Picture Size

Great question. I've always wanted to know that too.

Sometimes, photos post very large, other times, rather small. Is there an ideal setting for uploading and posting photos?

Never size an image in your camera, Always shoot it at the Highest resolution your camera will support

This will show the lowest number of images available for your card. Look for a JPG Fine setting (or even better RAW). Nothing worse than getting that once in a lifetime picture and finding that you had the camera set to "crappy small picture setting".

As for sizing, you can resize most images in the new forum, I didn't push it too far, but it handled most large images I threw at it. Best thing it too look at the software that came with your camera, it will have a resize or export option. use that to export to 1024 on the longest size, make sure you export and do not resave over the original image. Also never drop the jpg below 80% or 8-10 setting on a scale of 10/12

FWIW, I always take my photos at the maximum resolution of the camera and then use a photo application to size them. Many times I want to crop them anyway, so I might as well start with the highest quality I can. As for initial resolution, my camera starts at 4320x3240, and then I cut it down from there.

quote:

Originally posted by cbojanower:
[b]Never size an image in your camera, Always shoot it at the Highest resolution your camera will support

Isn't the highest resolution related to the "image quality"? My Nikon has a "Fine/Normal/Basic setting for image quality, but it has 12 different "image size" selections. I have it set at the top setting which they call "Fine" Any of the 12 size selections can be used with any of the 3 Image quality choices.

I don't make any changes to the photos in the camera after they are shot using the "size" selected in the camera's menus, I just download them to the computer, and it dosen't seem to matter what "size" was specified in the camera, they all look the same in the computer.

What is the advantage of taking pics with one image size over another, that's what I'm trying to figure out? If I leave the setting at the 4000 x 3000 which was the factory default, and download the pics from my camera in that size format to my computer, will I still be able to post pics to the new forum without any problems using the pics directly from my computer?

REV

Image size is the dimensions of your picture, sometimes referred to as resolution expressed in terms of how many pixels across and down. 4000x3000 is likely waaaay bigger than your monitor can display, unless you have a huge big-buck one with way-better than high-definition capability.

The data size is mow much room that image takes up to display all those pixels. Depending on the amount of compression (i.e. replacing varying amounts of pixels having the same or very similar color with a digital shorthand that allows the picture to be represented with less data) these images could take up almost as much hard drive/memory card space as the original, or a fraction of it.

Intelligently-compressed images can look just as good as the original and only take up a fraction of the data used by the original pic--the differences being too small to see. Overdoing the compression can result in extremely small data (file) sizes compared to the original, but at the cost of the image getting fuzzy and/or color transitions becoming jagged/blocky (known as "compression artifacts").

On the other hand, not applying enough compression can result in images that look just dandy, but only viewers with the absolute fastest connections will have the patience to wait for your images to download. Someone on a dial-up would have to wait upwards of five minutes per megabyte for your pic to load if the new forum allowed you to post uncompressed images like those 4000x3000 pics you mentioned. Now imagine a photo thread with a couple of dozen images like this. (I have a 35 megabit connection, and I don't think I'd bother looking at that hypothetical thread if I knew all the images were that big).

So there has to be a balance of image size and data compression to get the best-looking results in photos you post online. Usually this means using a photo editor to create an alternate version that is physically smaller and more compressed, which is then posted (and leaving the original untouched on your computer/memory card). Usually you resize first, then apply compression as you save the new version. Oftentimes the program will show you how your picture will look at varying levels of compression and the amount of disk space it will take up so you can choose what looks right before you commit to saving the new photo.

---PCJ

Rev -

Image Quality has to do with the amount of compression (for JPEGs) that is done in the camera. The least compression would equate to your "Fine" setting. Resolution is related to image size. You should always shoot at the biggest image size your camera will support - AND the highest quality. That way you're starting with your best original (least compression and most pixels). If your camera supports RAW, that's an even better option (as Chris mentioned), but you'd need a RAW converter to convert to JPEG.

Ron

I think using RAW is probably overkill for forum pictures.

The thing I normally do is crop the pictures anyway, so I can fine tune the exact contents and resolution before posting anyway.

I agree, John - RAW, with its associated conversion, is way overkill for Forum pics In fact, the more I think about it, unless you're planning on selling your pics or printing at a large size, for Forum posting you'd probably be ok to initially shoot at the 1024 size (assumimg that you don't want to crop). I'd still shoot at the best quality though. I've kind of conditioned myself to shoot everything I do at the largest size and best quality (or RAW), since I'll then have the best quality original to start with.

