Resolution / Compression question...

GaryBakkerGaryBakker Registered Users Posts: 266 Major grins
edited May 11, 2006 in SmugMug Support
I'm a newbie both here and at SmugMug. I'm still in the process of uploading my library of photos. Per this message board and the information at SmugMug I've been batch processing my photos through Photoshop Elements to save them as JPEG 10 before uploading.

My question is should I change my camera's compression settings to avoid this process, and for my Canon cameras what is the appropriate setting?

We have four Canon cameras in our family: A Digital Rebel, an A95, an SD450, and an S1 IS.

I checked the possible settings for the Rebel:
Resolution options:
L (3072x2048)
M (2048x1360)
S (1536x1024)
Compression options:
Fine
Normal

For the A95:
Resolution options:
L (2592x1944)
M1 (2048x1536)
M2 (1600x1200)
S (640x480)
Compression options:
Superfine
Fine
Normal

I didn't check the other two cameras, but I'm sure they'll offer similar options.

We've all been taking photos at the largest resolution and the best compression. (Well, my son with the S1 IS says he takes his pictures usually with the M1 resolution setting.)

Unfortunately Canon doesn't really say what their compression settings really mean. What compares to the Photoshop JPEG 10 setting?

And do I really want to set my camera to take lower compression photos? (Most articles I found on the web seem to talk about JPEG quite negatively due to it being a lossy format, and recommend using the highest quality camera settings.)

Advice and counsel will be warmly accepted.

(By the way, I'll be away from a computer all day today so if I don't respond to your answers right away, please be understanding.)

Regards,
Gary
SmugMug site => The Bakker Chautauqua
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." (Einstein)

Comments

  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited May 9, 2006
    If you want quality, then always use your camera's highest quality setting. The camera setting and JPEG 10 are maybe not quite apples and oranges, maybe more like Fuji and Granny Smith.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • mbradymbrady Registered Users Posts: 321 Major grins
    edited May 9, 2006
    Are you doing some sort of other processing of your photos after you take them off your camera? (color-correction, cropping, etc.)?
    If you're leaving them as is, you can just upload those straight to Smugmug without resaving them in Elements. (Assuming they come out of your camera as JPG).

    And as already stated, use the highest quality, lowest compression setting in your camera for best results.
  • BaldyBaldy Registered Users, Super Moderators Posts: 2,853 moderator
    edited May 9, 2006
    Hi Gary,

    Disclaimer: I'm from SmugMug so might worry that I'd have an incentive to tell you smaller is better. :D

    But actually, in my own photography, I rarely use the highest quality settings on my 20D. Even for an important car show like Concours d'Elegance at Pebble Beach, where car owners get 30x40s of their winning cars for their mantles, I'll shoot medium compression.

    Reason is I shoot a lot of shots quickly and room on the card, handling 100s of shots after, etc., is too slow and I haven't found anyone who can notice the difference anyway.

    Where they really notice the difference is skin tone, contrast, sharpness, etc.
    My Smug Mug
  • GaryBakkerGaryBakker Registered Users Posts: 266 Major grins
    edited May 9, 2006
    mbrady wrote:
    Are you doing some sort of other processing of your photos after you take them off your camera? (color-correction, cropping, etc.)?
    If you're leaving them as is, you can just upload those straight to Smugmug without resaving them in Elements. (Assuming they come out of your camera as JPG).
    Matthew, I used to crop locally, but for the last batch I uploaded to SmugMug I cropped online. I realize I can upload them straight to SmugMug but I'm trying to reduce the upload time when loading hundreds of photos at a time. Everything I read here said that JPEG 10 is not noticeably different than JPEG 12, so I changed the compression before uploading. I'm wondering if I should just avoid that extra step and shoot directly using a bigger compression.
    DavidTO wrote:
    If you want quality, then always use your camera's highest quality setting.
    mbrady wrote:
    And as already stated, use the highest quality, lowest compression setting in your camera for best results.
    So, you're both recommending I should shoot at highest quality and compress more for the upload (thereby having the high quality photos on my computer and lower quality online). Correct?
    Baldy wrote:
    Even for an important car show like Concours d'Elegance at Pebble Beach, where car owners get 30x40s of their winning cars for their mantles, I'll shoot medium compression.
    Hmmm. A different opinion. Baldy, do you know how I could find out what "medium compression" might equate to on my Canon cameras?
    SmugMug site => The Bakker Chautauqua
    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." (Einstein)
  • DnaDna Registered Users Posts: 435 Major grins
    edited May 10, 2006
    To confuse you further, I shoot raw because I want the best quality for my prints. It's a bit like having a negative which you can reprint to A3 size and having a 6x4 photo which you can scan and print to A4 size.

    If you think that the photos look fine at medium compression and jpeg 10 then save them as that.

    The more important thing is to take more photos ... mwink.gif

    Dna
    http://www.andrewmurdoch.com.au
  • mbradymbrady Registered Users Posts: 321 Major grins
    edited May 10, 2006
    Green Fleurdelis wrote:
    So, you're both recommending I should shoot at highest quality and compress more for the upload (thereby having the high quality photos on my computer and lower quality online). Correct?
    I should probably point out that I'm not a pro photographer with a super crazy fancy camera with a gazillion megapixels, I mainly just share photos with friends and family. I'm not sure if you are or not, but that could affect your workflow and post-processing routine. Having said that -

    In my case, I shoot with my camera set to the highest quality, lowest compression setting. If I'm satisfied with how the photo looks as is, I upload without any additional saving or compressing. If I do need to tweak something first (cropping, brightness, etc.), I save my modified version as JPG 10 and then upload that.

