Fine or Normal...?

Which setting do most of you use? The normal setting seemd to be pretty darn good to me... what do you think?
Matthew

MKW said:

Which setting do most of you use? The normal setting seemd to be pretty
darn good to me... what do you think?
Matthew

Click to expand...

Yeah, Normal is damn good. Better than any of the other manufacturer's similarly file-sized shots that I've seen. Nikon did their homework on JPEG and put a bunch of goodies under the hood.

If you study the detail and fine qualities of images in the right places you may be able to see the difference with your eye, but it's not very likely.

If you did any technical work on an image, like blue screen matting or something exotic like that you'd see the differences immediately.

For prints up to 8 x 10 I doubt there is a person around here that can past my shots on the wall test. In this test people see ten images, five (maybe) are shot FINE and five (perhaps) are shot Normal. Guess which. The subjects are chosen for their ability to reveal or mask compression and the actual prints are changed out (maybe) between judges. No two images are identical. One judge may see a FINE of the fire truck and the next will see the Normal fire truck...

So far the results are consistent. The better shots are "Fine" and the lesser photos are "Normal" in the judges eyes. Except of course, that they're NOT.

-iNova

But...

Has anyone done any testing taking it larger than 8x10, and found differences there? Perhaps artifacts show up in normal before they show up in fine. But what is the size of image where a difference shows up, and have both images degraded below acceptable by the time there's a difference?

MKW said:

Which setting do most of you use? The normal setting seemd to be pretty
darn good to me... what do you think?
Matthew

Click to expand...

Eric Lund said:

But...
Has anyone done any testing taking it larger than 8x10, and found
differences there? Perhaps artifacts show up in normal before they show
up in fine. But what is the size of image where a difference shows up,
and have both images degraded below acceptable by the time there's a
difference?

Click to expand...

I haven't done testing, Eric, because it's darn expensive at Super B size, but I've printed quite a few shot at normal at that size, and they look excellent.

As Peter points out in an indirect way, a lot of what we perceive as quality depends upon the subject and shot and not on the mode of compression. My own suspicion is that the people who do shoot in fine don't do so because of any perceived quality difference but out of fear that they will be "missing" something later on. I know that feeling -- but test after test I'd done hasn't demonstrated even a smidgen of difference.

I would think that if you are hell bent on proving that fine is better than normal you could take identical images (same subject, same exposure) at both modes and then start enlarging small portions. At some point you're sure to end up with a better image at fine, I would think. The problem is going to be that by the time you can tell the difference, the image itself will be so degraded that no one would ever use it anyway.

So, as I continue to say, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. Don't worry, be normal.

Mike Kelley said:

So, as I continue to say, a difference that makes no difference is no
difference. Don't worry, be normal.

Click to expand...

Mike,

As you and others have presented it, there are few reasons for me to shoot on Fine. And yet I have some lingering questions. 1) If memory is not a problem (with 128, I typically don't worry about running out), is there a disadvantage other than download times of shooting on fine? 2) Many of my pics go to a website or are email attachments. When exporting images, would there ever be a case when you preferred a fine image instead of normal (barring significant enlarging)? 3) Anticipating new technologies over the next few years (good luck!) can you think of any archival issues? In other words, do you think there could be times when you will wish that you had gotten the highest quality image, even though you didn't or couldn't make use of that quality at the time?
Martin

It really depends on the use of the photo.

If you are shooting stuff for the web or to use in some multimedia presentation
on a computer, well, normal is fine.

If you are planning to print your photos, then you should go for fine, or hi. If you
are cropping in camera, instead of in photoshop, that makes a difference also.

What you're using your photos for will determine the size you should shoot.

If you shoot all fine or high, and you end up reducing the photo in photoshop,
then you are throwing away a lot of the information you have captured. Better to
shoot it at the size you want to use it in...

Member said:

MKW said:

Which setting do most of you use? The normal setting seemd to be pretty
darn good to me... what do you think?
Matthew

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That is exactly how I feel about it, Martin.

I can't see much (if any) difference between normal and fine, but I only shoot in fine because of the "what ifs"

What if I get the shot of a lifetime unexpectedly and DO want to blow it up?

What if technology catches up and a display and or printing technology comes along to take advantage of the lower compression?

What if I'm far away from something and want to crop my shot significantly? Now if I want to print it, I'm back to 'what about enlargements?'.

I don't own a tremendous amount of memory, but I usually have a notebook close by, and I get a new card from time to time, plus there's always Christmas ;> (Speaking of Christmas, I only have a few months to decide if I want the Optic Zoom or the TC-E3).

Regards,
Kevin

Martin said:

Mike Kelley said:

So, as I continue to say, a difference that makes no difference is no
difference. Don't worry, be normal.

Click to expand...

