Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Olympus

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 16, 2003, 1:02 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585
Default

I do prefer to shoot HQ, but I also use Tiff and SHQ. I really like the Tiff mode when I know I will be printint at 8 1/2 X 11 or larger.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2003, 2:06 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 140
Default

OK, depending on the car it does make a differance. Poor analogy! I'll have to try some pictures and check the highlights in the eyes. I took shots of the cats indoors, landscape and such, but no closeup portraits. I'll give it a try and see if I can see a differance. If so I will switch to SHQ. But I still use regular gas!

A better comparison might have been people swear there car runs smoother after an oil change. And if yours does, I don't want to hear about it!
jbailey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2003, 4:51 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 133
Default

What advantage using TIFF if you know your going to print. I am thinking 8x10
TonyG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2003, 12:44 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 106
Default

So, if I shoot mostly HQ, then find a gem that I want to print out at 5x7 or 8x10, what will it need in post processing to bring it up to the same quality as if it had been shot in SHQ? Obviously, some sharpening. More saturation? Anything else? I know a portrait will need different editing than a landscape, and I am thinking more of a portrait type shot. You like it, so you zoom in and crop for a tighter portrait ( I'm getting a 4mp cam in a few days and will be able to crop more than with the present 2mp). I enjoy spending time in Photoshop. I guess my question is, can you go into Photoshop and compensate for the slightly lesser quality of HQ, and bring it up to the same quality as if it were shot in SHQ, if you decide you want to print? Or will you still see more jpeg jaggies in the HQ? Thanks for your wealth of experience, folks.
jmcdev1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2003, 1:57 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 38
Default

In Photoshop I would do a levels correction if needed and increase contrast slightly. Then unsharp mask filter. Don't over do it. Then use the crop tool if you like. Don't try to res up higher than the resolution that matches your printer's capability to print. That's how I would do it. Others may have a different way that may be better. Every time I get used to one way of doing things, someone shows me a way that is better or faster.
fotoman150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2003, 3:28 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 76
Default

I use SHQ almost all the time, even with a 32mb card I almost never fill it up. I also have a 128mb card now. I am also using a C-2100 though, not a 4 or 5 megapixle camera :P
MIDACL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2003, 3:50 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 128
Default

I pretty much agree with fotoman, although sometimes I find it necessary to set the black and white points in each channel (R, G and B) in Levels. For most pix, you can just set them in the composite (RGB). I do all the corrections, Levels, Contrast, cropping, etc. before using the Unsharp Mask. That's the last thing I do, and it's important to view the actual pixels, (100% mag) when you do the sharpening. Photoshop image management resamples other magnifications so you don't get a true picture of the sharpening effects. Photoshop has another neat tool, called Curves, that is very powerful, but somewhat difficult to use. I use it for "problem" pix...where I maybe want to tone down some hot spots, but don't want to affect the overall exposure level.
As for quality settings, my CP 950 is only 2 megapixels, so shooting in the highest JPEG setting (FINE), files are around 800 Kbytes. A 256 MB card holds a LOT of pix! I did some tests, taking identical pix in uncompressed TIFF and JPEG FINE. Even when they were blown up to 400-500%, I couldn't see much difference. The camera has a good, but not great, lens. The lesson I learned is that no matter how many pixels you have, or what format you choose to save the image file, the quality of the image is still limited by the optics of the camera.
The Oly is another matter. It's 5 megapixels, so SHQ JPEGS are about 4 megabytes. TIFFs are 15 megabytes. Even a 128 MB card will only hold 8 pix! Again, I ran some tests, and decided that, for my purposes, 1:2.7 JPEG (the highest quality) was satisfactory for me.
Bert Bigelow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2003, 3:15 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
marcoangels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 243
Default

Tony, the advantage of using TIFF format, if you will be printing 8X10 or larger, is that it is non-lossy, whereas the jpg format will cause some deterioration of the image due to compression. On the other hand, the TIFF files are very large and can take several seconds to save the image, before you can take another pic. Gibbey is referring to special instances, where, let's say, you want an 8.5X11 of your mother, to frame and hang on your wall. TIFF would get you the 'best' image.
Blessings, Johnny
marcoangels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2003, 4:40 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 128
Default

Johnny,
I agree with you about the losses from JPEG compression vs. TIFF filesize. You don't want to do MULTIPLE saves of a JPEG file, because each one will continue to degrade the pixel data, but if you use the highest quality (lowest compression) JPEG that your camera offers, the loss is minimal. Then, of course, once you upload the image to the computer and edit it in Photoshop or whatever, it should be saved as a TIFF or PSD file. So the only loss incurred is the initial processing in the camera. It seems to me to be a reasonable compromise which allows a lot more pix to be stored on a card. Of course, if you're doing a few shots for a special portrait or something, then TIFF makes sense. I guess it all comes down to each person's individual needs.
Bert Bigelow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2003, 7:13 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 133
Default

Thats the way I have been working recently. SHQ but any editing/cropping or anything else is saved as TIFF. Seems about the best as mine are sports shots I can't wait for a 5mb tiff to save

My wife wants to do portrait so will prob set to tiff for that
TonyG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 AM.