quality /size ?

[chesters1]

being on very slow dialup i dont put pics on here but i am a little bemused (i'm just a snapper) if i take a picture in RAW then convert it to TIF i have the full "quality" of what i took ,if i wish to post on here then surely after removing all the detail and dropping the "colours" to double figures to get it small enough to fit my quota and hense on here would it just be easier to shoot in the minimum size i can (300k) and post it?.

if it seems to be the case and would appear ok on here why did i buy a 12mp camera???????

surely 300k cannot compete with 12mp or a 40odd MB RAW file .how can a "non subscriber" with a small quota and slow dialup compete with a large quota and broadband

yours confused of farnham

 

i also have a compact so cannot easily get those fantastic closeups as the rich barstewards do with their 15ft long lenses do ,i can get very close in macro but the damn insect flies off

if i take a picture of a fluffy bunny not having a real long lense means if i cannot crop the picture (after enlarging it by zooming on PSP) then my fluffy bunny will be just a little bit of fluff rather than a bunny.

 

christs lifes hard

Edited September 5, 2006 by chesters1

[poledark]

What camera you got then Chesters?

 

According to my little book of knowledge TIFF files are about twice the size of RAW (for the same no of pixels)

 

Den

[chesters1]

a fuji e550 ,its not really 12mp but the fuji system doubles the pixels by arranging the thingies differently.

the only software i have (fuji) only converts the raw to tif ,you cant play with the raw image.

PSP7 as far as i can see err doesent see raw.

i have photoshop that probably does but i use PSP7 purely because its easy to use ,starts instantly and i'm thick

Edited September 5, 2006 by chesters1

[poledark]

Thanks Chesters, just wondered

 

Den

[John E Ashford]

Life’s a beach Chesters1, you can only play with what your dealt with. If you’ve not got the latest 20” automatic, electrostatic, self focusing, telescopic, water cooled, self perpetuating Lens, then a £10, use once, camera will have to do.

 

It’s not the quality, but the content, that makes a photograph good.

[Guest CJS2]

being on very slow dialup i dont put pics on here but i am a little bemused (i'm just a snapper) if i take a picture in RAW then convert it to TIF i have the full "quality" of what i took ,if i wish to post on here then surely after removing all the detail and dropping the "colours" to double figures to get it small enough to fit my quota and hense on here would it just be easier to shoot in the minimum size i can (300k) and post it?.

if it seems to be the case and would appear ok on here why did i buy a 12mp camera???????

surely 300k cannot compete with 12mp or a 40odd MB RAW file .how can a "non subscriber" with a small quota and slow dialup compete with a large quota and broadband

yours confused of farnham

 

i also have a compact so cannot easily get those fantastic closeups as the rich barstewards do with their 15ft long lenses do ,i can get very close in macro but the damn insect flies off

if i take a picture of a fluffy bunny not having a real long lense means if i cannot crop the picture (after enlarging it by zooming on PSP) then my fluffy bunny will be just a little bit of fluff rather than a bunny.

 

christs lifes hard

 

Chester, with all due respect mate, as a 'snapper' why bother with RAW? JPEG will do all you want, have a play with the RAW/TIF files but for general photo album/AN use I cant see the point, just uses up camera file storage and makes work at processing. Now if you have nothing better to do with your time . . . . You would be surprised how much a compact can do, yeah, SLR's have an edge, and if you want those ultimate 'macro insect and very long shots', there is probably no option but to dig deep and disturb the moths

 

12m pixels, sorry mate but its hype, look at the spec., and its a 6m true jobie, they get 12m by some digital jiggery- pockery. 6m is just fine, unless you are really into the finer points of photography, or feel left out and underprivileged There is no doubt that RAW does have an edge on JAPEG, however I would hazerd a guess that 90% of the photos on this site are taken in JPEG.

 

Personally, I see RAW as running before one can walk, I have the facilities, but get good results (by my standards) with a Canon compact using JPEG. Time is my problem both taking and processing, when I do get out with the SLR, its just great fun, rather like driving a family saloon as the norm for convenience in town, shopping etc, but some times wouldn't it be nice to get in that TVR!!!! for a blast.

 

Chester, what I'm actually saying is, enjoy taking your photos, let the techie side take care of its self?

