csbrown
Leading Member
Freddy,
You are correct. I was trying to over-simplify. If you save a file as a .jpg and select high quality, you should get a good 8x10. If you save the image as low quality you may not (or you might, depending on your standards). From what I have read posted by people in this forum, a high quality .jpg is fine for an 8x10.
Note I don't have a 7i and my experiences have been all from using Photoshop. I'm still on the line between the 5700 and the 7i. I am probably going with the 7i because of it's wide-angle capability.
Regards,
Craig
You are correct. I was trying to over-simplify. If you save a file as a .jpg and select high quality, you should get a good 8x10. If you save the image as low quality you may not (or you might, depending on your standards). From what I have read posted by people in this forum, a high quality .jpg is fine for an 8x10.
Note I don't have a 7i and my experiences have been all from using Photoshop. I'm still on the line between the 5700 and the 7i. I am probably going with the 7i because of it's wide-angle capability.
Regards,
Craig
I agree with all the information you've given. It's right on,
except that one part may mislead the neophite.
Printing an 8x10 from a jpeg, for an amateur, shouldn't cause any
problems (i.e. visible loss) whatsoever. I've been shooting
digital at the serious amateur level for 3 years, and have printed
tons of 8x10s, both at home and at labs. They've always been
fabulous, notwithstanding my sometimes horrendous composition
errors, and all from jpeg files. Many even have heavy post
processing like effects and color changes.
Now, I know that for a pro application, this may not be suitable,
but for the serious amateur and snapshooter, jpeg should always do
just fine.
Happy shooting to all,
Freddy
Sorry,
Couldn't resist.
OK I'll say someting productive.
When you take a digital picture the camera is capable of collecting
a lot of information. Unfortunately, this information takes up a
lot of space. You don't need all of it. The amount that you do need
depends on what you plan to do with the picture. If you are going
to do some post processing in photoshop (or what ever) you may want
to keep all the information around. If you just want a photo and
are not too picky, you can have the camera make decisions for you
as to what is worth keeping and what is not.
If you want to make large prints (or any, for that matter) the more
information an editing program has to work with, the better job it
will do.
When you save to .jpg some information is being lost. This will
result in a smaller file size but if you want to print out an 8x10
(or greater) at a later date, you may have problems.
Here is an example. I shoot medium format. I then scan in the
negatives. A single image is typically 50 megs big! Do I really
need all the information in that file? no. But hard disk space is
cheap and by saving it all I can do anything I want with it later.
That's why some people store their photos in "Raw" format. It is
big and slow but you will have the most options later on.
Remember, I'm new to digital photography ... so I'm prone to asking
an ill-advised question or two. ;-) Onward .....
Today there was some mention here concerning how size - resolution
"quality" is in the compression level ---- determined by the
- compression level and sensitivity interact. Someone said that
"Economy" - "Standard" - "Fine" settings .....
That got me wondering whether I'm confusing resolution/size with
quality?
2560 X 1920 pixels is roughly equivalent to 35 X 26 inches. Right?
If I want an 8 X 10 inch print to result, why would I shoot a 72%
larger image at 2560, only to downsize/re-sample it?
An 8 X 10 is only 576 X 720 - yes?
So, to summarize .. With 8 X 10's in mind -- I'm shooting at "ISO
100" -- "Fine" -- "2560"
Would it be "better" to shoot "ISO 100" -- "Fine" -- "1280" ?
TIA. I hope this isn't too stupid or confusing.
Mike TTF
