Many of my images are marketed as art or used illustration purposes in hard-copy out-put of one kind or another. I also sell a significant number of stock images. This necessitates me shooting most serious stuff in the highest resolution available; I then go through a series of selective edits--first deleting the obvious defectives while still in the camera, then deleting the less obvious, then uploading and reducing resolution and deleting the higher resolution originals that I don't need.
You can indiscriminately upload huge files and fill up all your storage--and it becomes much like those proverbial needles in haystacks. What good are your images if you can't find them. This can become reality very quickly.
Not so long ago a digital photographer's concern was for having enough digital camera resolution to render the size hard-print output for whatever job was at hand. This meant an acceptable resolution for magazine prints, or for display prints, or for newspaper prints, or what have you. The evolution of photographic display then began to include on-screen display of the resolution for high-quality monitors or to other RGB displays. This too has evolved with new HD monitors, TV's, and other displays. There was a scramble of manufacturers both to out-do one another in the marketplace when it came to megapixel output, with less effort about educating consumers as to their actual needs. There was a similar race for better and faster photographic output methods.
You only need the amount of resolution your need. NO more. But the level of resolution you need may be more than you think you need. So how much do you need ?
I'll save the output device discussion for another day. I was very much involved in the marketing of these products and it may be interesting, but for the moment, we must merely understand what resolution is necessary for the output required to print acceptable quality pictures for our own use--if this is even one of our required uses--or for other uses, if it is not. It is becoming more and more common for a photographer work with media that requires only screen display resolutions. You'll also find numerous other articles discussing this topic. But now that we are a few years and a few camera-generations into this new paradigm, I want to declare some personal observations regarding the title subject.
It is becoming more and more common for a photographer work with media that requires only screen display resolutions.
You only need the amount of resolution your need. NO more. But the level of resolution you need may be more than you think you need. So how much do you need ? This is how I see it. You want as much resolution as you can get, but you only want to use as much as you need in each specific case. Here is an example. When I am taking pictures for stock use, I want to make them with as high resolution as I can, because this enables me to furnish stock photos for a greater number of applications. But if I am taking rank-and-file family pictures that I will likely only view on a computer monitor, I will need only the resolution to do this. A VGA setting on most cameras will be sufficient. But if I plan to make prints of any of these, then I need to step up to a level that will produce whatever size I plan to print.
Anyone who has been taking digital photographs for a while realizes that they need to spend some time managing their digital files. Even with the greatly increased storage capacity of image cards, thumb- drives--and similar media being measured in gigabytes, internal hard-drives, and external storage drives in terabytes, and online storage measured in infinibytes, all eventually fill up when indiscriminately uploading high-resolution image files. Moreover, these images become very difficult to navigate, find, and use with large files. If you want to move or upload files to a server or from one computer to another--especially while using wireless capabilities--forget it when dealing with more than a few large files at once. Large files even take longer to edit and move from one software package to another for editing or enhancement of any kind.
The first in-camera edit that I do is usually very shortly after the images are captured--the first chance that I have to see to this step.
So if you use a resolution setting higher than what you need, it makes good sense to sort them out, delete, and edit according to their ultimate planned disposition. This may be best done while still in the camera. The first in-camera edit that I do is usually very shortly after the images are captured--the first chance that I have to see to this step. This keeps the images manageable and the camera ready for more captures. It is usually to delete any image that doe not meet the quality standards bar. This may be hard--especially if the images are of your firstborn or you freshly deceased favorite pet. But unless this firstborn is also deceased or your pet is a deceased pet or a Sasquatch awaiting a reward pending identity confirmation--and the image is the only one you have--you'll do everyone a favor and delete it without further adieu and at least minimal whispered apologies. The odds are that you never need photos that are fuzzy, blurred or very much wrongly exposed. In my case, I usually also delete any obvious poorly cropped, improperly posed, badly timed, or in any way less that perfect images--although my bar also might include some images that others would probably delete. Sometimes I find strong texture or design in images that I know can be used or salvaged to s specific end through software editing. But these a few.
This may be hard--especially if the images are of your firstborn or you freshly deceased favorite pet. But unless this firstborn is also deceased or your pet is a deceased pet or a Sasquatch awaiting a reward pending identity confirmation--and the image is the only one you have--you'll do everyone a favor and delete it without further adieu and at least minimal whispered apologies.
