kennyahn Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 At what print size would normal (you can decide what normal is) people begin to see degradation in quality when shooting Large Normal as opposed to Large Fine? I called Canon and two people gave me two different answers. I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Why not just use large/fine and be safe? There is no answer, it's a matter of opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_lai Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 What Bob said. Memory is cheap, get bigger/more cards if you don't have enough to shoot large/fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icephoto Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 For every person you talk to you're going to get a different answer. Please, I'm not trying to be obnoxious or rude. I speak from experience. In 3-4 years, whether you shot L/F or L/N, you're going to be upset that you didn't shoot RAW along with it because now you can see or think you can see the .jpg compression. When in doubt, go big. Shoot L/F w/RAW. If you need to buy an extra card or two, buy them. Because eventually, especially as these cameras continue to increase in MP, you're going to wish you did. I know--$100 I didn't spend in 1998 lead to many expletives being spoken today about images might have been much better and perhaps even usable today. Buy the extra cards, spend a little extra time backing up the images. You'll be happy you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kennyahn Posted January 13, 2006 Author Share Posted January 13, 2006 Thanks guys. I've decided I'm going to go ahead and get either a couple 4GB microdrives or just go get another couple of 2GB cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffOwen Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 I used to take jpgL fine only but have convince myself now that raw is better so recently have been using raw + jpgL. One reason I stuck with jpg files is because somewhile ago (on my Canon G2) my CF card failed and it said I had 'no images'. I did panic for a while but was able to download a recovery program from the internet and retrieve my 'lost' images. During the process the recovery program said it could only recover standard image files. So for this reason I have always been wary of having my images in raw format only. I might change to raw + jpgL normal to save space as currently I can only get 76 images from a 1Gb card.For the record I can get from a 1Gb card: 76 images using raw + jpgL fine 89 images using raw + jpgL normal 87 images using raw + jpgM 95 images using raw + jpgS 109 images using raw only 257 images using jpgL fine 573 images using jpgL normal 437 images using jpgM fine 767 images using jpgS fine more than 999 images using jpgS normal More than 10 times the capacity depending on the image quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjmeade Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 What the previous contributors have said about file size is absolutely correct. Go with the biggest file size you can, you won't regret it, even if you end up swamped with disks full of your work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_keiser Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 I use RAW + Small Normal JPEG. To me the RAW gives me the highest quality. While the Small JPEG gives me something real quick and easy to thumb through and find the 'keepers'. The best of both worlds in MY opinion, your needs may vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now