Canon G3 storing 2 images for every one taken

[mike l]

For some reason my Canon G3 has started to store 2 images for every

one taken, one is "normal" and the second one appears more colour

saturated. Any ideas how to turn this off?

[steve_barnett2]

'Any ideas how to turn this off? '

 

Read the instructions? Or failing that get somebody else to do the work for you.

 

My guess would be that you have the camera set on RAW capture. The main image is saved as a RAW image that needs subsequent conversion with appropraite software to view it, but at the same time a JPEG is saved so you can view a 'copy' of the RAW image in an editor or the camera.

If you save images as JPEG's you should only get one image. Alternately, and I'm not sure about the G3, you may be able to reduce or increase the size/quality of the accompanying JPEG in the menu function, but probably not turn it off.

[mike l]

Thanks, camera is set to jpeg mode and is not in RAW mode. Can't find the instruction book at present (the one time I need it) hence the post.

[vatovec]

Keep searching for your manual :-)

[nico_smit]

I also own a G3 and I have not heard of this, nor did I see reference to such an option in the instruction book. Sounds like a problem with your camera.

[david_f._stein]

They usually come in threes but many cameras will store bracketed exposures,

bracketed color balance shots, etc. I also though some of the Canons saved a RAW

and JPEG simultaneously. GOOD LUCK tracking it down....

[hyunyu]

Michael,

 

Are the duplicate files numbered sequentially?

[mike l]

Aha, I found what the problem is. I had tried to download the same set of images twice from the same card. The Canon software, rather than overwrite the originals has made another copy with a _2 added after the file number, so problem with the camera. Sorry for being so dense and thanks to all who replied.

[al_froio2]

Well, it seems your question wasn't because you were too lazy to look up the answer after all.

 

Folks who think so shouldn't respond. It will save all of us some extra reading time

[mike l]

Above post should read-

"Aha, I found what the problem is. I had tried to download the same set of images twice from the same card. The Canon software, rather than overwrite the originals has made another copy with a _2 added after the file number, so problem no with the camera. Sorry for being so dense and thanks to all who replied."

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[jamiew]

Two points:

 

First this is not a problem with the camera, since the camera has nothing to do with how the files are loaded onto the computer. That is a job for the software (Canon ZoomBrowser I assume).

 

Second that still does not explain why the second one appears more color saturated. Maybe you just looked at the second one too long :)

[steve_barnett2]

'Folks who think so shouldn't respond.'

 

And equally Michael could have tested his hypothesis (that the camera was saving two images) more rigourously before wasting everybodies time. Or is ten minutes taking pictures and the cost of taking digital photographs prohibitive? Grow up Al.

[denis_baulsom1]

Hey - why don't we adopt an attitude that if we think a post is not worth responding to, we just don't respond to it.

 

You know, sort of like "it's better to say nothing and only appear to be an idiot than to open our mouths and remove all shadow of doubt."

 

Then we won't have to tolerate and waste our time reading useless posts from those people who love to do nothing more than hurl abuse at others and who complain about having to waste their time reading useless posts.

 

Hey - anyone out there who's got a problem or wants to share information, I'll decide if it's worth me reading/responding to and I hope no-one is intimidated by the forum bullies we have to put up with.

 

Cheers :-)

[mike l]

Denis, yes I think so too. Surely, response to stupid posts (and now I realise that, in hindsight, mine was slightly inane)is not obligatory.