[Aknot]

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.

Thanks.

[SpecialK]

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.

[manishved]

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.

[Aknot]

Rgr will do. Thanks for the tips.

[jatrax]

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.

[Marc Sabatella]

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.

[Ash]

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.

[Aknot]

Thanks for the additional tips.

@jatrax
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?)

[Marc Sabatella]

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.

[justinr]

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