Ron

Some comments on image size as it relates to intended use and the new forum:

The typical size photo you see on the forum is between 640 and 800 pixels on its longest side. That's all you really need for a forum, and that is about the size to which the new forum will automatically re-size your photo.

So, if you set your camera to 800 or 1024, your photos will upload to the new forum quickly and look good on the screen.


But, what happens if one of your photos turns out to be a real winner and the OGR editor contacts you and asks if you could submit it to the magazine. (He even wants it badly enough to offer you $50 plus the honor of being in print! )

For that use, you will need a much higher resolution photo, well up into the 2000 to 3000 pixel range or preferably even higher.

...or maybe you just want to get a nice 8"x10" copy printed for yourself to frame.

That's why Chris suggested always shooting at the highest resolution possible with your camera, and resizing later if you want a smaller version. You never know when you might need the higher resolution.

If you intend to submit a photo for publication or blow up a big print, those higher image sizes/high quality settings are absolutely vital. You can't go back and make that 800 pixel print larger and more detailed at a later time.

By the way, if you upload one of those huge prints to the new forum, there will be no harm done, except to your own convenience. A large photo will take a loooong time to upload. But, you will not be wasting server space, nor will dial-up users have a problem.

Once the huge photo is received, the new forum re-sizes first and stores that smaller photo in its memory. Only the smaller photo is available or downloaded to other users when they call up the picture post.

So, as Rev asked, there is no problem if you want to shoot at those high resolutions, but really don't want to get into the resizing stuff yourself. Your photos will just take a while longer to upload initially to the new forum, but they will appear just fine on the forum and not inconvenience anyone else.

Hope this helps,

Jim

Thanks gentlemen......I sort have a better handle on things now. I guess one thing that boggles me a bit is that it doesn't seem to matter what "size" I shoot a picture at, they all look the same size when you review them on the computer screen, once they are downloaded. Ive shot a pic at the largest "size" the camera supports, 3000 x 4000, and once it's in my computer, it looks the same as one shot at with the 1024 x 768 selection.

When I download pics to my computer from the camera, does the import software automatically make them appear the same size once they are viewed after the download, even though the camera settings were different for various shots? Are the shots taken with the higher settings actually a higher quality image but it's just hard to see the difference on the computer screen?

Thanks again for taking the time to reply......it's "hard to teach an old dog new tricks", I though just getting a pic up on the forum, what with having to first use another website to host them was quite an accomplishment....for me at least.

REV

quote:

But, what happens if one of your photos turns out to be a real winner and the OGR editor contacts you and asks if you could submit it to the magazine. (He even wants it badly enough to offer you $50 plus the honor of being in print! Big Grin)

For that use, you will need a much higher resolution photo, well up into the 2000 to 3000 pixel range or preferably even higher.

Like Jim said! I can't begin to tell you how many fine photos I receive as e-mail attachments or on disc that are simply not of a large enough file size to be used in the magazine. I strongly recommend that you always shoot the photos at the largest file size/highest resolution possible for your camera (that will usually yield the fewest number of pictures on the camera's disc), and then you will always have that high-res image available for magazines, calendars, enlarged prints, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by revitupfaster:
Thanks gentlemen......I sort have a better handle on things now. I guess one thing that boggles me a bit is that it doesn't seem to matter what "size" I shoot a picture at, they all look the same size when you review them on the computer screen, once they are downloaded. Ive shot a pic at the largest "size" the camera supports, 3000 x 4000, and once it's in my computer, it looks the same as one shot at with the 1024 x 768 selection.

When I download pics to my computer from the camera, does the import software automatically make them appear the same size once they are viewed after the download, even though the camera settings were different for various shots? Are the shots taken with the higher settings actually a higher quality image but it's just hard to see the difference on the computer screen?

Thanks again for taking the time to reply......it's "hard to teach an old dog new tricks", I though just getting a pic up on the forum, what with having to first use another website to host them was quite an accomplishment....for me at least.

REV

You'll see a big difference in clarity if you zoom in on a larger picture. Smaller pictures will quickly become very pixelated (grainy) when you zoom in.

quote:

Originally posted by RailRide:
Image size is the dimensions of your picture, sometimes referred to as resolution expressed in terms of how many pixels across and down. 4000x3000 is likely waaaay bigger than your monitor can display, unless you have a huge big-buck one with way-better than high-definition capability.

