Picture Size

[Raindrops]

Hello. I hope this is the right place for this!

OK, I have a new camera. I've never worked with digital before. It's a compact Olympus SP500-UZ. I realise it will have its limitations (compared to the SLRs) but some of them may lie with me and I'd rather find them out and use the camera to the best of its ability rather than change stuff in photoshop! It has 6 million pixels if that's relevant!

Which of these look better. I'm talking quality, not the picture itself!

To me, the first one looks better but I read somewhere that high compression makes the quality worse or something? Maybe it's not a very good example and is badly focused? :roll:

Picture 1 was taken on HQ 2816 x 2112and resized on the computer.
Aperture: 4.5 Shutter Speed: 1/800. (Amazing how the computer stores that information huh?)

Picture 1

Picture 2 taken on SQ2 640 x 480 and is straight from camera.
Aperture: 5 Shutter Speed: 1/640 (should have kept those the same I guess :roll

I guess my question is which setting is best for website stuff?

Thank you!

 

[Alpha]

It really depends on accessibility. If you really want good presentation of your shots on the web, you should seriously consider the .JP2 format (Jpeg 2000). It has jpeg sizes but quality near TIFF's. It will, however, require visitors to your site to download a JP2 plugin for their browser.

 

[omeletteman]

I'd say they look basically the same quality wise, but I'd recommend you take photos on the highest (or towards the highest end) quality you can, even if you think your jsut gonna post online. You never know when you will want to print off a photo, and if its 640x480, its not gonna come out very well in print, even at just 4x6.

 

[Alpha]

The photo on the bottom has more artifacts. Stick with the one on top.

 

[Onyx]

.png is also another format that i would look into. it is supposed to be a replacement for .gif and .tif

 

[Raindrops]

Thank you for your comments!