Travel Photography - Resolution choice?

I am sorry if this has been discussed, but I did a search and couldn't find anything. I finally broke down and got a dSLR after about two years of tinkering and going back and forth between SLR and 4/3. I ended up with the a55 Sony because I really liked their colors, it was comfortable in my hand, and I am already familiar with the "Sony" way of doing things in their menus and whatnot. Playing with it so far, I am happy with the purchase.

My question is this. The camera is capable of 16mp and shooting raw and jpg simultaneously. I do print my pix now and then, but rarely over 8x10. I would like to start getting more into editing but I don't foresee myself agonizing over every pixel. Is there a reason I should be shooting at the full 16mp resolution or is there a good argument for backing down to a medium size?

Shooting at higher resolution gives you more options to crop the photo without loosing any quality on the prints.

The only reason to switch to lower resolution is when you're running out of storage space on your card. Like when you're on a long trip somewhere and can't buy another card and can't upload the files somewhere.

I always shot at max resolution and only in RAW. To me, there is no point in wasting space by having the camera save JPGs. I'll do that later in my RAW-converter with much better precision.

With current memory card prices, I see no reason whatsoever to not use as much resolution in RAW as possible with your equipment. Limiting yourself there, will only limit you even more further down the processing chain.

I always shot at max resolution and only in RAW. To me, there is no point in wasting space by having the camera save JPGs. I'll do that later in my RAW-converter with much better precision.

With current memory card prices, I see no reason whatsoever to not use as much resolution in RAW as possible with your equipment. Limiting yourself there, will only limit you even more further down the processing chain.

I also usually shoot in RAW only, but there are times when I would shoot RAW+JPEG (highest resolution) when I need to use/post the pictures immediately.

Also, even a fast camera (like my Canon 7D) with a fast card cannot continuously shoot and write RAW files at 7fps till the card fills. That's when I have to NOT shoot RAW.

I used to shoot in JPG when I first got my dSLR but inability to correct exposure, white balance (the most important) and other things led me to shoot RAW eventually. As you noticed, Sony doesn't give you the option of downsizing RAWs (other than a compressed RAW). Try 24MP RAWs if you're concerned with space (a850)!

I also usually shoot in RAW only, but there are times when I would shoot RAW+JPEG (highest resolution) when I need to use/post the pictures immediately.

Also, even a fast camera (like my Canon 7D) with a fast card cannot continuously shoot and write RAW files at 7fps till the card fills. That's when I have to NOT shoot RAW.

So you post directly from your camera then? I usually have my laptop close by and can convert right away anyhow, so it isn't a problem.

I'm a Nikon user, so I can't speak for the 7D, but I've never had any concerns about the fps on my D300s with a fast SD or CF card. Ofc it slows down after a while when the internal buffer fills up, but there really isn't much difference from using JPG mode.

So you post directly from your camera then? I usually have my laptop close by and can convert right away anyhow, so it isn't a problem.

I'm a Nikon user, so I can't speak for the 7D, but I've never had any concerns about the fps on my D300s with a fast SD or CF card. Ofc it slows down after a while when the internal buffer fills up, but there really isn't much difference from using JPG mode.

I usually only take a netbook when traveling, and it doesn't have my usual photo processing program - Apple's Aperture.

According to reviews on dpreview.com, your D300S can maintain 7.1fps for 17 frames when shooting RAW, 15 frames for RAW+JPEG, and 100+ for JPEG only, before slowing down.

Also according to dpreview.com, the Canon 7D can maintain 8.0fps for 24 frames when shooting RAW, 7 frames when shooting RAW+JPEG, but can fill the card without slowing down when shooting JPEG only.

Memory cards are cheap, as noted above, I see no reason not to shoot at the highest resolution.

JPG vs RAW is another debate entirely. I don't know anything about the Sony JPG engine. For my Panasonic, I took the time to fine tune the JPG engine with how I would process a RAW, and just have the pix ready to go when they leave the camera.

I always shot at max resolution and only in RAW. ......

With current memory card prices, I see no reason whatsoever to not use as much resolution in RAW as possible with your equipment. ....elf there, will only limit you even more further down the processing chain.

+1. Well said.

My question is this. The camera is capable of 16mp and shooting raw and jpg simultaneously. I do print my pix now and then, but rarely over 8x10. I would like to start getting more into editing but I don't foresee myself agonizing over every pixel. Is there a reason I should be shooting at the full 16mp resolution or is there a good argument for backing down to a medium size?

Cards are cheap. You can always cut it down, you can't replace what you didn't save. Also, more MP means more ability to crop and still have a good image.

even at full resolution you should be able to fit ~1000 photos on 8gb card before you see any issues...so just have an extra memory card and you'll be good to go. just make sure the card is fast enough to handle pics + video.