The imaging software will shrink to fit the image to fit the screen (It doesn't change the image file, just the magnification) However you can go to 1:1 view for editing and its nice to be able to see the actual full size image on the screen and work on the area in question.

quote:

Originally posted by gunrunnerjohn:
I think using RAW is probably overkill for forum pictures.

Actually no browser that I know of supports viewing RAW formats, and you never want to post RAW files to the web. But as a place to start, RAW can't be beat. It allows you the most flexibility when it comes to color correction, exposure correction and resizing. Once you have the image where you want it you export it as a JPG and post it

I will say that JPG is probably Ok for most amateur photographers out there. RAW is if you want to get the most out of it

quote:

Originally posted by revitupfaster:
When I download pics to my computer from the camera, does the import software automatically make them appear the same size once they are viewed after the download, even though the camera settings were different for various shots? Are the shots taken with the higher settings actually a higher quality image but it's just hard to see the difference on the computer screen?

Yes the bigger files are higher quality. Your software will fit the image into the space available so you can view it. On a 1024 image that software will set it to 100%, where on a 4000 image it make be 50%. If yo have two images to compare then load the small one and go to 100 % then load the 4000 pixel image and go to 100%

BTW NEVER use the camera to convert an image to Black and White, by using the monochrome or black and white camera presets.

Once again it far better to do it outside the camera with software. And just like resizing, if you shoot it in color and then convert it on your computer, (using a duplicate file of the original) you can always go back the the color one if you want or try several different black and white looks for the same image.

I am a big fan of having the camera abuse the image as little as possible and letting me do the work once it takes the picture

I don't know what RAW means. But I don't take photos for the purpose of OGR Magazine running them in the magazine. That seems a little remote, to me.

I take photos to run them on eBay or Craigslist, or to post on the forum site. Less is more.

My camera does not identify photo size as pixels. It uses a product of two numbers, like 640 x 1020 or something. So when you say 800 pixels, it doesn't help me. If I try to resize, I usually just confuse myself with technology.

Does OGR run a lot of your photos? For me, taking photos that are real big usually ends up with photos that don't fit well in a forum page and take a long time to upload.

quote:

Originally posted by Jay Mack:
My camera does not identify photo size as pixels. It uses a product of two numbers, like 640 x 1020 or something. So when you say 800 pixels, it doesn't help me.

umm that number stands for number pixels, 640 pixels x 1020 pixels. 800 is more pixels than 640, 1024 has more pixels than 800

RAW is a generic term for whatever generally proprietary format your camera uses to designate the image file that contains image data recorded by the sensor and delivered memory card. All other settings (usually LPG) actually discards some of the captured data before it writes to the card.

For what you describe taking a low res image is probably just fine. Just make sure you change setting before taking pics of the family or something you care about.

A possibly simpler option for photo shoots staged at home:

If you have a second, older digital camera that is not otherwise being used, set it for a lower resolution and use it for taking pictures that you want to post online. Resolution of 1280x960 or less usually gives compact files under 1 Mega-Pixel. Then you have photos that can be posted as-is without resizing. Use your primary camera with higher resolution if you want archive photos. This is what I often do.

On the software side, I use XNVIEW. It's free and will let you resize very easily with many options.

I shoot large and when I create a folder on my hard drive to store the pictures, I create a folder in that folder named "smaller" that stores the resized smaller picture set. XNVIEW has a batch processing mode to let you resize a whole folder of pics at once.

Ed

As you take more and more pictures and need both hi-res copies and smaller copies for various uses, photo organization can become a real problem. Even more so if you want to tweak some images with a photo editing program, but do not want to degrade the original photo. You may have heard that repeatedly working on and then re-saving will degrade a JPEG photo - it's true.

When I started doing photos for OGR articles, I really needed a simple system that would give good results, and yet fit in with my limited "computer savvy". Here's my approach on my iMac system using their photo program called Aperture 2:

1. I shoot all photos in the RAW format mentioned above and load them into Aperture from the camera.

2. Aperture allows you to maintain the characteristics of the original RAW image while you tweak white balance, sharpness, exposure, etc.

3. When needed, I can create from Aperture either a full high-res JPEG for an OGR article or a 1024 pixel photo for posting on the forum.