The second in-camera edit could include cropping any poorly-cropped or uncropped images. I have always recommended cropping upon initial framing and taking the picture--but I also suggest allowing for wide crops on at least one shot before closing in for tighter cropping. This way you have one wide shot if you need it. But if you know that you won't need a wide shot, just don't take one. If you take a wide shot and decide upon first view that you can't or won't use it, delete it. If you see that you can crop more closely without losing any advantage, then crop it in the camera if you can. Even small crops can make a huge difference in image size. Remember that each crop is exponential. It is length by width by resolution. Such measures will save lots of space and speed things up if done prior to uploading them to a computer, online service, or storage device or printer.
If I am illustrating a weblog or other online document (yes, document, even though it is not a hard copy, it is still properly called a document)--and assuming that the document will never become part of a printed document--such as a subsequent book or magazine article, then I shoot the image a screen display resolution only.
There is another reason for keeping images with a wider than needed crop too. This is where you want to straighten or change the perspective or skew or distort an image (usually to allow for the wrong temperance of perspective inherent in most photographs--more about this in a separate post); in such cases you will lose some of each image in making these perspective changes.
crop it in the camera if you can. Even small crops can make a huge difference in image size. Remember that each crop is exponential. It is length by width by resolution.
Whether or not you take the in-camera editing route prior to uploading your files, most image software viewing allows you to change the resolution. I recommend using a combination viewing-editing software package on your computer that will allow you to gang-select numerous images and change their resolution and then gang-save them with or without deleting the original files.
Suppose you never need output resolution higher than 4"x4". Why might you need to shoot anything at the maximum resolution required for this output? If you are photographing a fleeing moose who's been peering into your A-frame near Denali park, as I once found myself doing with a film camera, you might want to hedge your bets if you are unable to fill your frame up. By using maximum resolution, you will maximize your ability to crop a small portion of the image and still have a respectable resolution photograph--one that does not turn into a digital mosaic.This should be reiterated. This is one of the most urgent reasons for using the maximum resolutions offered by your camera--to gain the ability to enlarge a smaller segment of one framed image.
In this sense, any exposed digital image can be considered many smaller images. There is even a trend in news photography to capture fewer images over-all, but to do them at really high resolutions--leaving the process of pulling out the smaller images during the edit. On a much smaller scale, we all intuitively do this anyway when we crop. When I take pictures of dragonflies in flight, I can approach this whole process in a few different ways. Probably the least efficient way to take these kinds of photographs is to patiently wait for these fascinating bugs to approach us in just the right spot while we try to match our own speed and timing to getting a perfectly posed dragonfly in mid-flight.
Someone on Facebook wanted to see a stray cat that took up at my house, for identification purposes. I let it in and used a fishing pole and a catnip fish to play with it while I shot a series of pix form which to choose a few. I really had no intention of doing naything eles with this series, although they turned out really well, and very cute. I shot them at the lowest resolution setting. There simply was no need to waste the space on my camera or my computer to justify anything else. I always have a fear that I will shoot the best photo of my life and only have a low resoluion image. If that ever happens, there are acceptable ways of dealing with that issue too.
This should be reiterated. This is one of the most urgent reasons for using the maximum resolutions offered by your camera--to gain the ability to enlarge a smaller segment of one framed image.
Another way to catch desirable images of dragonflies in flight is to point the camera and lens with preset exposures and focus ranges at dragonflies and shoot as many random images as possible, to be edited after the fact. The way that I have found that works for me is to combine these two approaches. I go to an area and stir up the dragonflies within a confined area; suing the applicable presets, I sort of chase them around doing my best to aim and capture the moments that look promising and shoot bursts of rapid shots when I think the timing is right. Although shooting with the maximum images can slow the capture and process speeds of the camera, the shorter bursts enables the processing to catch-up. Usually after a few good bursts, I look at the images and delete those that are not good. This enables me to make any camera or lighting adjustments that may become apparent only after seeing the images. Unlike the days of film, this immediate feedback and correction becomes a valuable tool to itself.
