almost always shoot at HQ unless I
know I am going to be doing some truly extreme cropping and want to be
completely on the safe side. I've yet to do much at settings other than
compression but may try. Not that I ever really run out of space (I have
several cards) but some trips out of country are pretty long and I
always want to have as much capacity available as possible for
unforeseen events Fortunately, the Oly allows for some basic editing
(eg., cropping) and downsizing.

Marvin wrote:

>
> I normally shoot at the maximum megapixel setting, but not at the least
> file compression. When my camera was new, I experimented with different
> compression settings, and found how much compression didn't affect the
> photos enough for me to notice.
>
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 11:29:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:57:11 +0000, Ron wrote:

> I would be interested in hearing some examples of using less than
> maximum resolutions in cameras, or, as I can do in my Oly 5060,
> downsizing high res ones to, say 650x... Do some readers do this on
> long trips for photos which would only appear on the web, or be used in
> relatively small prints to save card space? Or to back up onto a second
> card in the camera. Yesterday, I mistakenly took some photos at a very
> low res setting and was really surprised at how good they looked. Of
> course, when I decided to do some A-B experimenting later I discovered
> some loss of sharpness in the low res pics, but I had to get very deep
> into the detail by doing some extreme cropping to see it.
>
> There must be a reason why manufacturers put these setting on their
> cameras and I am just curious to know if, when, why, and how serious
> photographers use them.
>
I played with my Digital Rebel (Canon 300D) using its three settings -
large, medium & small - taking shots of the same objects & scenes. On the
computer screen (19 inch) there was no difference that I could make. The
viewing programs, of course, reduced them all to various degrees to fit
the screen. But when projected on a 6 feet wide screen, the differences
were obvious. I certainly won't use any "small" image from my camera for
projecting. However, if I plan to see them only on the computer screen, I
shall be happy to take four time more shots in the small image format.

Another thing I found, probably well known to everybody other than newbie
like me, that if I reduce the size of the large images to the small image
size, they become rather soft. I needed to use unsharp mask to get the
sharpness back.

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to gmajumdar@freeuk.com
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 1:48:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron wrote:
> I would be interested in hearing some examples of using less than
> maximum resolutions in cameras, or, as I can do in my Oly 5060,
> downsizing high res ones to, say 650x... Do some readers do this on
> long trips for photos which would only appear on the web, or be used in
> relatively small prints to save card space? Or to back up onto a second
> card in the camera. Yesterday, I mistakenly took some photos at a very
> low res setting and was really surprised at how good they looked. Of
> course, when I decided to do some A-B experimenting later I discovered
> some loss of sharpness in the low res pics, but I had to get very deep
> into the detail by doing some extreme cropping to see it.
>
> There must be a reason why manufacturers put these setting on their
> cameras and I am just curious to know if, when, why, and how serious
> photographers use them.
>
> /ron
>
I never shoot at low res. Well, that's not strictly true as
I generally use HQ rather than SHQ, TIFF, or RAW on my
Oly5060. HQ has the same number of pixels as SHQ but the
files are compressed more.

I never go out taking pictures without a pocketful of 256Mb
memory cards, and if my trip is longer than a day then I
take along a laptop to download to.

Yes, there are many occasions when a lower resolution image
would suffice but would I remember to switch back for those
that I needed to print at 10x8 inches.

That's my two pennorth.

Robin
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 4:18:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Ron,

<< I would be interested in hearing some examples of using less than
maximum resolutions in cameras, or, as I can do in my Oly 5060,
downsizing high res ones to, say 650x... Do some readers do this on
long trips for photos which would only appear on the web, or be used in
relatively small prints to save card space? Or to back up onto a second
card in the camera. Yesterday, I mistakenly took some photos at a very
low res setting and was really surprised at how good they looked. Of
course, when I decided to do some A-B experimenting later I discovered
some loss of sharpness in the low res pics, but I had to get very deep
into the detail by doing some extreme cropping to see it.

There must be a reason why manufacturers put these setting on their
cameras and I am just curious to know if, when, why, and how serious
photographers use them. >>

I generally shoot pics at the highest resolution. You can always downsize
later. Storage cards are pretty cheap and large MB storage allows for quite a
few pics even at high res.

Camera companies tend to mention how many pics you can take (usually, using low
resolution as the example). i guess this is meany to impress some buyers.

If you were taking pics strictly for monitor viewing, e-mail, etc., the lower
res camera settings would be OK.

Oddly enough, I have 'upsampled' small files in PS 8 and 'increased' resolution
(by interpolation). The larger files gave surprisingly good prints -- even up
to 11x14 and 12x18.

