Do you ever shoot in less than "fine" setting?

I have a 6 mpx DSLR (300D). Is it ever a wise move to shoot in any setting less than the top-quality/resolution FINE setting? I don't think I have ever changed this since I got the camera. The only advantage that I can see is if I want to get more images onto my memory card. And from what I understand, if I shoot for the web or 4X6 prints, this can be done with no harm. But I always shoot with the potential of producing at least 8X10 prints.
Your comments?

It may allow you to capture more images in a smaller amount of time as well (continuous / burst mode). By generating slightly smaller image sizes, you might be able to squeeze more images into the internal memory. Plus, the images will be written to the card slightly faster due to their smaller sizes, freeing up the internal memory a bit faster. However, I really can't see it having that significant of an effect in practice. But it might warrant testing if you're bored.

The G9 has an option to save a full-resolution JPG when shooting in RAW mode, but it's at the second-highest quality setting. I sometimes use that setting, and the JPG images are definitely usable. But I wouldn't choose to save my JPG images in less than highest quality when only shooting JPG.

The way I look at it is that you can always get rid of data, but you can never add it.....

Unless there's a material performance advantage, or you're shotting in a way that the shot is easily recreated (such as still images for eBay), then I would always shoot at the largest practical image size.

Also, a good quality, 2MP image will print out at 8X10 with no problems. It takes an 8MP image to allow you to do a 2X enlargement (by croping the image) and still keep a 2MP image. So, if you want to be able to do croping of any size at all, then you'll need all of that 6MP that you can keep.

--
Randy C.
Canon SX100
Fuji: S9000
Oly: C-2100 * C-740 * C-5050 * TCON-17
San Antonio, TX

Randy Collins said:

The way I look at it is that you can always get rid of data, but you
can never add it.....

Unless there's a material performance advantage, or you're shotting
in a way that the shot is easily recreated (such as still images for
eBay), then I would always shoot at the largest practical image size.

Also, a good quality, 2MP image will print out at 8X10 with no
problems. It takes an 8MP image to allow you to do a 2X enlargement
(by croping the image) and still keep a 2MP image. So, if you want
to be able to do croping of any size at all, then you'll need all of
that 6MP that you can keep.

Click to expand...

All valid points, except unless I'm mistaken, the original poster was refering to the image quality (compression), not the image resolution (size).

Buy an extra memory card, or delete images to free up some space.

Space is not a concern. Just IQ and resolution. Was simply asking to see if, other than for additional space, would there ever be a reason to use less than the best setting.

BobT said:

I have a 6 mpx DSLR (300D). Is it ever a wise move to shoot in any
setting less than the top-quality/resolution FINE setting? I don't
think I have ever changed this since I got the camera. The only
advantage that I can see is if I want to get more images onto my
memory card. And from what I understand, if I shoot for the web or
4X6 prints, this can be done with no harm. But I always shoot with
the potential of producing at least 8X10 prints.
Your comments?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't even consider anything less than shooting RAW.

With my S2, I use FINE even though there is a SUPERFINE mode. If you plan on processing a lot, then use the best. If you don't, you probably will not see the difference. However, that might or might not be true with various cameras, so run some comparisons before making a decision. Comparing pics should help you figure out what works for you.
--
bdery

Québec city, Canada
C A N O N S 2
C O O L P I X S Q
http://s108.photobucket.com/albums/n13/bdery/

No, I shoot fine. The cards are so cheap and hold so many imgae files, I stick with fine.

In fact, After discovering RAW. I mainly shoot it now. After jpeg to raw comparisons, it is almost like getting a new upgraded camera. raw can be that good.

I won't say that you're mistaken, but the original question was:

Is it ever a wise move to shoot in any setting less than the top-quality/resolution FINE setting?

Since "FINE" is usually only applicable to the highest resolution, shooting in "any setting less than" would include both the compression level as well as the image resolution.

In any case, the idea of croping still applies, because tight compression effectively removes data from the image, making croping more difficult.

--
Randy C.
Fuji: S9000
Oly: C-2100 * C-740 * C-5050 * TCON-17
San Antonio, TX

It's funny, it's hard to tell much of a difference between image quality in normal, fine, or superfine.

I generally shoot in fine mode, occasionally in superfine, when it comes to my favroite landscapes. But for average stuff normal is fine.

I always shoot RAW and superfine (both, or whatever is best capability of the camera in use) so if I need choices I can do so later, not in the "heat" or "pressure" at the time of picture shoot.....something I don't need to think about.

I use the best capability, otherwise buy a cheaper camera. Memory is cheap compared to the camera cost.

I want the best quality, highest resolution image I can get out of my cams. To be honest, I don't even understand why they continue to include multiple resolution settings anymore. You didn't have that option with film, and there's really no point in having that option today, except for the convenience of saving space on your card or pc hard drive.

I equate this with the small resolution files that sometimes get automatically burned onto image CD's when you have a roll of film developed, and put onto a CD. There are two files that used to get burned at the same time - a Large file for printing, and a small file for pc viewing, and most importantly - for emailing.

There's no need for this small rez file to be burned onto an image CD any more since most email systems allow users to email quite large files. Or, in some cases, the email systems can automatically resize you overly large files for you. Yet, there are still small rez images being burned onto image CD's even today. It confuses customers to no end when it comes to rpinting off their image CD's, especially those that are new to digital and don't remeber the days of only being able to email teeny tiny images due to file size contraints.

I suspect a large part of why there's still the various resolution sizes available in digi cams has a lot to with this, but hey, the more to choose from the better I guess.

--
bryan
--------
Oak & Acorn
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oakandacorns/sets/

G9 ISO 3200 Gallery: http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/p706413854/

New Zenfolio Gallery: http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/

Canon G9 Gallery: http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/f836894562/

Oak and Acorn said:

I equate this with the small resolution files that sometimes get
automatically burned onto image CD's when you have a roll of film
developed, and put onto a CD. There are two files that used to get
burned at the same time - a Large file for printing, and a small file
for pc viewing, and most importantly - for emailing.

Click to expand...

That's a quite different thing to the Canon Superfine/Fine option. Try comparing them and see if you can honestly see enough difference to be concerned about compared with all the other flaws you could find in the picture if you looked hard enough.

fact: most of you replying here, in a double blind test, could never tell the difference between a jpg "basic" and "fine" print, all other settings being the same.....the only real consideration is between RAW and any flavor of jpg.....

been my own experience with pixel-peeping. It's RAW or JPEG; that is the choice.

Why throw away quality that you paid for when you bought the camera? Flash memory and storage are cheap enough now that there is no longer a good argument for keeping image files small. Even if you normally just email photos or print them at 4x6, the larger image files (highest resolution, least compression) provide a safety net for the times when you end up cropping a lot and/or printing large. The only argument I can see for going to lower resolution/higher compression is if you have only enough space on your memory card for, say, 20 more pictures, you don't have another card, don't have your laptop or other storage device with you, and you're pretty sure that you'll want to take more than 20 more pictues. Then by all means adjust the settings for a smaller file size. BTW, the comparisons I've seen show that it's better to keep the resolution at the highest and increasing the compression by one notch than to lower the resolution and maintain the least compression. (The effect on file size is about the same.)

Bob

I shoot mainly in fine (not superfine) because of the fact that it is impossible to tell them apart no matter how close you look.

Another major factor is Hard drive space and backups. If you take a number of thousands images every year i think that is a bigger issue than the cost of the flash cards.