Scenic photographs in general may be desirably captured, at least initially, at maximum resolution. But if you fail to constantly edit within the camera and to be mindful of images and image size, you'll run out of available space quickly. You can indiscriminately upload huge files and fill up all your storage--and it becomes much like those proverbial needles in haystacks.
Many times, an almost capture inspires the next burst and eventual captures. With fast-moving sports the process is much the same. Although I have not yet given preference to capturing portraits and expressive people pictures this way over those developed methods that I have effectively used over time--I can see how this same procedure could be incorporated to good advantage. In fact, as I contemplate it, I am inspired as to some things to try during my next portrait shoot. Normally, I use conversation and a host of other distractions in order to get my people subjects thinking less about the camera and keeping them from anticipating my shots by repeating the two and de-emphasizing their want to pose or model--without actually tricking them or making them suspicious.
This enables me to make any camera or lighting adjustments that may become apparent only after seeing the images. Unlike the days of film, this immediate feedback and correction becomes a valuable tool to itself.
It is a kind of mini-trust-building exercise of OJT for them. But my style, developed over decades, is hard to teach. I can see how by using the inherent advantages of shooting people as I do dragonflies--at least in part--could be much easier to teach to others.Or you may grab a rolling cloud formation within a panoramic scenic--knowing that later you may want to enlarge that one section as an individual scene.
Scenic photographs in general may be desirably captured, at least initially, at maximum resolution. But if you fail to constantly edit within the camera and to be mindful of images and image size, you'll run out of available space quickly. You can indiscriminately upload huge files and fill up all your storage--and it becomes much like those proverbial needles in haystacks. What good are your images if you can't find them. This can become reality very quickly.
One of the best reasons (although most overlooked) for using your highest available image resolution camera setting is that you are as close as you can get you a subject and have used all the optical heps available to you, and you know that you will still only be using only a small portion of your image. In such instances, as was the case with the dragon fly taken while I was fishing, I used the maximum resolution available to me with my little carry-around-always-with-me-point-and-shoot camera--which was actually pretty respectable, this situation can apply to scenics as well.
Occasionally I will rescue a picture that may be fuzzy or otherwise not so perfect, but which has some complelling reason for existing, by using using image manipulation software to make it more artsy, wherein the composition and design or content may work well enough as a art-effect photo. For this reason, if you really like a photo for whatever reason--you can cheat on the deleting process until you sleep on it. You'll then forget about it until years later and it will survive. But if you makethis exception very often, be very careful, as you will then be excepting too many inferior images. Your inferior images simply should not survive. Why would you want to have inferior images dilute your reputation--ever.
It would be wrong to assume that everyone who has an interest in photography has been exposed to some art classes. Thos who have, will find my explanations of commonly held artistic principles as basic or even too elementary. But in our current educaitonal systems, students are often categorized vry early as to their interests in given fileds, especially the fields of art. I regret that my own education lacked any, or very little music note reading or basic music principles. And recieving none at home or alternatively, by the time kids were being sorted and tested for band or choir or what-not, I was too far behind to be included. It was much the same with art. I had no particular talent at putting images on paper by hand, but I still new what I liked and had artistic taste. It required the medium of photography to harness these latent talents. So I will be as basic as basic gets in the following passage and assume that some readers have had no exposure to art.
The concept is simple, but harder to explain, so let me try to nail it down for better understanding before proceeding. All of us know what a picture looks like when vertical and horizontal lines are leaning this way or that. This phenomenon is even mimicked by artists to help mimic 3-D perspective. If the camera, with a lens of sufficient size, could be placed dead center both horizontally and vertically, the lines would be straight. But we usually can't reach the dead center point vertically because we would need to be up in the air in many cases. And we often can't or don't find it practical to center the camera horizontally which places the lines out of optical whack when viewed as a two-dimensional photograph.
Human sight automatically makes the necessary adjustments by the brain processing the optical information received by the eye much like a computer would do, except to a much higher level of sophistication--thus making the images make sense to us when viewing them live. But then when we see them in 2-D only, this adjustment does not take place. This is all that I am going to write about this at the moment, but I do plan to make a fuller post in explanation of this entire process in the future. For now, just understand that adjustments can be made using image editing software packages such as Photo Shop. But to do this, you will need the extra working area before cropping. In this case, you merely need to wait until this correction is made before cropping.