HQ vs SHQ, opinions?

HI all,

As I recently posted, I'm a new owner of an E-10. At the moment, I have a limited amount of memory, and so for my first pictures, i've used HQ mode to save space on the card. I'd like some opinions on whether you feel that SHQ is sufficientlyor noticeably better than HQ. It will be a while before I can buy enough memory to do 300-400 images in SHQ at a time, which is what I really need. Obviously I can try both and judge for myself, I'm just interested in the opinions of the forum.
Joe

PS, I'm dissapointed in not getting any feedback (pro or con) to my first image that I posted here a few days ago =(

Shelby & Joe said:

HI all,
As I recently posted, I'm a new owner of an E-10. At the moment, I
have a limited amount of memory, and so for my first pictures, i've
used HQ mode to save space on the card. I'd like some opinions on
whether you feel that SHQ is sufficientlyor noticeably better than
HQ.

Click to expand...

Shelby & Joe,

Two things --

SHQ/HQ/SQ depend on how you set them. Check the manual on page 34 for the defaults. Personally, I have my camera set for full resolution (2240x1680) for all three, but vary the .jpg compression.

Then, it depends on what you plan to do with the photos. For web posting, it really doesn't make a lot of difference, since you will typically be reducing the resolution to 800x600 or less for dispay on a monitor. If you are interested in printing the photos at large sizes, it can make a lot of difference. The default "SHQ" setting is noticeably less afflicted with compression artifacts than the default "HQ" setting (both are max resolution). That said, for printing up to 8x10 you probably won't notice much if any difference.

Your first post, by the way, was very well photographed and a lovely subject.

Joe-TN-- http://www.pbase.com/joe_tn/image_processing_sampleshttp://www.pbase.com/joe_tn/shared_photos

Shelby & Joe said:

HI all,
As I recently posted, I'm a new owner of an E-10. At the moment, I
have a limited amount of memory, and so for my first pictures, i've
used HQ mode to save space on the card. I'd like some opinions on
whether you feel that SHQ is sufficientlyor noticeably better than
HQ. It will be a while before I can buy enough memory to do 300-400
images in SHQ at a time, which is what I really need. Obviously I
can try both and judge for myself, I'm just interested in the
opinions of the forum.
Joe
PS, I'm dissapointed in not getting any feedback (pro or con) to my
first image that I posted here a few days ago =(

Click to expand...

Hi Joe, you have one thing in your favor, the e10 does not compress files as aggresively as most cameras! SHQ is of course better for larger prints, but because of the low compression HQ is actually closer to most camera's highest JPG setting! I really like this about the e10. You can also conserve space by using SHQ and a smaller file size. If your not going to print a lot of large prints 8x10 or bigger, don't worry about it too much. You may notice a little more noise thats all.

Take Care!
Jim K

Greg Eddinger wrote:

Hi Shelby and Joe, SHQ, HQ AND SQ are file resolution references. One of the great features of the E-10 is that you can assign different resolutions and compressions setting independent of factory defaults. For instance, you could use each of these references for the same resolution and have 3 different compression settings resulting in 3 separate file output sizes. See page 104 for details. Less compression yields a sharper final image. If you are just playing around and only have the 16mb card and aren't too concerned with shooting keepers. Then set the SQ to 640x480 and 1:8 compression. This will allow you to have the max #of experimental

shots. With more shots (time) your familiarity with your camera will in the end produce better images . The more shots the better. BTW Keep the SHQ at 2240x1680 and 1:2.7 compression so you'll be ready for one of those once in a lifetime shots.

Shelby & Joe said:

HI all,

Click to expand...

. I'd like some opinions on

Shelby & Joe said:

whether you feel that SHQ is sufficiently or noticeably better than
HQ. > PS, I'm dissapointed in not getting any feedback (pro or con) to my
first image that I posted here a few days ago =(

Click to expand...

Keep posting. Ask questions on how to improve the shot etc. GL from GE

It all depends on what you want to do with the final image!!! A poster size picture on the wall demands ORF (raw) or a VERY carefully exposed SHQ JPEG. Web shots or 3"X5" prints can do very well in HQ mode. BUT, for all practical purposes, you can only downsize an image and retain quality. Go out to http://www.aaxes.com and look at memory prices --- they are very good about shipping. My wife used to question the cost of memory cards until I asked her how much she spent on film --- now that she's gone "digital", no question! At home, most of the time I shoot in ORF format, except for parties and the like that are SHQ. I went on an Alaskan cruise and shot mostly SHQ --- WRONG!!! The lighting was too subtle on many of the images and I should have shot ORF --- but they make good snapshots that will please the family! On our PC's, we catalog our images by date and event, then I make a CD(s) every month and work off the CDs --- never try to "fix" the original image --- work on a copy. Camera, computer memory and CDs are cheap --- lost family pictures can never be replaced!!!

