Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-06-2011, 09:54 AM   #1
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Va
Photos: Albums
Posts: 119
question about file sizes and resizing on the K-x

So I usually (99%) of the time shoot at the best jpeg setting creating files 5mb in size.

I have to resize these to get under 2mb for file uploading to my site.

Would it be better to stay shooting using this method and batch resize via my editor or go to RAW and basically do the same thing? I usually do not do any other Post Processing at this time.

I think RAW would take an extra conversion (to JPEG) but it can be all automated so its not that big an issue.

At an estimate of 98 pics per every 2 gis on RAW I would have to swap cards more frequently.


06-06-2011, 12:22 PM   #2
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,903
If you never need larger images there is no need to shoot them that way.

There are advantages to shooting RAW regardless of the size, and just about any image will benefit from post-processing to some degree.
06-06-2011, 01:04 PM   #3
Loyal Site Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: N. Calif
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,596
I agree with SpecialK - get a bigger SD card and shoot RAW - you will have to spend some time doing the PP - but its worth all the trouble.
06-06-2011, 03:15 PM   #4
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Va
Photos: Albums
Posts: 119
Original Poster
Rgr will do. Thanks for the tips.

06-06-2011, 04:01 PM   #5
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,770
I have a somewhat different opinion. It really comes down to what pictures you are taking and what they will be used for. You do not say so it is hard to say for sure.

I vary the file size in camera depending on the intended use. For most (95%) I use RAW and expect to do the conversion and PP. I never convert the majority of pictures until I know what the use will be. I inventory the RAW negatives and only export when I need to. Final cropping, sharpening etc can then be done for the intended purpose whether that is stock submission, print, or whatever.

However, if I am taking product shots for the web or some other specific use I shift to jpeg and specify the size needed. I've found I can do all the PP needed on the jpeg's for ebay selling or whatever and I'm not going to save the images for the future anyway so why waste the space and time to shoot in RAW and convert?

You don't say what "your site" is but if all you will ever need are 2mb pictures then why not take them at that size and save some time.
06-06-2011, 08:45 PM   #6
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
I shoot nothing but RAW, most never get converted, but the ones that do, they get converted to 2MP JPEG's. There is no extra conversion; it's the same resizing operation I'd perform had I shot JPEG.

But there would be no point whatsoever in shooting RAW if I didn't expect to perform some PP. RAW isn't better; it's just more flexible. If you're going to accept the default conversion with no changes, then there's no advantage.
06-06-2011, 08:53 PM   #7
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
Marc's spot on.
If you can get white balance and exposure right in the first instance, and don't need to do much PP, then JPEG is the way to go. Then you can set the size of the file and not have to worry about running out of space. But filespace is cheap these days, so RAW gives you the flexibility you *may* need later but don't know it during the shoot.
06-07-2011, 07:28 AM   #8
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Va
Photos: Albums
Posts: 119
Original Poster
Thanks for the additional tips.

Just a personal/shareable site of pictures I take (PLUG! Pentaxpics | Home) of course I want to learn and improve so PP will probably become an option. I use PSP X3.

I was always under the impression a 5mb file was more useful with regards to looks and manipulation then a smaller file. Im of a mind I would rather have to much than not enough however if I really dont need it all why waste the space. (make sense?)

06-07-2011, 08:21 AM   #9
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
Same thing applies there too. If you're not going to do any processing on the file but just generate a 2MP JPEG for web use, then starting from a 5MB then downsizing won't provide any advantage over shooting 2MP in the first place. Either way, the camera is actually shooting 12MP, then the image is downsized. Whether the camera first downsizes to 5MP then you finish the job by downsizing that to 2MP, or you just let the camera downsize to 2MP - or you leave it at 10MP in camera but do the whole resizing yourself - won't make any visible difference. The difference would be noticeable only if you tried to actually process the image.

BTW, note, I am talking MP (megapixels), because those are units that mean something specific. MB (megabytes) is a measure of file size which of course roughly correlates with MP, but is also affected by compression. A given 5MB file might contain 2MP or 200MP, depending on the amount of compression, so it's kind of difficult to say what the quality might actually be.
06-07-2011, 01:45 PM   #10
Veteran Member
justinr's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Tipperary
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 394
Even at 2mb that's an awful big file to have to upload to the site. For full screen shots there is usually no need to go above 200kb and sticking to 50 to 100 kb for most jpegs is the norm for web images that are no more than half page.

Rather than try and save straight for the web it might be better to use whichever image manipulation programme you have to downsize to a max of 200 - 250kb for uploading. This way you can keep the large 5mb jpeg for prints if need be and have a sufficiently large file for web display and emailing. Indeed a 250kb file is what I send to the local papers with any press releases and for the size they print at it is usually quite sufficient.

The other point to remember is that many CMS apps like Wordpress compress the file anyway so your 2mb image will still end up around the 100kb mark. It all depends on how your web presence is arranged

  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, jpeg, pentax help, photography, resize, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DNG file sizes with a K-7 Jean Poitiers Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 4 05-26-2011 01:10 PM
Do different file sizes affect noise in K-7? gfmucci Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 04-12-2010 03:44 PM
File numbering question MSM Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 2 06-25-2009 08:32 PM
Dang!! - K20 file sizes are huge!! switch79 Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 03-27-2008 04:54 PM
Newbie BiCubic resizing question anthropas Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 2 11-10-2007 06:51 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:21 PM. | See also:, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]