jpeg basic vs jpeg fine

[r3g]

Is there a noticeable difference in quality between the 2? From looking at the finesize difference there isnt THAT much more compression. Pictures will not be printed so they will only be viewed my monitor.

[Rooz]

without cropping or printing, no there is not much difference for most subject matter. keep in mind though that if you go with basic and you DO decide to crop, you will notice a big difference in quality, (even on a PC monitor), as you cut closer to your subject. and printing will be a similar story.

[herc182]

Given how cheap memory is (especially SD memory for the D80) just shoot in the highest possible quality (although not raw!). You never know what you might want to do with the photos later in the day, and would rue the day that you didnt spend £25 on a sandisk extreme 2gb memory card!!!

Dont bother, just shoot highest possible quality. (and you cant use a lack of space on your computer as an excuse either. you can pick up an external hard drive for peanuts).

[LR Max]

You need to do a lot of testing on this. I did a few test shots and couldn't tell a difference.

Then I went and did a whole shoot (~1000 images) and I could tell a difference!! The basic had SIGNIFICANTLY less quality than the normal.

I now shoot most of my stuff in Large normal jpeg (sometimes I have to shoot in RAW...only because The Man makes me). I went from fine to normal with no noticable image degration. I can shoot an excellent picture in normal and not use up a ton o' space.

But you need to do your own testing. BTW, this was with a D70s so who knows if anything has changed with the D80. Do A LOT of testing, not just 5 shots from your desk chair.

[tcadwall]

I think the compression engine is different on the D80 than the D70s. For instance, I don't get much variation in file size at all if I shoot a plain subject matter (like a wall) or if I shoot something with a lot of detail. I think the D80 has a compression engine that will give you varying sizes depending on the subject matter. In either case, then you will see a bigger discrepancy between compression settings in more detailed images (especiallly images with a higher dynamic range).

Shoot RAW, keep RAW archives, and convert on your pc. That is, unless you really have a good workflow reason not to. I have reasons to shoot jpg, and when those reasons don't apply, I shoot raw. You never know if you are going to want to make a print, and if a scene has higher dynamic range, you will be wishing that you shot it raw so that you could bring out the best in the shot.

[r3g]

ive got a 2gb utraII card in i dont think it can take any higher. im going to go pick up and nice tripod then head to get some nice shots of the goldengate bridge later today so ill test it then but i dont want to take my chances and regreat it so im going to continue to shoot in JPEG Fine. i dont shoot in RAW yet because im not ready to have to tweek my pictures after i take them but that will change soon enough. HD space isnt an issue i have over 1TB of storage :cool: . thx for the input every1! =)

[Rooz]

why don;t you take a handful of raw photos aswell so you can draw comparisons of images and what you can do PP to dolly em up ?

[tcadwall]

why don;t you take a handful of raw photos aswell Agreed.:cool:

[SpecialK]

i dont shoot in RAW yet because im not ready to have to tweek my pictures after i take them but that will change soon enough.

You do not have to tweek at all. You can (I assume with Nikon NX or whatever the SW is) select all images, then process them all in a batch while you go make tea. Then, go back and individualy tweek only those that need it.

I'm not a big pixel peeper but I like the flexibility of RAW.

[jcon]

Given how cheap memory is (especially SD memory for the D80) just shoot in the highest possible quality (although not raw!).



Why not shoot in RAW? It gives you the most flexibility.