Shelby & Joe said:

whether you feel that SHQ is sufficientlyor noticeably better than
HQ. It will be a while before I can buy enough memory to do 300-400
images in SHQ at a time, which is what I really need.

Click to expand...

Hi ya...

By default settings, SHQ & HQ are set for the same resolution (2240x1680) The difference is that SHQ uses less compression. Many people have noted that they see little/no difference between the two. You might also decide to change the settings in the menu to 1/4 compression rather than the 1/2.7 or 1/8.

As for no one commenting on the first pic you posted, we likely assumed that the photo was of the misses and wouldn't want to comment as we might likely get our a** kicked ;-)

Take care!

Shelby & Joe said:

HI all,
As I recently posted, I'm a new owner of an E-10. At the moment, I
have a limited amount of memory, and so for my first pictures, i've
used HQ mode to save space on the card. I'd like some opinions on
whether you feel that SHQ is sufficientlyor noticeably better than
HQ. It will be a while before I can buy enough memory to do 300-400
images in SHQ at a time, which is what I really need. Obviously I
can try both and judge for myself, I'm just interested in the
opinions of the forum.
Joe
PS, I'm dissapointed in not getting any feedback (pro or con) to my
first image that I posted here a few days ago =(

Click to expand...

--Best Regards...doug1tx

If shelby was my misses, I doubt I'd ever get any photography done
=)
J

doug1tx said:

Hi ya...

By default settings, SHQ & HQ are set for the same resolution
(2240x1680) The difference is that SHQ uses less compression.
Many people have noted that they see little/no difference between
the two. You might also decide to change the settings in the menu
to 1/4 compression rather than the 1/2.7 or 1/8.

As for no one commenting on the first pic you posted, we likely
assumed that the photo was of the misses and wouldn't want to
comment as we might likely get our a** kicked ;-).

Click to expand...

doug1tx said:

Take care!

Shelby & Joe said:

HI all,
As I recently posted, I'm a new owner of an E-10. At the moment, I
have a limited amount of memory, and so for my first pictures, i've
used HQ mode to save space on the card. I'd like some opinions on
whether you feel that SHQ is sufficientlyor noticeably better than
HQ. It will be a while before I can buy enough memory to do 300-400
images in SHQ at a time, which is what I really need. Obviously I
can try both and judge for myself, I'm just interested in the
opinions of the forum.
Joe
PS, I'm dissapointed in not getting any feedback (pro or con) to my
first image that I posted here a few days ago =(

Click to expand...

--
Best Regards...

doug1tx

Click to expand...

Joe-TN said:

Then, it depends on what you plan to do with the photos. For web
posting, it really doesn't make a lot of difference, since you will
typically be reducing the resolution to 800x600 or less for dispay
on a monitor. If you are interested in printing the photos at large
sizes, it can make a lot of difference. The default "SHQ" setting
is noticeably less afflicted with compression artifacts than the
default "HQ" setting (both are max resolution). That said, for
printing up to 8x10 you probably won't notice much if any
difference.

Click to expand...

This has been a very useful discussion for me. My principal interest is in 13x19 prints, the largest my printer (1280) will handle. But there is plenty of need for 8x10s and smaller prints, too. If I understand the experienced opinions stated so far, I should be saving the images destined for large prints in ORF format and use SHQ or HQ for those to be printed at smaller sizes. Is it really possible to obtain high quality 8x10s from SHQ? Would the same image printed from a TIFF file show any differently at that size? How about HQ vs. SQ for 4x6 prints? You guys are uncomplicating my life considerably. Thanks.--Alan Boehmer, Los Osos, California

Shelby & Joe said:

Shelby & Joe said:

Shelby & Joe said:

PS, I'm dissapointed in not getting any feedback (pro or con) to my
first image that I posted here a few days ago =(

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Glad to respond. youv'e got a sense of portraiture. Since you requested comments and I'm a former portrait painter and presently port. photographer I'll offer the 2 cents.