Mike,
As you and others have presented it, there are few reasons for me to
shoot on Fine. And yet I have some lingering questions. 1) If memory is
not a problem (with 128, I typically don't worry about running out), is
there a disadvantage other than download times of shooting on fine? 2)
Many of my pics go to a website or are email attachments. When exporting
images, would there ever be a case when you preferred a fine image
instead of normal (barring significant enlarging)? 3) Anticipating new
technologies over the next few years (good luck!) can you think of any
archival issues? In other words, do you think there could be times when
you will wish that you had gotten the highest quality image, even though
you didn't or couldn't make use of that quality at the time?
Martin

Click to expand...

Martin said:

As you and others have presented it, there are few reasons for me to
shoot on Fine. And yet I have some lingering questions. 1) If memory is
not a problem (with 128, I typically don't worry about running out), is
there a disadvantage other than download times of shooting on fine?

Click to expand...

The biggest disadvantage shooting in the fine mode is in the speed of operation of the 990. Shooting in normal, at continuous, I can fire off five or six shots before the buffer is filled (in three seconds or so). Then I need to wait a few seconds and I'm good to go.

With fine this process is halved or worse -- that is, I can only get a shot or two, and then must wait at least twice as long before I can start shooting again. For some situations this isn't a difficulty -- if you're strictly shooting landscapes (and not concerned about cloud movements) or studio work like product images it's probably not a big concern. You could even shoot in TIF for all that matters if you have other concerns (which we'll talk about below). But for nearly all other kinds of photography, speed is a real issue.

The picture is now -- even for those shots you don't think you need speed for, suddenly the light will change, the expression will be perfect, you'll have a priceless moment that a second later will be gone. I usually shoot several hundred images, switching between settings as I go, to end up with a handful of truly extraordinary images. I often fire off two or three shots within a few seconds, because I might be capturing things that are in motion (this weekend I was shooting steam locomotives. They were all standing rock still, but the steam swirling around them certainly wasn't. I spent a lot of time getting the steam curling just right). Even a delay of a few seconds between visualization and capture can kill the image for me. If that doesn't describe any of the photography you do, switch to fine or hi and forget about it.

Member said:

2)
Many of my pics go to a website or are email attachments. When exporting
images, would there ever be a case when you preferred a fine image
instead of normal (barring significant enlarging)?

Click to expand...

Um, if you are shooting in XGA or VGA then you had better stick with fine -- it's only at full sized mode that my comments hold true. At the smaller sizes there is a definite artifacting that occurs at normal and below (see Phil's 990 review for details). I'm assuming you're talking about these kinds of resolutions.

3) Anticipating new

Member said:

technologies over the next few years (good luck!) can you think of any
archival issues? In other words, do you think there could be times when
you will wish that you had gotten the highest quality image, even though
you didn't or couldn't make use of that quality at the time?

Click to expand...

There's an old line about software and hardware estimations -- if I was really good at it, why would I be wasting my time doing that when I could be at the Sports book or down at the casino? (I live in Nevada). It's pretty easy to imagine that you may need more information later than you need now, and harder to imagine the reverse (although we never thought we'd see technology to bring out of focus photographs into focus).

So the answer to your question is: of course! There will always be some point where you might have wished you had the image with more resolution than it has right now. But if you never got the image in the first place the point is moot.

To sum it up for you: if you are shooting XGA or VGA, by all means shoot in fine or hi. If you are shooting in full res and your subject is rock solid, isn't going anywhere, and you pretty much control the lighting (so it won't change on you outside your control) and you have the storage you need the same advice holds. For all other situations, I think you'd be foolish to shoot in anything other than standard.

MKW said:

Which setting do most of you use? The normal setting seemd to be pretty
darn good to me... what do you think?
Matthew

Click to expand...

You can argue this one forever and in the messages so far are clearly the two schools of thought.

Surely although you may well get excellent images in 'Normal' , as long a you've got adequate memory (and you SHOULD have in any camera if used wisely - not a measly 8Meg or similar) you may as well shoot in 'Fine' and at least start with top quality. It's always there in the file if you do want it.

Secondly, if you are happy to recommend using just bog-standard Normal then why on earth buy an expensive camera anyway?

Eric

Lynda Botez said:

It really depends on the use of the photo.

If you are shooting stuff for the web or to use in some multimedia
presentation
on a computer, well, normal is fine.

If you are planning to print your photos, then you should go for fine, or
hi. If you
are cropping in camera, instead of in photoshop, that makes a difference
also.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I just can't let this go Lynda.

I strongly disagree that you need to shoot in fine or hi to print -- I routinely print Super B from my full res normal shots and can see absolutely no difference between it and fine. See Peter's comments as well. If you have two images (one in normal and the other in fine) of the same subject you think demonstrates a difference, please email them to me. No one has been able to show it yet, and I think it's a bad myth to perpetuate.

If you are talking about XGA or VGA then by all means the fine compression scheme is necessary. Read the 990 review on this site for details.

And it isn't just the use of the photo -- the other poster is equally wrong when he equates that "once in a lifetime" photo needing to be in fine -- if you haven't had the ability to GET that once in a lifetime photo (because shooting in fine is too slow) then it might as well be 35mm film, for all the good it will do you.

TANSTAAFL -- you shoot in fine you give up some things. I just happen to believe you give up less things shooting in normal.