Expedition camera #2
Discussion
In order to keep the weight down, Ive decided to go with a Minolta F300 -
www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/f300.html
(AA batteries, 5 megapixel, consistently good reviews & 185 grams)
Now, the question is, providing I can get enough 512MB SD cards, is it best to shoot everything in superfine mode (TIFF, 15mb per photo)?
www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/f300.html
(AA batteries, 5 megapixel, consistently good reviews & 185 grams)
Now, the question is, providing I can get enough 512MB SD cards, is it best to shoot everything in superfine mode (TIFF, 15mb per photo)?
polar_ben said:
Now, the question is, providing I can get enough 512MB SD cards, is it best to shoot everything in superfine mode (TIFF, 15mb per photo)?
I'd say that depends entirely on what you want to do with the pics afterwards. 15Mb seems a hell of a big file!
As my pro chum Bacardi will tell you, if you don't capture the detail to start with you can't put it in afterwards - when you get the camera, why not try some tests and see what it's like at the various quality settings?
Yours,
Bearflare Mfg. Co Inc.
You will be very hard pushed to see any difference between the 15mb TIFF and the fine JPEG in the real world.
"If using the Super Fine TIFF mode be prepared to wait about 18 seconds between shots. This camera is optimized for processing JPEG images and this isn't a bad thing, Fine quality JPEGs makes excellent prints. The only difference is that with a TIFF image there are no compression artifacts to interfere with post-processing but the average Large/TIF image is a whopping 15MB."
Technically, shooting in TIFF is the better quality but if you do as Simpo suggests, and try some tests, I doubt you will see any difference. It's a shame the camera cannot capture in RAW mode as this gives you most control over the file leading to the best quality.
The thing to understand about JPEG is that it compresses the file - chucks away information - but, in as I have said, you will be hard pushed to see the difference. Where the problem can lie is when you open the JPEG and, say, change the colour and save the file. Maybe you will open it up again to remove a blemish and re-save it. Every time you save the JPEG it re-compresses the file - chucking away more information every time -. The tip is, as soon as is practicable, to open up the file and re-save it as a TIFF straight away and then you can make alterations and re-save the file with out further loss of information.
This is very true and is well demonstrated in the "Dull, Boring photo's" thread. If you download Steve's Tuscan shot in JPEG format, you can mess about in PS until the cows come home, but it's impossible to retrieve any sky detail as the camera, when it saved it in JPEG mode, has already thrown away the information, you would have the same problem with TIFF. However, the RAW file retains all the information and it is still possible to retrieve the detail.
In a nutshell, shot Jpeg and save having to have so many cards, subject to testing.
HTH
"If using the Super Fine TIFF mode be prepared to wait about 18 seconds between shots. This camera is optimized for processing JPEG images and this isn't a bad thing, Fine quality JPEGs makes excellent prints. The only difference is that with a TIFF image there are no compression artifacts to interfere with post-processing but the average Large/TIF image is a whopping 15MB."
Technically, shooting in TIFF is the better quality but if you do as Simpo suggests, and try some tests, I doubt you will see any difference. It's a shame the camera cannot capture in RAW mode as this gives you most control over the file leading to the best quality.
The thing to understand about JPEG is that it compresses the file - chucks away information - but, in as I have said, you will be hard pushed to see the difference. Where the problem can lie is when you open the JPEG and, say, change the colour and save the file. Maybe you will open it up again to remove a blemish and re-save it. Every time you save the JPEG it re-compresses the file - chucking away more information every time -. The tip is, as soon as is practicable, to open up the file and re-save it as a TIFF straight away and then you can make alterations and re-save the file with out further loss of information.
simpo two said:
if you don't capture the detail to start with you can't put it in afterwards .
This is very true and is well demonstrated in the "Dull, Boring photo's" thread. If you download Steve's Tuscan shot in JPEG format, you can mess about in PS until the cows come home, but it's impossible to retrieve any sky detail as the camera, when it saved it in JPEG mode, has already thrown away the information, you would have the same problem with TIFF. However, the RAW file retains all the information and it is still possible to retrieve the detail.
In a nutshell, shot Jpeg and save having to have so many cards, subject to testing.
HTH
I'm working on that - I've asked my Norwegian chums for some plans (or even an example) - I'll keep you posted!Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff