1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Shooting at lower res?

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by pixelpuffin, Nov 2, 2020.

  1. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    Out of interest, do you get permission to take photos of the opposition’s players?

    How do you or others view your photos, on screen, large/small prints?

    Some/all of your cameras have dual card slots, perhaps try low res in the other slot.
  2. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    I have to ask permission every match from the other teams manager. 9/10 it’s granted. At the start of the year, permission was denied and the light was just stunning! Our teams players were on top form, all I could do was stand and watch the match unfold and see spectacular opportunities. The camera was in my backpack ready to go - it was torture. Typically my son scored a hat trick, the last goal was a jumping flying kick , I would have made that into a poster for him. I’m still bitter !
    As for viewing, the manager works in IT and set up a secure shared group. All parents have this either on phone, tablet etc. Images are loaded as and when he gets round to it. There’s currently a backlog of 2-3K plus the 5k I need to sift through.

    yes, both the 7dii and 5dii have the dual slots. I considered what you said a few days ago. Tested my 7dii today with several lenses worked flawlessly. I must have set the wrong AF case. I know that both lens and viewfinder streamed up last match. Everything was soaked. The eyecup kept flooding. Even though I had a rain cover on. Front element needed wiping every few seconds (hood was attached too).

    it was awful and the shots are soft and blurry - Bad Day
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2020
  3. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member


    On the resolution point, are all your pictures uploaded at full size so that the group can download and have the same large JPEG file as your memory stick? I assume you do not resize your photos in the W10 app.
  4. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    It seems they are drastically reduced
    As often the stick is full after copying from the CF
    But when I’ve completed the post, there’s often 5-700 shots
    Yet the stick is then almost empty.
    So I’m assuming the win 10 edit suite is discarding tons of info.
    I’ll see if I’ve got a pic on my phone to upload here...
  5. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    This is typical of what I try to get...
    My lad..
    Also the reason why I want the 2.8, to throw the back ground out

  6. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    If you mean that you take each image into the program then save it again and the file size reduces a lot then you are destroying the information in the image. The default jpeg saving behaviour of most editing program is to apply a moderate amount of compression on saving. If you edit and save a picture twice it applies the compression twice. It is important therefore never to overwrite a jpeg. You are working on a copy with the original safe so that’s OK but to the original question about shooting large or medium, if you are, at the end of the day, only using heavily compressed edits of the large then there ain’t much point taking them! But you need to work on the post-processing. A well processed medium sized out of camera jpg might well be better than a heavily compressed edited large jpg!
  7. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    To me, this could be a photographer's definition of masochism (not in the sexual sense).

    Perhaps you could try to imagine you were doing this 20 or 30 years ago, using film.
    Pretend you have only 2 or 3 rolls of 36 exposures, so that you have to concentrate for every shot because you can't take thousands of images (and the film and its processing costs you money). You might get 10 good ones out of a hundred taken, rather than 10 good ones out of 2 or 3 thousand. I write this as somebody who used Kodachrome for about 40 years, and the last rolls I used worked out at about 30p per shot, which was a great incentive to use each shot carefully.

    Alternatively, concentrate in getting the best possible JPEG images 'straight from the camera' to minimise the 'post work'. Are there any settings on the camera that could be adjusted to help achieve this? Try to decide if there are any kinds of 'post work' adjustments that you need to apply to lots of shots, then see if the camera's default settings can be adjusted to do this for you. Contrast and colour intensity, for example, could be adjusted if these are the 'post work' adjustments you often make. Or if you often need to rotate images, there might be a problem with how you hold the camera. Similarly, blurred images may indicate that the shutter speed is too slow (is there an maximum ISO limit setting that needs to be overridden in very poor light?), or that the autofocus needs to be changed from 'whole frame' to 'spot'. The last is worth investigating if you often get blurred footballers and sharp backgrounds.
  8. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Canon DPP is really good at batch processing. If there are consistent changes to be applied to a shoot then it’s a doddle. Most flexible on raw files but works on jpgs (don’t overwrite) too.
  9. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    Thanks for all the replies
    After 13yrs using digital I’m still winging it.
    I agree I need to try and get the best possible results in camera
    However as you all know there are 3 variables that need to be right
    Shutter, aperture and iso
    Obviously I’m stuck needing high shutter, which then dictates needing wide apertures which means the iso is the only variable I have.
    Usually the sun is at one end of the pitch, meaning I’m either shooting into the light or away from it. With the old 7d I was stuck on auto iso and in manual mode (hard work indeed) but the 80d and 7dii offer exp comp in auto iso which is a game changer.
    My other option is picture styles
    I’ve tried standard, auto and landscape. I’ve upped the sharpness, contrast and saturation. But it’s still a big struggle every match.
    I find digital so much harder than I did with film.
    Another thing is I have to predict what’s coming, hence the number of shots I take. Obviously if I see the shot...I’ve missed it!!
  10. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    As I said previously, every time you edit a JPEG the resulting, edited, file is further compressed. If you create a JPEG from a raw file there is only one layer of compression. There really is an excellent reason for using raw files.
  11. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    I agree, but the files will be massive, my laptop hasn’t got the power - it gets tired with jpegs after a hour!!
    But I realised this, hence why I don’t edit the cf card.
  12. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Stop buying CF cards, reuse the ones you have and with the savings buy a more powerful computer
    EightBitTony likes this.
  13. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    Just to clarify, if you select one image from a CF card what size is it on the card, what size after you have edited it on the W10 program and what size on the app that the manager makes available?
  14. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    Not quite sure how I find that out
    Bear with me for a few days
  15. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    A bit of difference between spending £20-30 on a card and splashing out £1k min on a better laptop. I do intend to buy a better computer but not until next year
  16. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Although a raw file is much bigger than a jpeg on disk this to a large extent reflects the effects of lossy compression. When the file is opened for editing it is expanded the difference in memory requirement is more like a factor 2 and this is mostly because the raw picture information yields 12 (old cameras) or 14 ( new cameras) bits per colour per pixel whereas jpegs are 8 bit. So, roughly speaking the memory required to store a large jpg from, say, a 24 MP camera during processing is 6,000x4,000*3*8 /(1024*1024) MB + program overhead and for a raw file 6000,*4000*3*16/(1024*1024) MB + program overhead. So, depending on how much memory the program itself needs, the practical difference is up to a factor 2 not the factor 5 or 6 you might suspect from the size on disk. It is also entirely possible that a program may allocate 16 bits of memory per pixel per colour even if the image data is 8 bit.

    The reason jpeg files should not be overwritten is that they are fully expanded then compressed again when saved. So (making up a story to illustrate) if the original compression had decided that 8,000 neighbouring pixels of sky could be represented by one colour these 8,000 pixels are duly expanded and assigned this colour. On saving, the compression engine may decide there is a better size win by representing these + another 4,000 pixels of sky by perhaps a very slightly different blue so these go back to disk with small change and a loss in detail. This is most often evident as banding in the sky.
  17. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    If you stopped buying cards, and let us assume that you buy 40 a year allowing for holidays etc. at £20 each you would save £800. If you buy the same number of USB drives at £5 you save another £200. You would need a couple of hard drives for storage but I should think the £1,000 saved would buy a computer and two hard drives. Shooting raw and saving JPEGs would mean you fill the drives more quickly but that may not be as much of a problem because they would still save you money over using cards for long term storage.
  18. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    May I just clarify the card issue as you seem to be greatly exaggerating the facts.
    I don’t attend every single match ( I do try my best) but miss roughly 4 each season. The football season is fairly short for grassroots (Sept - April) knock off xmas and other issues that pop up cancelling games at last minute (players not turning up, on hols, ill. etc etc)
    Now factor that I buy cards in bulk. Last major purchase was 8x Kingston 16Gb for £80 from EU
    Recently grabbed 3 more that were used, but had only one had been used once for £25. ALso got a bargain 128gb Lexar for £20 of a work colleague after he switched cameras after only 2mths. All formatted with no issues.
    Usb sticks are usually twin packs at big discount prices. I buy as I find, so always trying to stay infront and keep a healthy stash ready.

    Same goes for my gear. I always buy used, mint, boxed and usually score items at ridiculously low prices. But after the last few scams I’ve now stopped
    But still have enough gear to see this lifetime out (and the next) add to that I can easily sell my stuff and get pretty much all outlay back.

    Which brings us to the computer. It’s well known that computers are pretty much worthless within a short time, which and is the reason I haven’t bought a new one.....it’s basically dead money.

    This is why I’m trying to get by the way I have. It’s easy to fritter £20 here £40 there. But shelling out £1K+ and knowing the week after it will be worth half is a struggle for me.

    Hope that revelation clears thing up.
  19. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    It's myths like this which do your cause no good. I've been using this PC unchanged since 2015, it cost £600. It's more than capable of editing RAW files using Lightroom.

    I can't get past the feeling you read one negative comment and believe it to be true for everything. Most people get by using the same computer for a long time without any problems.

    So my PC has cost me less than £150 a year over 5 years so far. I used to shoot around 8000 images a month (before lockdown), ignoring the fact you think the subject matter I shoot is SAD, and that I'm SAD for doing it, I have more images to process than you do, and my workflow sounds a hell of a lot easier.

    The only thing that matters is that you're having fun.
  20. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I accept your reasoning, 28 games a year and lowest possible prices, but your conclusions are flawed. If you get a card for £10 and use it once is that money not as dead as if you used it as 1% of the cost of a computer?

    Whether a computer is worthless within a short time following purchase rather depends on the computer. I bought most of my recent computers used. They are high specification MacBooks and the youngest is now five years old, the only problem with it is that my wife can fill the hard drive faster than she can process the images because it has only a 256GB drive. The computer I am using to write this was bought new in 2011 (iMac). The only reason for replacing my computers tends to be some advance that I consider useful, higher resolution screen or the need for more RAM. Should a computer become unable to perform as I need that too might be a reason to replace it. There are used Windows computers to be had at very good prices, probably you could find something around the £500 mark. I tend to spend my money on parts, washers, nuts, bolts electrical terminals etc. I will probably never use them all but having what I need in the garage beats having to go out and find it somewhere. Thus I completely understand your view that £20 here and there doesn't seem the same as £1000 once off but the effect is the same.

Share This Page