I am sorry if this has been discussed, but I did a search and couldn't find anything. I finally broke down and got a dSLR after about two years of tinkering and going back and forth between SLR and 4/3. I ended up with the a55 Sony because I really liked their colors, it was comfortable in my hand, and I am already familiar with the "Sony" way of doing things in their menus and whatnot. Playing with it so far, I am happy with the purchase.

My question is this. The camera is capable of 16mp and shooting raw and jpg simultaneously. I do print my pix now and then, but rarely over 8x10. I would like to start getting more into editing but I don't foresee myself agonizing over every pixel. Is there a reason I should be shooting at the full 16mp resolution or is there a good argument for backing down to a medium size?I just got my a55 a couple of months ago. I am enjoying it more than I thought over my a350. I didn't think that I would use the video, but at Yellowstone and in the Winds it did come in handy and the quality is great.

As for jpeg and raw, I have wrestled with this as well. I am shooting both, but sometimes I do wonder why I do the raw. It slows up the computer and takes longer to process, which you have to do if you want to use it almost anywhere. I understand about exposure and white balance, but one can use Photoshop's camera RAW to adjust jpeg's to about the same degree. The one area is if you need to do a heavy crop, then it can make a difference, but that is very, very seldom, especially if you are doing no larger than 8x10.

Here is an image from The Winds, straight out of the camera in jpeg:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/NDSol/DSC00487.jpg

even at full resolution you should be able to fit ~1000 photos on 8gb card before you see any issues...so just have an extra memory card and you'll be good to go. just make sure the card is fast enough to handle pics + video.With the a55 you will only get about half that number on an 8gb card shooting RAW only.

i use a Fuji HS10 (SLR lite with fixed zoom lens). The file sizes are usually 2-3 meg. I usually just make albums from Shuuterfly but have made one or two canvas prints and wonder if the larger file sizes would give me a better large print

any thoughts on using larger file sizes and uploading them to have canvas prints made? what rez should I be at for better, best results?

I am sorry if this has been discussed, but I did a search and couldn't find anything. I finally broke down and got a dSLR after about two years of tinkering and going back and forth between SLR and 4/3. I ended up with the a55 Sony because I really liked their colors, it was comfortable in my hand, and I am already familiar with the "Sony" way of doing things in their menus and whatnot. Playing with it so far, I am happy with the purchase.

My question is this. The camera is capable of 16mp and shooting raw and jpg simultaneously. I do print my pix now and then, but rarely over 8x10. I would like to start getting more into editing but I don't foresee myself agonizing over every pixel. Is there a reason I should be shooting at the full 16mp resolution or is there a good argument for backing down to a medium size?

The only sane reason for going down to medium size might be shooting speed. Apart from that, why throw away perfectly good information? Full resolution gives you much more freedom to crop the image and still have enough for decent size prints. Cards are cheap and easy to carry.

Technically, a CCD sensor could use pixel binning for a lower resolution image with better signal to noise ratio (and thereby less noisy images in low light), but I am not aware of any consumer camera that uses pixel binning.

Cheers,
T.

I understand about exposure and white balance, but one can use Photoshop's camera RAW to adjust jpeg's to about the same degree.

This is simply not the case.

You can use Camera RAW to adjust JPEG images, that is true. But there is far more editing headroom in RAW files (which are typically 12 or 14-bit per pixel files) than JPEG files (which are 8 bits per pixel). You will get better results from RAW files.

Cheers,
T.

As ~tc~ said, JPG vs RAW is an entirely separate issue.

The issue at hand is resolution, and it seems unanimous to me that one should almost always, absent exigent circumstances, shoot at the absolute highest resolution available in the camera.

It's like getting a haircut - they can always cut it shorter, but once it's cut, it's cut - they can't make it any longer.

This is simply not the case.

You can use Camera RAW to adjust JPEG images, that is true. But there is far more editing headroom in RAW files (which are typically 12 or 14-bit per pixel files) than JPEG files (which are 8 bits per pixel). You will get better results from RAW files.

Cheers,
T.What do you generally do with the photos you take? How much do you have redo them such that you need that extra headroom? I have just found that would very seldom be the case. Can you post examples of where the JPEG didn't work for an edit, but the RAW did?

I prefer to shoot raw; but I also freq shoot at 8 FPS. If I need more than just
just short bursts at 8 FPS; then I've got a decision to make:

- If the environment is optically difficult (requires significant post-processing), I'll trade away pixels to preserve both raw-data and FPS.

- If the environment is optically easy (trivial post-processing), I'll shift to JPEG, trading away raw-data for more pixels.