Might want to back of a little and include some negative space. Also, many digitals just show to much detail in depth of field. She is sharply in focus, and so is the rest of the universe. The eye rebels at this. Normal vision doesnt work this way, so why would a picture look normal or acceptable to the eye. This is not your fault. All of us digital people are dealing with this.

As much as I am TOTALLY AWED with the other advantages of dig, I'm still hanging on to film equipment utill dig technology more successfully deals with this issue.
Good lighting. Looks like 45* 45* main with just the right amount of fill.
Your picture works fine, these are just some ideas thrown out

I shoot SHQ, at all times and make A3 and Super B prints on the 1280 on HWMatte paper and are on display and sell in art gallerys and shops. Usually at ISO 80 , and have done many at ISO 320 all display and sale quality, using Adobe Elements.
http://members.localnet.com/~endoline/JPresters
The best always,
JP Photography

Alan Boehmer said:

Alan Boehmer said:

Then, it depends on what you plan to do with the photos. For web
posting, it really doesn't make a lot of difference, since you will
typically be reducing the resolution to 800x600 or less for dispay
on a monitor. If you are interested in printing the photos at large
sizes, it can make a lot of difference. The default "SHQ" setting
is noticeably less afflicted with compression artifacts than the
default "HQ" setting (both are max resolution). That said, for
printing up to 8x10 you probably won't notice much if any
difference.

Click to expand...

This has been a very useful discussion for me. My principal
interest is in 13x19 prints, the largest my printer (1280) will
handle. But there is plenty of need for 8x10s and smaller prints,
too. If I understand the experienced opinions stated so far, I
should be saving the images destined for large prints in ORF format
and use SHQ or HQ for those to be printed at smaller sizes. Is it
really possible to obtain high quality 8x10s from SHQ? Would the
same image printed from a TIFF file show any differently at that
size? How about HQ vs. SQ for 4x6 prints? You guys are
uncomplicating my life considerably. Thanks.
--
Alan Boehmer, Los Osos, California

Click to expand...

--The best always,JP Photography http://members.localnet.com/~endoline/JPrestersmembers.localnet.com/~endoline/JPresters

HI Alan
I'm going to complicate it a little more!

First of all it's misleading to talk of SHQ and HQ, as most of us have set our cameras differently anyway.

Best to talk about file type and compression.

You'll find as many opinions as there are people on the forum on this one.

some shoot Raw
some shoot 1.2.7 jpg
some shoot 1:4 jpg
some shoot 1:8 jpg

I think the only thing you can say for sure is that very few people shoot Tiff, and almost everyone shoots at full resolution.

Personally - I always shoot at 1:8 jpg - I often print up to 19X13.

I found that I could quite easily tell the difference between the different jpg resolutions at 400% on screen - but that I really couldn't tell in prints.

I think you'll find that Jaja also always shoots at 1/8th jpg for the same reasons.

kind regards
jono slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Alan Boehmer said:

Alan Boehmer said:

Then, it depends on what you plan to do with the photos. For web
posting, it really doesn't make a lot of difference, since you will
typically be reducing the resolution to 800x600 or less for dispay
on a monitor. If you are interested in printing the photos at large
sizes, it can make a lot of difference. The default "SHQ" setting
is noticeably less afflicted with compression artifacts than the
default "HQ" setting (both are max resolution). That said, for
printing up to 8x10 you probably won't notice much if any
difference.

Click to expand...

This has been a very useful discussion for me. My principal
interest is in 13x19 prints, the largest my printer (1280) will
handle. But there is plenty of need for 8x10s and smaller prints,
too. If I understand the experienced opinions stated so far, I
should be saving the images destined for large prints in ORF format
and use SHQ or HQ for those to be printed at smaller sizes. Is it
really possible to obtain high quality 8x10s from SHQ? Would the
same image printed from a TIFF file show any differently at that
size? How about HQ vs. SQ for 4x6 prints? You guys are
uncomplicating my life considerably. Thanks.
--
Alan Boehmer, Los Osos, California

Click to expand...

--Jono Slack http://www.slack.co.uk

Yes I should have mentioned compression (1.27) at SHQ. and I sell to commercial web sites and reduce it down to postage stamp size (100K) for fast loads. If you are just doing web pics you could use 1meg camera.