Best,

Conrad


Conrad Weiler
Camp Sherman, Oregon
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 4:19:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Conrad Weiler" <weil91@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050110201859.06876.00000059@mb-m29.aol.com...
> Hi Ron,
>
> << I would be interested in hearing some examples of using less than
> maximum resolutions in cameras, or, as I can do in my Oly 5060,
> downsizing high res ones to, say 650x... Do some readers do this on
> long trips for photos which would only appear on the web, or be used in
> relatively small prints to save card space? Or to back up onto a second
> card in the camera. Yesterday, I mistakenly took some photos at a very
> low res setting and was really surprised at how good they looked. Of
> course, when I decided to do some A-B experimenting later I discovered
> some loss of sharpness in the low res pics, but I had to get very deep
> into the detail by doing some extreme cropping to see it.
>
> There must be a reason why manufacturers put these setting on their
> cameras and I am just curious to know if, when, why, and how serious
> photographers use them. >>

When doing a house renovation I took a lot of "before" pics in low
resolution, since they'll never be printed, but I wanted some memory of the
house before. For insurance reasons you might want to walk around the house
taking pictures of thinks that could be stolen, but the chance that you'll
need these pics is very low, and they don't need to be in high resolution.
Whay waste disk space on this? There's probably other reasons too. They
probably didn't think all of us would be smart enough to know how to
downsize files for email with software, which we all are ;-)


>
> I generally shoot pics at the highest resolution. You can always downsize
> later. Storage cards are pretty cheap and large MB storage allows for
quite a
> few pics even at high res.
>
> Camera companies tend to mention how many pics you can take (usually,
using low
> resolution as the example). i guess this is meany to impress some buyers.
>
> If you were taking pics strictly for monitor viewing, e-mail, etc., the
lower
> res camera settings would be OK.
>
> Oddly enough, I have 'upsampled' small files in PS 8 and 'increased'
resolution
> (by interpolation). The larger files gave surprisingly good prints -- even
up
> to 11x14 and 12x18.
>
> Best,
>
> Conrad
>
>
> Conrad Weiler
> Camp Sherman, Oregon
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 10:32:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:11:57 -0600, Jim Townsend <not@real.address>
wrote:

>Ron wrote:
>
>> I would be interested in hearing some examples of using less than
>> maximum resolutions in cameras, or, as I can do in my Oly 5060,
>> downsizing high res ones to, say 650x... Do some readers do this on
>> long trips for photos which would only appear on the web, or be used in
>> relatively small prints to save card space?

>Obviously it saves you having to downsize later.. It also conserves
>memory on your storage media so you can squeeze in more images.
>
>If you're only viewing the shots on your monitor, emailing, posting on
>the web, then you really don't need much more than 1024x768 (Which is
>about 3/4 Megapixel).

For shots which I only expect to be viewing on the monitor or making
small prints (i.e. the majority) I generally shoot at 1600x1200. This on
the grounds that although I only have an 1100-pixel monitor now, my next
monitor will probably be 1200, and I may have a 1600-pixel monitor at
some time in the future. (If I ever get one even larger than that, I
probably won't feel it essential to view full-screen.)

For shots which I expect to be in any way important or highly memorable
I obviously shoot at maximum resolution.

--
Stephen Poley
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 10:37:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gautam Majumdar <gmajumdar@XSPAMfreeuk.com> writes:

>Another thing I found, probably well known to everybody other than newbie
>like me, that if I reduce the size of the large images to the small image
>size, they become rather soft. I needed to use unsharp mask to get the
>sharpness back.

That depends entirely on what software you use to reduce the image size,
and how much the full-size image has been sharpened.

I have all my cameras set to minimal sharpening in camera, and find that
apparent sharpness (at 100% scale) improves as I resize images smaller.

This is no surprise, since full-sensor-size images tend to look somewhat
soft anyway because of the anti-alias filtering and the lower colour
resolution due to the Bayer capture process. When the image is
downsized, the higher spatial frequencies are discarded, and the smaller
image has higher contrast up to its (lower) resolution limit. So
there's less total detail, but the image looks sharper at 100% scale.

Dave
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:33:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:cs19ui$1ti$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
SNIP
> When the image is downsized, the higher spatial frequencies
> are discarded, and the smaller image has higher contrast up
> to its (lower) resolution limit. So there's less total detail, but
> the image looks sharper at 100% scale.

But it may additionally suffer from aliasing artifacts if the software
doesn't properly discard the higher spatial frequencies (and most
software doesn't do it properly):
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/dow...

Bart
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 2:39:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

anyone4tennis@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:57:11 -0500, Ron <rgood@netzero.com> wrote:
>> I would be interested in hearing some examples of using less than
>> maximum resolutions in cameras, or, as I can do in my Oly 5060,
>> downsizing high res ones to, say 650x... Do some readers do this on
>> long trips for photos which would only appear on the web, or be used in
>> relatively small prints to save card space? Or to back up onto a second
>> card in the camera. Yesterday, I mistakenly took some photos at a very
>
> I base that decision on what the final use is to be. If I'm taking the
> pictures for an ebay auction, or a forsale ad, there's absolutely no point
> in taking a picture with a res greater than 1024x768.
>
> If the pictures are for prosperity -- vacation pictures, etc. -- then I use
> the highest resolution available. If I have to downsize for email, I do that
> from the hires pictures.
>
> I see no reason to use any resolution in-between.

Ah-hem......... are you making money from the pictures (prosperity) of
saving for the future (posterity)?
!