The latest 7D firmware supports UDMA 7 cards. Perhaps they would let me have
both more-pixels & raw-data. I haven't yet found UDMA 7 cards, but I am sure
that they are beyond my "hobbyist" budget. I had to really grit my teeth when
buying the 64GB UDMA 6 card.

> What do you generally do with the photos you take?

I discard the vast majority of what I shoot.

Years ago; when NATGEO was still using film and storage was expensive, I briefly
consulted on a digital storage archive. I remember one of their photo editors mentioning
that only 1:~7,000 frames ever get published. i.e. To get great photos, you need to
shoot A LOT of pics!

i use a Fuji HS10 (SLR lite with fixed zoom lens). The file sizes are usually 2-3 meg.

LOL. There is nothing "SLR lite" about that. The sensor is the same as in their compact cameras, and the lens is worse.

If you want to make large prints, you would be well served by either going with a compact with an EXCELLENT lens (like Panasonic LX5/Leica or Olympus XZ1/Zuiko) or a CSC like micro four thirds models by Panasonic/Olympus or the Sony NEX line. Remember, nowadays it's not about the QUANTITY of the pixels (any camera you can buy will have enough) it's about the QUALITY of the pixels.

Technically, a CCD sensor could use pixel binning for a lower resolution image with better signal to noise ratio (and thereby less noisy images in low light), but I am not aware of any consumer camera that uses pixel binning.

I believe the Panasonic cameras use binning when in video mode since the resolution required for HD is so much lower

> What do you generally do with the photos you take?

I discard the vast majority of what I shoot.

Years ago; when NATGEO was still using film and storage was expensive, I briefly
consulted on a digital storage archive. I remember one of their photo editors mentioning
that only 1:~7,000 frames ever get published. i.e. To get great photos, you need to
shoot A LOT of pics!
I discard numerous ones as well. But for the keepers, what do you generally do with them? Print, post to the web, make books, make slide shows, make DVD's, just show on the computer? And how many of those keepers do you post-process and what programs do you do it in?

I shoot with Nikon equipment, so I usually shoot the uncompressed 14-bit NEF option. (This usually yields a 25MB file per image.) I have three 4GB cards and have never gone over using two cards in a day. I'll usually load those cards off each night though. The only time I shoot anything other than that option is while shooting time lapse as it would take a much larger card than I could justify just for the few times I shoot like that and use RAW files. That and it would take forever to batch that many RAW files into a movie. RAW just has so much flexibility, I can't justify shooting in any other mode unless it is for somehow limited card space.

What do you generally do with the photos you take? How much do you have redo them such that you need that extra headroom? I have just found that would very seldom be the case. Can you post examples of where the JPEG didn't work for an edit, but the RAW did?

I like to shoot with -1 EV underexposure and spot metering, which often increases the need for headroom. I process the pictures in Lightroom and sometimes spend quite a bit of time on one image to get the light and exposure the way I want. On the other hand, sometimes it takes five seconds with presets.

I'll post three examples that were shot in RAW, the two first ones with a Nikon D300, and the last one with a Canon S90. All are shot hand held.

As I shoot practically exclusively in RAW, I cannot give direct comparisons, but I believe I could not have come up with these results shooting JPEG. Whether someone more skillful than I could have, that I do not know ;-)

Landscape from Guangzhou:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6022/6018529778_e4f8ddf7d1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/monojussi/6018529778/)
From Canton Tower IV (http://www.flickr.com/photos/monojussi/6018529778/) by monojussi (http://www.flickr.com/people/monojussi/), on Flickr


From a Gotan Project Gig:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/4821225265_e883a310ab.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/monojussi/4821225265/)
Tango 3.0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/monojussi/4821225265/) by monojussi (http://www.flickr.com/people/monojussi/), on Flickr

From an Enrique Iglesias Gig:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5063/5600546009_981ae2bc10.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/monojussi/5600546009/)
Brut and charisma poured from the shadow where he stood (http://www.flickr.com/photos/monojussi/5600546009/) by monojussi (http://www.flickr.com/people/monojussi/), on Flickr

Cheers,
T.

> But for the keepers, what do you generally do with them?

Burn the raw & processed images to DVD.

I like to shoot with -1 EV underexposure and spot metering, which often increases the need for headroom. I process the pictures in Lightroom and sometimes spend quite a bit of time on one image to get the light and exposure the way I want. On the other hand, sometimes it takes five seconds with presets.

I'll post three examples that were shot in RAW, the two first ones with a Nikon D300, and the last one with a Canon S90. All are shot hand held.

As I shoot practically exclusively in RAW, I cannot give direct comparisons, but I believe I could not have come up with these results shooting JPEG. Whether someone more skillful than I could have, that I do not know ;-)

Cheers,
T.

