WHAT AM I MISSING?

A post above states: "Fine is smallest file size Basic is larger again with Normal being the largest"....uh....that is not the normal, standard progression of file compression. Perhaps your camera offers multiple options as far as the degree of compression and image capture SIZE, in pixels??

FINE= the least-compressed JPEG
Normal=significantly more image compression is applied
BASIC-in Nikon-speak, has the absolute highest degree of JPEG compression applied to the capture, and produces the smallest file storage size.

FIne,normal,and basic are not images "sizes" per se, but rather, the degree of compression applied to the data; many companies offer an Extra-Fine level, which creates a very gently compressed JPEG image, and uses up a lot of card space.

One thing Nikon has been known for since the days of the original 'affordable' d-slr camera is excellent image appearance on its small and medium-compression level images.

Different cameras offer different combinations of compression levels, which is what Fine/Medium/Basic are--they are the degrees of COMPRESSION of the image. The image's on-screen SIZE, in terms of pixel width, is another matter entirely. The options available to the photographer vary wildly from camera to camera; it is possible to shoot a Fine-compression (meaning not very compressed), JPEG-Medium size, which looks superb when some in-camera-sharpening is applied. The degree of in-camera sharpening is usually adjustable by the photographer as well: setting the sharpening to Medium-High on a JPEF Fine, Large-size image may very well produce a DRAMATICALLY different appearance than applying the same Medium-High sharpening level to a Basic-compression (highly compressed data), Small-sized image.

I only point these differences out because of the assertion above that I see as indicative of some confusion about the settings being used in the original comparison; perhaps it was a typo, perhaps not, but the comments regarding the size of the files are not in agreement with my experience. As Kerbouchard touched upon above, JPEWG images can be quite,quite good. The exact "right" combination of compression level, capture size, and in-camera sharpening, tone curve, and in-camera saturation can produce some quite amazing JPEG images straight out of the camera--if the settings match the shooting situation, and the user is well-versed in his or her camera's individual JPEG Engine and how it works.
 
A post above states: "Fine is smallest file size Basic is larger again with Normal being the largest"....uh....that is not the normal, standard progression of file compression. Perhaps your camera offers multiple options as far as the degree of compression and image capture SIZE, in pixels??

FINE= the least-compressed JPEG
Normal=significantly more image compression is applied
BASIC-in Nikon-speak, has the absolute highest degree of JPEG compression applied to the capture, and produces the smallest file storage size.

FIne,normal,and basic are not images "sizes" per se, but rather, the degree of compression applied to the data; many companies offer an Extra-Fine level, which creates a very gently compressed JPEG image, and uses up a lot of card space.

One thing Nikon has been known for since the days of the original 'affordable' d-slr camera is excellent image appearance on its small and medium-compression level images.

Different cameras offer different combinations of compression levels, which is what Fine/Medium/Basic are--they are the degrees of COMPRESSION of the image. The image's on-screen SIZE, in terms of pixel width, is another matter entirely. The options available to the photographer vary wildly from camera to camera; it is possible to shoot a Fine-compression (meaning not very compressed), JPEG-Medium size, which looks superb when some in-camera-sharpening is applied. The degree of in-camera sharpening is usually adjustable by the photographer as well: setting the sharpening to Medium-High on a JPEF Fine, Large-size image may very well produce a DRAMATICALLY different appearance than applying the same Medium-High sharpening level to a Basic-compression (highly compressed data), Small-sized image.

I only point these differences out because of the assertion above that I see as indicative of some confusion about the settings being used in the original comparison; perhaps it was a typo, perhaps not, but the comments regarding the size of the files are not in agreement with my experience. As Kerbouchard touched upon above, JPEWG images can be quite,quite good. The exact "right" combination of compression level, capture size, and in-camera sharpening, tone curve, and in-camera saturation can produce some quite amazing JPEG images straight out of the camera--if the settings match the shooting situation, and the user is well-versed in his or her camera's individual JPEG Engine and how it works.


I was KUNFOOSED i had always believed what you said above about the F/N/B compression BUT my crops did not support that view HOWEVER on carefully and deliberately retaking the shots i realised that i had mixed up the Crop identification

I did write probably at the same time as you were writing your post

NO one answered the question i asked really - hocus focus!!! - actually what i did was accidentally mix up my naming of the crops - the camera is set so the shutter is locked out until it gets a focus lock - so i cant see how I or it missed focus - but lets not go there - i really was just looking out the window and wondering about JPEG quality i did not set up a full tonal test or do anything other than take that shot - but if all i have learned is that my understanding of Fine Normal & Basic is correct that will do for today

I was talking about file sizes others were i believe talking about image sizes. For what was a simple question (Can you see any difference in these three JPEG's?) the replies became overly technical :-( So i totally agree with you the images that my Nikon can produce at the greatest compression levels are excellent and these were at standard the settings without any users adjustments and shot through a window. When i add a bit of sharpness some saturation and use the VIVID setting things get even better. As i have 45+ years of negatives to scan i really dont want to spend a lot of time with RAW images and Photoshop i am just getting a handle on this camera and i am looking forward to it doing most of the work for me producing excellent/outstanding images from the camera that dont need post editing apart from the most basic stuff - getting horizons level and cropping as a fair number of the pictures will be taken from a fast moving boat.
 
I hate to point this out David but you asked if anyone could see a difference and we can, I did too. The one marked fine is out of focus. If you can't see that, then your other question is answered, you may need a better monitor. Beside that I'll add that even though you didn't ask, you should have a good quality calibrated monitor which will allow you to see the small differences.As for your fast shots, from a moving boat and what others have said, let me paraphrase. Electrons and memory cards are cheap, shoot fine resolution JPGs and you should be happy. You don't need to shoot RAW and you are correct, it means more post processing.

You may not easily see the difference in your test shot but the shadow area and blacks will be the first places to suffer from compression artifacts, not the bright spaces, or the subject. You'll see speckles and spots in the shadows. Try it. That's why some people shoot +1/3rd stop all the time for digital.

File size on disc is not the same as file size. All your photos will be 4256x2832 how much space on disc will vary, even between the same shots. If you open a JPG and save it, you might not see the difference at first, but if you start with a more compressed image, you are losing quality every time you expand and re-compress.

Shoot Finest you can. It's that simple.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top