4. I don't save the high-res JPEG versions on my computer - takes up way too much space, and I always have the RAW image in Aperture if I need another high-res copy. The Aperture library of RAW images is also backed up on my laptop.

5. The low-res 1024 pixel photos are uploaded to Photobucket, so they are always available to me no matter which computer I am using. They are tagged with keywords so I can quickly find any one of the thousands of photos in my albums. Plus my computer hard drive isn't cluttered up with all those small photos. For a little over a dollar a month, the Photobucket Pro account gives you just about unlimited storage and bandwidth with no advertising on any of the pages. Again, if I do need a copy on my computer, I can go back to my Aperture library of RAW images and create a "fresh" copy.

Features equivalent to Aperture are also found in many PC-based photo programs such as Lightroom, etc.

It all works for me with a minimal amount of computer memory devoted to photos, and really not much "computer savvy" needed. The system is really simple to use once you get the knack of it.

Jim

I use a small FREE stand alone program called PIXresizer. You can download it from MajorGeeks from the link below.
http://majorgeeks.com/PIXresizer_d5632.html

Here is a screen shot.

Click on load picture. Pick the picture from where you have it

In the the center box where it says 600. I change that to 640. The second no. will change automatically.

Then just click on Save Picture.

I then rename the picture and upload it to Photobucket.
Robert

Jim,

One thing to consider is when you get a rocking final image, you may want to export one single High resolution jpg or tiff to archive with all your corrections made to it. The reason is with Lightroom and I believe with Aperture all the corrections are made in a separate text/database file . When you make a correction (spotting, color correction, sizing) the original RAW file is untouched. Problem is if the text/database file is lost or the Database corrupted you are only left with an unretouched RAW file.

By exporting a finished file to an Archive you have a backup you can return to in the event of an crash. Now I only do this to a few files each year, not all of them. But when I have a file that I am printing and selling they get the archive treatment. I never bother to save the reduced file when I export them to post to OGR or Facebook, those are all exported to a "Email Pics" folder which is emptied often

quote:

Originally posted by SB..:

8 - Now do a save-as and give the image a real name and save as a jpg

This last step is the most critical, if you do a "Save" instead of a "Save As" you will overwrite the original file and be left with the small edited one.

quote:

Originally posted by cbojanower:
Jim,

One thing to consider is when you get a rocking final image, you may want to export one single High resolution jpg or tiff to archive with all your corrections made to it. .....

Chris,

That's a good idea. Actually, I do keep hi-res JPEG backups of all OGR photos and a few other "good" shots on a series of CDs. But, you can't have too many backups of the best ones. I've got to invest in an external hard drive one of these days!

Jim

I have been using Carbon Copy Cloner on the Mac to backup. At least once a month I run a back up to an external 1 TB drive. Then once a year I back my entire image drive to an external device and move that one offsite (Bank Safe Deposit box). So usually I have 1 drive in my machine with the images, one monthly backup and one yearly back up off site. I figure if I lose a internal drive I am only out a month, the house burns down only out less than a year.

The archived images are also burned to a Archival DVD. Hopefully in 20 years ether the hard drive or the DVD will still be readable by whatever technology we have

Have any of you guys used the Carbonite (offsite) backup solution? I've been using it for a couple years. You get unlimited backup space for about $60/year or $100 for two years. I've got about 100Gb backed up there (lots of JPEGs and scanned TIFFs).

Ron

"holy *#@$ Batman.......you guys a way beyond me when it comes to digital pictures. I take pics and download them to my comuter.......that's about it. I know the camera gives options as to the "size", but really didn't know what that meant, hence the original questions in this post.

I guess for a "complete novice" like me who considers the rather simple operation of being able to download digital pics into his computer, to be somewhat of an accomplishent, I have a lot to learn when it comes to Digital Photography.

Anyway, I think I have at least gleaned one important item from all the appreciated responses, and I would further appreciate it if someone would correct me if I'm wrong. That item being, the "size" of a digital picture is expressed in terms of pixel width, and pixel height. The greater the number of pixels used in the original format the pic was shot as, will yield a higher quality image. The higher quality means that an actual printing or enlargement of the original digital image will end up with a better looking picture, to put it in "laymans" terms.

Therfore, when viewing a digital image that has been downloaded to one's computer, even though the images you actually see on your screen look the same size physically, they could be actually composed of a significantly different number of "Pixels", depending on what the camera setting was at the time. In other words, the pixels themselves vary in physical size, but your computer "compresses" all images to a standard viewable size on your screen.