The best always,
JP Photography

Jono Slack said:

First of all it's misleading to talk of SHQ and HQ, as most of us
have set our cameras differently anyway.

Best to talk about file type and compression.

You'll find as many opinions as there are people on the forum on
this one.

some shoot Raw
some shoot 1.2.7 jpg
some shoot 1:4 jpg
some shoot 1:8 jpg

I think the only thing you can say for sure is that very few people
shoot Tiff, and almost everyone shoots at full resolution.

Personally - I always shoot at 1:8 jpg - I often print up to 19X13.

I found that I could quite easily tell the difference between the
different jpg resolutions at 400% on screen - but that I really
couldn't tell in prints.

I think you'll find that Jaja also always shoots at 1/8th jpg for
the same reasons.

kind regards
jono slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Alan Boehmer said:

Jono Slack said:

Then, it depends on what you plan to do with the photos. For web
posting, it really doesn't make a lot of difference, since you will
typically be reducing the resolution to 800x600 or less for dispay
on a monitor. If you are interested in printing the photos at large
sizes, it can make a lot of difference. The default "SHQ" setting
is noticeably less afflicted with compression artifacts than the
default "HQ" setting (both are max resolution). That said, for
printing up to 8x10 you probably won't notice much if any
difference.

Click to expand...

This has been a very useful discussion for me. My principal
interest is in 13x19 prints, the largest my printer (1280) will
handle. But there is plenty of need for 8x10s and smaller prints,
too. If I understand the experienced opinions stated so far, I
should be saving the images destined for large prints in ORF format
and use SHQ or HQ for those to be printed at smaller sizes. Is it
really possible to obtain high quality 8x10s from SHQ? Would the
same image printed from a TIFF file show any differently at that
size? How about HQ vs. SQ for 4x6 prints? You guys are
uncomplicating my life considerably. Thanks.
--
Alan Boehmer, Los Osos, California

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

--The best always,JP Photography http://members.localnet.com/~endoline/JPrestersmembers.localnet.com/~endoline/JPresters

Jono Slack said:

Personally - I always shoot at 1:8 jpg - I often print up to 19X13.

I found that I could quite easily tell the difference between the
different jpg resolutions at 400% on screen - but that I really
couldn't tell in prints.

I think you'll find that Jaja also always shoots at 1/8th jpg for
the same reasons.

Click to expand...

That's very interesting. I'll have to try it and do some comparisons. Always something to learn here.

Diane--Diane B http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleriesB/W lover, but color is seducing me

Jono Slack said:

Jono Slack wrote:
Best to talk about file type and compression.

You'll find as many opinions as there are people on the forum on
this one.

some shoot Raw
some shoot 1.2.7 jpg
some shoot 1:4 jpg
some shoot 1:8 jpg

I think the only thing you can say for sure is that very few people
shoot Tiff, and almost everyone shoots at full resolution.

Click to expand...

Yep......I think you've summarized this very succinctly and accurately.

FWIW, I'm one of those who shoot at 1:4 compression, full resolution. (This results in file sizes of approximately 1.9 MB.)

David

Jono, are you saying that all those lovely photographs in your gallery labelled as JPEG were shot at 1:8 (full resulution?)? Well, congratulations on your beautiful images and thanks for the great news. Of course, until I see the authentication coming out of my own printer, I'll have to hold to the ORF rationale. I was interested to hear you say that TIFF is not widely used. I presume that is because of the satisfactory result people are apparently getting with SHQ and because the TIFF files are significantly larger than ORF. Perhaps if the files were going directly to a page layout, TIFF might be a format of choice; otherwise useless?

Great work, Jono!

Alan

Jono Slack said:

Personally - I always shoot at 1:8 jpg - I often print up to 19X13.

Click to expand...

Jono Slack said:

I think you'll find that Jaja also always shoots at 1/8th jpg for
the same reasons.

Click to expand...

--Alan Boehmer, Los Osos, California

Diane, what file formats do you customarily shoot in? I've visited your splendid gallery and was most impressed, both by the quality and personal vision. Typically, what proportion of your images are saved in RAW?

Regards,

Alan

Diane B said:

Diane B said:

I think you'll find that Jaja also always shoots at 1/8th jpg for
the same reasons.

Click to expand...

That's very interesting. I'll have to try it and do some
comparisons. Always something to learn here.

Click to expand...

--Alan Boehmer, Los Osos, California