compression v image size

[Ex-Biker]

Firstly I apologise to Simpo Two as he sort of asked this in a previous post.

I reckon most people have been at this point before. There you are happily snapping away and suddenly you realise you are running out of space on your card. You haven't got a spare, so what do you do?

Is it better to lower the compression or image size to get those extra few pics?

[pdV6]

Depends what you're going to use them for...

[simpo two]

No, thanks for reminding them!

People seem to fear JPG compression but for most purposes, IMO, it's amazing how much you can compress an image before it suffers noticeably. Mind you, I don't do much printing.

[murph7355]

Entirely depends on whether you print stuff out these days. And how big you make it.

A 6MP camera will do a good job of an A3 print, but if you take the picture on low res, it'll struggle...

[te51cle]

I'd increase compression before reducing image size for best quality results. Its possible to recover information from a compressed image, its not possible to recover information that's been thrown away - which is what you're doing if you reduce image size.

But like the others have said above, consider how your images are going to be presented and size accordingly.

[bacchus180]

I think the short answer is never go anywhere without a spare... bit like batteries.... No excuses. 2x 2gb cards and you are done...

[srider]

bacchus180 said:

2x 2gb cards and you are done...

Not if you're carrying a 1D Mk II