basic, normal, or fine pictures?

[Dane]

So I am curious is there really a difference between picture qualities Normal and Fine? I've been shooting in Fine, and have been always curious whats difference between "norma" and this.

[HawkMan]

the amount of jpeg compression usually. some camera might also reduce resolution on lower qualities but it's usually a separate setting.

if you're on a jpeg only camera, never choose anything but fine. you'll never get the lost details back.

[Dane]

the amount of jpeg compression usually. some camera might also reduce resolution on lower qualities but it's usually a separate setting.

if you're on a jpeg only camera, never choose anything but fine. you'll never get the lost details back.

Oh ok thanks!

[Draconian Guppy]

evidence of the loss of detail is that the jpeg when set to "normal" the file will be smaller than the "fine". Though you were on a Nikon dSLR last I recall? Why not try for yourself in the followin scenarios:

Set up a picture you would normally want to keep and shoot:

1. Raw - then process just to jpeg without adding anything.

2. Shoot Fine

3. Shoot Normal.

Then see which one you think looks best or if you see a difference at all.

[Dane]

evidence of the loss of detail is that the jpeg when set to "normal" the file will be smaller than the "fine". Though you were on a Nikon dSLR last I recall? Why not try for yourself in the followin scenarios:

Set up a picture you would normally want to keep and shoot:

1. Raw - then process just to jpeg without adding anything.

2. Shoot Fine

3. Shoot Normal.

Then see which one you think looks best or if you see a difference at all.

Yeah I have my 3100. I was playing around earlier, I haven't shot it RAW hardly at all. In Fine it seems like when I zoom in you can tell a difference. I started to play in light room and I suppose RAW would be much better.

[HawkMan]

RAW will be better than fine jpeg. though you may not really see it. what RAW has the advantage with is that it has lots of extra information you don't see, particularly about light. jpeg only has the visible light data. raw knows that the bright lights are so and so much brighter than the limited visual display can show, or so and so much darker. this means that a raw file can be adjusted far better, especially if you screw up and over/under expose. then you can correct up to +/- 2 stops without quality loss. and it lets you alance out the image better since you have a low grade HDR photo technically. so if the sky is to dark you have the information to make it brighter, or darker.

[Argote]

evidence of the loss of detail is that the jpeg when set to "normal" the file will be smaller than the "fine". Though you were on a Nikon dSLR last I recall? Why not try for yourself in the followin scenarios:

Set up a picture you would normally want to keep and shoot:

1. Raw - then process just to jpeg without adding anything.

2. Shoot Fine

3. Shoot Normal.

Then see which one you think looks best or if you see a difference at all.

The problem with that comparison is that the RAW file will probably look bad there since the JPG engine in most cameras does some processing.

[threetonesun]

Yeah, often when you shoot in RAW it generates a low-quality JPEG for display.

Anyway, use fine if you're shooting in jpeg. The other quality levels are just hangers-on from the days when you quickly ran out of memory on your DSLR.

[HawkMan]

RAW's get processed to. but the processed settings are stored separately and applied after you open the image, hence why RAW's tend to change a few seconds after you open them..

[Argote]

Where I was going at is that the default settings for RAW conversion in a computer usually result in a duller looking photo than what the camera JPG engine does (Which usually increases sharpness, contrast, vibrance, saturation, etc.).

[Draconian Guppy]

The problem with that comparison is that the RAW file will probably look bad there since the JPG engine in most cameras does some processing.

Where I was going at is that the default settings for RAW conversion in a computer usually result in a duller looking photo than what the camera JPG engine does (Which usually increases sharpness, contrast, vibrance, saturation, etc.).

So by this logic he should just do nothing, a better answer would've been "do make sure you process your raw files to match those of the camera so it can be a fair comparison /draconian-jerk :p

jokes a side, I do agree with you, apples to apples :p