What size are the pictures you take?

[CAW!]

Just curious, but I have an SLR and the pics I'm taking are 3888x2582 and they're absolutely enormous. I think this is hurting the quality of the picture, because when they're shown at full size on my monitor (1920x1080 resolution) they end up looking grainy, and regardless you can't see the whole subject.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Just curious, but I have an SLR and the pics I'm taking are 3888x2582 and they're absolutely enormous. I think this is hurting the quality of the picture, because when they're shown at full size on my monitor (1920x1080 resolution) they end up looking grainy, and regardless you can't see the whole subject.

its not hurting that bad.

My 7D shoots @ 5,184 x 3,456

Just remember what really matters is web or print viewing. When you up the resolution so bad, yeah, you're gonna be focused on the little grains.

 

[996GT2]

Just curious, but I have an SLR and the pics I'm taking are 3888x2582 and they're absolutely enormous. I think this is hurting the quality of the picture, because when they're shown at full size on my monitor (1920x1080 resolution) they end up looking grainy, and regardless you can't see the whole subject.

3888x2582 is only 10 megapixels. That's pretty standard for a modern DSLR. My 5D takes 12.8 megapixel photos that are 4368 x 2912, and I have no problem with it. An average RAW file is about 11 MB and an average processed JPEG is about 6 MB. Shooting at full resolution is definitely not "hurting the quality." If the photos look grainy or blurry, it's probably due to bad technique, bad exposure, or using too high of an ISO.

Storage is cheap these days. You can get a 2 TB hard drive for $80 and that'll store tens of thousands of RAW files.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

There is basically no reason to ever look at an image from a modern camera (DSLR or otherwise) at 100% on a monitor, for viewing purposes (for editing or testing -- go ahead). A 1080p monitor is 2 megapixels; your camera is 10 megapixels. You would need 5 monitors to show the whole thing at once. So just shrink it down so you can fit the whole thing on your monitor, and it will look great. All those extra pixels are there for when you print it out. A printer can print at 300dpi or even higher; normal LCD monitors top out around 100dpi, so prints need all those extra pixels. Just don't pay any attention to them for on-screen viewing.

 

[Dubb]

I've heard or read of special processing techniques that make images look better @ screen res when starting from 10-24 MP captures - I've always assumed this to be some extra sharpening (what I usually do for the web, seems to help a little), but was wondering if anyone does anything more specific?

 

[Cattykit]

I've heard or read of special processing techniques that make images look better @ screen res when starting from 10-24 MP captures - I've always assumed this to be some extra sharpening (what I usually do for the web, seems to help a little), but was wondering if anyone does anything more specific?

This?
http://www.americaswonderlands.com/digital_photo_interpolation.htm

 

[Mark R]

I've heard or read of special processing techniques that make images look better @ screen res when starting from 10-24 MP captures - I've always assumed this to be some extra sharpening (what I usually do for the web, seems to help a little), but was wondering if anyone does anything more specific?

There isn't that much special processing needed when reducing resolution. The type of interpolation used to reduce resolution has very little impact on the image quality, once you avoid the very poor choices of (bi)linear and nearest neighbor. So, bicubic, which is standard on virtually all image processing tools, gives excellent results.

One thing that does sometimes help to retain a little bit of extra crispness to the image, so that it looks a bit more like the original, is to use an 'unsharp mask' filter. This filter detects edges and sharpens them, but ignores film-grain or sensor noise. Some care over the settings is required, but with a little experimentation, you should be able to find a good setting.

I use a program called Breezebrowser pro to organise and manage my digital photos. When producing reduced res copies for screen viewing, it will automatically use bicubic interpolation and unsharp masking during processing. Most high-end image packages like photoshop can be scripted to do the same.

Interpolation for to increase the resolution of an image for printing (to avoid visible, blocky pixels) is a far more difficult task - and there are dedicated software packages specifically designed for that. This is what is discussed at the link posted by CattyKit. Nothing at that link is relevant to what has been asked here.