Resizing dilemma

I do railroad photography as a hobby and publish a great deal on the

web. Seldom do prints. Normally I post images at 650x size, sometimes

smaller. Until recently I used an Oly 2020z and 560 and when shooting

in SHQ or HQ could easily do my cropping, editing, etc, and downsize

an image that retained its sharpness at about 30-35k. Having stepped

up to an Oly 5060, I find that I cannot get equal sharpness from an

SHQ image unless I maintain a file size of about 80k. This, of course,

drains server space. This happens whether I am using Elements 3.0 or

batch processing with Ifranview.

Stopped off at my camera store yesterday and the guys there were

telling me that recently several customers have stopped by to discuss

this issue.

So.....is this a natural occurance related to the original resolution

of the photo? Is it something related to my camera and its jpeg

compression in particular?

Obviously, I can set the camera for HQ or one of the SQ settings and

end up with more shots on my card (I have several so that is probably

irrelevant), but then should I decide to print at a large size I may

be up the creek. Another solution would be to stick with the 2020 and

its faster lens for railroad photography, but then that's not all I do

when traveling.

Just wondering about this, and some practical advice (aside from

changing resolution for each shot). I haven't noticed anyone saying

that if one is going to publish extensively on the web one should

shoot at lower resolutions if worried about disc or server space.

Thanks for bearing with me.

Hi Ron:

Sorry I can't answer your question, but you gave me a great lead on the batch conversion freeware "Ifranview". I have been using "Ulead Explorer" and thought that was great, but Ifranview has some great extra stuff that Ulead doesn't have. Really appreciate it.

Phil, Simi Valley, CA.

I'm curious, how little disk space do you have that you need to worry about a 40-50K difference in the file size? Is it so expensive to just buy more space?

It would also be helpful if you posted some of these sample photos from both cameras. Are you using an UnSharp Mask filter on these images?

If in doubt, it's always wiser to save your images originally at as large a size and quality as your memory card and shooting quantity allows, and then at a later stage resize and compress for web publishing while keeping the option open for future printing and other uses. <p>

I'm using Adobe Photoshop for this, which offers a preview of the original and jpeg image when adjusting jpeg settings, but I'm sure there must be some freeware or cheaper shareware programs able to do this. This has the added benefit that it's possible to compress each image individually to what is acceptable for its image content, or to batch convert (as well as for instance adding USM) at a setting you find a good compromise between file size and image quality.<p>

<a href="http://www.hakonsoreide.com/Photos">www.hakonsoreide.com</a>

Thanks for tips. I am not so concerned with HOW to downsize as I am interested in why SHQ files on my camera need to be saved at a higher resolution than HQ files if they are to retain sharpness for web use. Is it the camera, is it a 'natural occurance', etc.????

And, sure, I can increase server space, but because I share my photos with numerous sites, some of which I do not control, would prefer to go as light as possible.