Thanks for posting those pictures. They are nice. I don't know what the result would have been with JPEG's, but Photoshop CS5 can do wonders if you want to really work a picture. Of course, shooting spot and underexposed and only using Lightroom can place JPEG's at a disadvantage right out of the box compared to RAW.

So what do you do with your final product?

> But for the keepers, what do you generally do with them?

Burn the raw & processed images to DVD.Do you then just look at the pictures off the DVD?

Thanks for posting those pictures. They are nice. I don't know what the result would have been with JPEG's, but Photoshop CS5 can do wonders if you want to really work a picture.

I know that, but I actually make it a point not using Photoshop. I consider Lightroom the rough digital equivalent of developing (and printing the images) in the dark room, Photoshop more a tool for retouching. I know this division is not quite accurate and may not make sense to many others, but it is a part of my photo aesthetic and works for me.

Of course, shooting spot and underexposed and only using Lightroom can place JPEG's at a disadvantage right out of the box compared to RAW.

Quite possibly so, but I really don't see JPEG having any real advantage compared to RAW in processing apart from some speed and ease if you need to crank out images fast. Otherwise, in an optimal case, the camera has made some good decisions in JPEG processing, and in a sub-optimal case, it has made some unwanted decisions that you may or may not be able to reverse.

The beauty of RAW is that it works for my style of shooting, and it will also work for your style of shooting.

So what do you do with your final product?

Most of them I just display on the computer and occasionally I print them. The print sizes vary from postcards to about 75x50 cm prints for hanging.

But this is really somewhat off topic (as pointed out by a couple of posters) and I am not trying to say everybody should go RAW. It is simply the way I have found that works for me and that I feel has some major advantages.

Happy shooting no matter the format!

Cheers,
T.

I like to shoot with -1 EV underexposure and spot metering, which often increases the need for headroom. I process the pictures in Lightroom and sometimes spend quite a bit of time on one image to get the light and exposure the way I want. On the other hand, sometimes it takes five seconds with presets.

I know this is getting off-topic, but that's an uncommon strategy to "shoot to the left". There's much less information stored on the left side of the histogram compared to the right, which is why it's generally suggested to "shoot to the right" as long as it's not blown, and then pull back during post-processing.

I know this is getting off-topic, but that's an uncommon strategy to "shoot to the left". There's much less information stored on the left side of the histogram compared to the right, which is why it's generally suggested to "shoot to the right" as long as it's not blown, and then pull back during post-processing.

You are probably right.

I have simply found that the EV-1 underexposure gets results that work for me with less post-processing than using more exposure. I do like a moody atmosphere and dark tones so that is probably why.

Almost always when I shoot with neutral exposure, the results are simply too bright for me. I suppose it is be also possible that overexposing shots with normal exposure is a "personality trait" of my camera (I have not shot and processed enough images with other cameras to really judge whether they behave similarly).

Cheers,
T.

Cheers,
T.

I usually shoot RAW + small jpeg. I do this because on occasion I will use the jpegs for quicker review in my finder or to post to the web without processing before hand. The latitude afforded to the user with RAW images is fantastic since it's nondestructive. I am not at all familiar with the Sony workflow options for RAW. I consider Canon and Nikon to be the only real options for SLR's that are reasonable for a consumer. (I shoot Canon and I'm not a consumer.) Don't take that as a knock on the OP's choice of Sony. Just my opinion.

When shooting at a lower resolution than that which is native to the sensor you are disposing of pixels that are used in creating the image. Ultimately this downgrades image quality. This is far more noticeable when shooting video with an SLR since you are reducing a sensor created image by as much as 90% to create the display image. This creates significant aliasing artifacts when there are lots of patterns. For the most part this is not noticeable in stills unless doing a direct comparison of identical images.

As stated earlier, memory is inexpensive enough that shooting full res shouldn't be a question unless there is a specific motivation to do so.

That being said, when choosing a camera there is a reason to choose lower resolution cameras when shopping. If you do not need excessively high resolution for output you will (as a rule of thumb - with advancements in sensor design technology not withstanding) have better low light performance when you have lower pixel density; i.e. a lower resolution camera. This is to say that IF the sensors are designed the same way (I won't go into detail) then the more pixels you have in a given area (APS-C sensor of 17 vs 10 MP for example) the one with more pixels will have less light to share among them. The same amount of light will fall on the chip, but if there are less photodiodes sharing that light, the more light there is for each individual photodiode. Also each photodiode will be larger and likely produce better color. Again, as sensor construction advances this can only be applied to similarly designed sensors.

Sorry if that's too techy, but I'm a traveling tech nerd by trade. :D