 

Cliff, CJS2

Edited September 6, 2006 by CJS2

[chesters1]

the thing is that jpeg is ok and the standard but i'm always opening and closing my pics looking for fine differences (my intrepid reel collecting) between mine and for instance ebay ones ,but my pictures are degrading i dont want to print them out (its over 120 reels now) thats silly so pictures are faster than opening boxes or going up the loft to see the real things.

once i get a light box ALL my photo's intrepid wise will be taken in RAW they can be converted to whatever the publisher wants ,jpeg although small and handy cant be used in this context.

i did mention the 12mp capability was a bit of techno trickery but not by the camera purely in the way the sensors are arranged in the CCD

hopefully instead of more pixels being the norm vastly smaller ones are used giving detail rather than size

a compacts small lense can be slightly overcome by taking the shot at the highest res you can on the nearest zoom you can then cropping ,if you cant crop by the "rules" as far as i can see on here then only the SLR's will win on comps featuring animal or bird (for instance) shots (unless you can find tame ones ) because all the inbedded exif info disapears (somewhere).

not really complaining (i rarely do ) but just pointing it out for future comps ,if i take a picture of a deer it will be a very small deer on a huge background trying to get it the same size as a slr's one (on screen)will disqualify me

general panorama's will be no problem as they need wider shots rather than long lenses .

 

i could strap long lenses to my pentax but not being digital it would contain no exif info whatsoever thus not excepted.

yes i could buy a slr but unfortunately my mrs would use it to brain me as "our" money comes via her

 

because of the time constraints it would cost far more for film users as they would be taking a few shots then have to process the film but still without the excif info be disqualified ,perhaps a seperate comp for us old fashioned folk could be run on a far less restrictive basis in time and information.

Edited September 6, 2006 by chesters1

[Steve Randles]

Exif info being saved with the photo is down to how you actually save the Photo in the first place, cropping or zooming in on a photo will not delete the exif info from a photo. What generally loses the info is saving forweb/email, those functions reduces filesize so far down that the exif info is deleted first.

 

Using "Save As and saving with a different filename should retain the exif info, if it does not then there will be an option to retain exif info in either the save box, your preferences file or the programmes options.

 

And for what its worth, many of the digital comapacts used by members have better zoom abilities than my telephoto so in that respect although I have a DSLR they far outweigh me in that department.

 

120 reels!! You must live, sleep and breathe.

 

Steve...

[Guest CJS2]

Chester, I think you are mixing things up some where?? I crop my photos all the time, never loose 'Exif', and its certainly not against the rules to crop. 6 to12m pixels is digital trickery, there is a word for it 'extrapolated'???? some one will put me right, or shoot me down, and tell me you camera does have 12m pixels!

 

I thought that to view you pictures 'view only' would not affect the original, provided you dont save it again, there is no need, as the original is held in the file, again I would stand corrected, but provided the viewing is not saved, therefor does not over writes the original, thats OK.

 

See were you are coming from using the RAW/TIF file, never compared that close, so if thats what suits you!

 

Not sure how the dial up quota works. But we only show '70 pix to the inch' (7" longest dimension) not a very big file.

 

Just noticed Steve has posted while I am waffling.

 

CJS2

[chesters1]

Exif info being saved with the photo is down to how you actually save the Photo in the first place, cropping or zooming in on a photo will not delete the exif info from a photo. What generally loses the info is saving forweb/email, those functions reduces filesize so far down that the exif info is deleted first.

 

Using "Save As and saving with a different filename should retain the exif info, if it does not then there will be an option to retain exif info in either the save box, your preferences file or the programmes options.

 

And for what its worth, many of the digital comapacts used by members have better zoom abilities than my telephoto so in that respect although I have a DSLR they far outweigh me in that department.

 

120 reels!! You must live, sleep and breathe.

 

Steve...

i must be doing something wrong? half my pics dont have any info in the summery box (i havent used exif veiwer on those yet) when i crop then save them as jpeg (they start out jpeg) a box pops up telling me that it will fiddle with this and that ??? in order for it to save (maybe a psp thing)

no mention of saving the exif info when saving

 

i maybe back later after i have looked again

 

the 120 reels are my "keep" selection ,theres so many variations i have to look at every pic minutely to see if i have that one already ,ok i'm a sick anorach

mrs is very good at it she spots differences straight away.

 

maybe taking a pic at high res and the need to keep reducing its size and reduce the colours is enough to take away the inf ?? ,most look pretty dire at the size i need to post them ,perhaps (remember i'm thick) theres a better way to get the file down to a size small enough (i.e 100k from 4mb) .

 

the 12mb function exists because the fuji ccd doesent use straight lines of sensors but arranges them so the next line nestles in the "holes" between the row "above" the same way as piling pipes on each other each pipe would rest between the one below .this gives with jiggery pokery the doubling effect (as far as i can fathom) so the light "beam" isnt lost in the "empty" spot such has most ccd's ,so as far as i can fathom it captures more detail. but not being clever i may have told a porky and just made it up.