    I guess my main point/question is: unless you're doing some post processing, then why bother resaving/compressing the photo before uploading? (and perhaps you're not) You'll just degrade the quality by doing that. Every time you re-save a JPG, you're going to lose some picture information regardless of your JPG compression quality setting.
  • BaldyBaldy Registered Users, Super Moderators Posts: 2,853 moderator
    edited May 10, 2006
    Green Fleurdelis wrote:
    Baldy, do you know how I could find out what "medium compression" might equate to on my Canon cameras?
    Hi Gary,

    I spent soooo much time a few months ago trying to figure this out. I could write a treatise on it, but here are a couple of high points:

    1. Canon cameras use 2:1 chroma subsampling when converting in-camera from RAW to JPEG. You'll read on many forums that theoretically, that shouldn't make any difference. To my eye and on some images, it did make a difference.

    2. Photoshop JPEG 10 uses 1:1 chroma subsampling but more compression than the Canon fine setting. So depending on the image, JPEG 10 is usually smaller, byte-wise because the compression on Canon fine is more like Photoshop JPEG 11, but with the chroma sub-sampling issue.

    3. When you do the pixel peep thing between the two, most people will say they both look good but in some areas of the image some people will have opinions on which looks better to their eyes. My own takeaway is when you get broad areas of near-solid red as on the side of a Ferrari, the 1:1 chroma subsampled image looks better despite the higher compression.

    4. I was having trouble finding anyone who could tell the difference between camera fine and camera normal compression under any circumstances. Perhaps on some images... Some others have tried their hand at this:

    http://www.digitalsecrets.net/ItsCanon/challenge1b.html

    And if you look at Phil Askey's reviews on dpreview for Canons, even his magnified pixel peeping doesn't seem to catch the differences.

    5. If you're shooting landscapes and you do all kinds of careful post on one image, why not shoot RAW? Then you have all kinds of control.

    But I've seen 1,000 times portrait and event photographers do so much better firing off lots of frames fast to catch the moment which just makes the photo, and no one can tell the final product that it isn't perfect.

    6. People and action are judged by catching the moment and by skin tones, not by the finer points of RAW to JPEG.

    My $.02
    My Smug Mug
  • GaryBakkerGaryBakker Registered Users Posts: 266 Major grins
    edited May 11, 2006
    mbrady wrote:
    I guess my main point/question is: unless you're doing some post processing, then why bother resaving/compressing the photo before uploading? (and perhaps you're not) You'll just degrade the quality by doing that.
    You've hit on the crux of the matter actually. I'm a little worried about the quality of my photos. Call me impatient, but the reason I've been batch compressing before uploading was simply to save upload time. Per numerous hints and tips on both dgrin and Smugmug, I came to believe that I could compress the photos and save a lot of time without significantly compromising the quality.

    If I were uploading just a few photos, I wouldn't bother compressing. But it makes a huge difference when uploading 700 photos at once. Therefore, I figured, if I shoot in a compressed format I kill two birds with one stone: I avoid the batch compress, and I still get the gallery loaded relatively quickly. Assuming of course that I'm OK with the compressed quality level.
    Baldy wrote:
    I spent soooo much time a few months ago trying to figure this out. I could write a treatise on it, but here are a couple of high points:
    You DID write a treatise. :): And I'm appreciative.
    baldy wrote:
    2. Photoshop JPEG 10 uses 1:1 chroma subsampling but more compression than the Canon fine setting. So depending on the image, JPEG 10 is usually smaller, byte-wise because the compression on Canon fine is more like Photoshop JPEG 11, but with the chroma sub-sampling issue.
    Interesting. If Canon "fine" is about JPEG 11, then maybe I don't want to go to "normal" (unless "normal" is JPEG 10 rather than something worse).
    baldy wrote:
    3. When you do the pixel peep thing...
    Hmmm, sounds somehow... wrong. The link was interesting, but I wish they'd have compared Large/Fine with Large/Normal. That's really the only option I'm considering.
    baldy wrote:
    5. If you're shooting landscapes and you do all kinds of careful post on one image, why not shoot RAW? Then you have all kinds of control.
    Ummm... because it sounds so intimidating? I've never even considered it, thinking it was something only professionals would use.
    baldy wrote:
    6. People and action are judged by catching the moment and by skin tones, not by the finer points of RAW to JPEG.
    Agreed. Perhaps I'm overthinking all this.


    Complicating matters, I'm not sure the "fine" on my Rebel is the same as the "fine" on my A95. My A95 has three settings: superfine, fine and normal. The Rebel only has fine and normal. If I had more time, maybe experimentation would settle this question for me.

    Sheesh. My head feels like it is full of buzzing bees.

    Gary
    SmugMug site => The Bakker Chautauqua
    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." (Einstein)
Sign In or Register to comment.