I assume the next part of all this is that the picture with the greater number of pixels would take longer to upload to websites. Pretty much meaning that upload speeds are determined by the number of pixels, rather than the size of the pixels themselves.

WOW....I hope I've made myself clear as to what my understanding is, and someone, please correct me if I'm in left field somewhere.

Again, thanks for the responses, and your patience.....

REV

quote:

Originally posted by revitupfaster:

... they could be actually composed of a significantly different number of "Pixels", depending on what the camera setting was at the time. In other words, the pixels themselves vary in physical size, but your computer "compresses" all images to a standard viewable size on your screen....


REV

REV,
I think you've got it except for this paragraph. I think you're a little too hung up on the size of the photo that appears on your screen vs. its resolution.

How it is displayed on the screen depends mainly on the settings in your computer's photo display software. The default setting is usually to display it so that it appears quite a bit smaller than the average screen, no matter what the resolution of the photo is. Some programs may display a higher resolution photo at a little larger size, but that is controlled by the software.

The software is actually doing what the new forum will do for your photos, too. No matter what the resolution of the photo you upload, it will appear the same size on the new forum. Your software is doing the same thing by default when it displays your photos on your computer screen.

Most display software also allows you to magnify the image on your screen. Probably under a "view" menu, you will see different percents of enlargement. When using the higher magnification settings on a high-res photo, it will be larger than the screen, and you'll have to scroll around the image to examine different parts of it. Another option of most display software, is the "full screen" view. This will display a larger image on your screen, but not beyond the limits of the screen.

Under the higher magnifications, the low-res images will be unclear, but a high res photo will remain sharp under the high magnification setting. Other software may limit the size at which it displays those low-res photos to avoid that blurry appearance. Again, it all depends on the software your computer is using, and may vary from one program to another.

Jim

Just to add to the confusion

I don't own a computer - I use the library's. When my kids or sister email pictures to me, if I try to view them they are so huge that I have to scroll 3 times to the right and 4 times down to be able to see everything!!!!!! I can only see 1/12 of the image at a time.

I've tried using free-ware software to resize them so that I can see the entire image at once but I have yet to find one that can accept the entire image. All of the ones that I've tried only accept about 1/2 of the image which doesn't do me a whole lot of good.

- walt

Walt, it sounds like you are viewing the images in a web browser, and its not shrinking to fit the image, What its is doing is displaying the image at 72 DPI.

If the image were sized to 720 pixels on the long side it would take about 10 inches of screen space, if the same file was sent to you at 1440 pixels wide it would be about 20 inches wide etc

I use Irfanview to re-size photos for other forums. It is easy to use and available as a free download at Irfanview.com. Once you re-size the photo to the correct size it can be uploaded easliy.The reason I've never posted photos here is because the whole seperate server thing confuses me.
Ed

revitupfaster: It sounds like you've got it.

Just remember, sharing/viewing pictures on the internet and actually printing them out are two completely different things. Try not to confuse one with the other. Personally I think of images in 3 different ways...

- Original: The unaltered image file as it was originally captured by the camera (always save and backup the original).
- Internet: A file that has been re-sized with the sole purpose of being uploaded to the internet and viewed on a monitor.
- Printable: A file that has been cropped and tweaked via editing software and is ready to be printed.


Internet images are easy to re-size following the instructions I've shown above (if you have Microsoft image viewer that typically comes with Microsoft Office). If it looks good on your monitor, and the zoom factor is set to "100%", then you are pretty much guaranteed a good internet image. After you save it, it's just a matter of uploading it to your image website (I use photobucket.com).

If you want to have actual prints made of your images, then your kinda opening a whole different can of worms. You don't want to reduce the pixels from the original, otherwise you will loose quality. In this case you only need to alter the aspect ratio of your original (ratio of length vs width). This usually involves cropping of one or two edges to match the intended print aspect. How much you crop really depends on your "original" image aspect vs the intended print aspect ratio. 3x5, 5x7, & 8x10 prints all have different ratios which will cause different portions of your original image to be cropped off once it's printed out. Sometimes you may have a hard time fitting an original image into one of those shapes without having to clip the top of someones head off. It can be a real pain in the butt.

The original camera image ratio tends to be a bit longer than all print ratios.