Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US
FORUMS: listlist (w/ descriptions)archivetagssearchhall of fame

a question from the Twilight Zone of digital photography

Cow Forums : Digital Photography
a question from the Twilight Zone of digital photography
by michael B demille on Aug 2, 2006 at 2:39:55 pm

Here's an interesting occurance. A photographer shot a wedding for me using a Canon 20D and a Digital Rebel. Both were set to "fine, maximum" (I believe that's the description he gave me) to give us the largest JPEG size and quality. We have images shot in sequence on both cameras. And we have the same "problem". One image is 434 KB the next is 2.7 MB. No difference in the subject or light or environment. How did the camera shoot one image so small and the next so big? When photographers who shoot for me using Canon gear (I use Nikons) shoot with the same settings we get images with 2-3 MB file sizes. What happened?



Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

Re: a question from the Twilight Zone of digital photography
by Amish Ed on Aug 2, 2006 at 4:47:47 pm

Can't remember the specs on those cameras off the top of my head. But, assuming the same resolution and crop factor; sounds like user error to me.

Amish Ed
"Shoot 'em all and let the Editor sort 'em out!"

Dual 2Ghz G5, 4GB, running 10.3.6 w/QT 6.5.2, Black Majic DeckLink, AE Pro 6.5 w/BCC and Invig. 3D, PS CS2, AI CS2, FCP HD

Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

Re: a question from the Twilight Zone of digital photography
by David Jones on Aug 2, 2006 at 4:50:30 pm

It depends on how the photog setup the camera in the menu, and what mode they were using.
For example... Say they setup the camera to shoot RAW along with a JPEG in full manual mode,
but then on that shot switched the camera to one of the auto modes setup for JPEG only.



Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index


close but no cigars yet
by michael b demille on Aug 2, 2006 at 5:28:08 pm

thanks for the input but, bless his heart, the guy who shot these for me wouldn't be technically adept enough to change his menu items nor would he be fast enough to shoot a bride at the altar and get 434KB and then switch over to get the next split second shot as 2.7MB. he just sets the camera and shoots. and this happened with 2 seperate rigs.

still in the twilight zone...

da-da-da-da..

da-da-da-da-da-da-da-duh



Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

Re: close but no cigars yet
by Peter Ralph on Aug 3, 2006 at 4:34:23 am

are you sure its not the same image stored in 2 different formats?

Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

Re: close but no cigars yet
by michael b demille on Aug 3, 2006 at 12:25:54 pm

yes



Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index


Re: close but no cigars yet
by will griffith on Aug 10, 2006 at 3:22:20 pm

I have seen this occur on Canon 10 and 20d cameras when you
switch the nob from manual or program to full auto. I've never
used auto enough to merit checking into it though.

-will


Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

Re: close but no cigars yet
by supervideo on Aug 16, 2006 at 9:54:01 pm

Have you checked the exact time and date of those files ,,,,
it sounds like they are the Jpgs that belong to the larger files. previews maybe but not seperate shots ,,,,or your missing the larger file cause it got
corupt some how and only have the preview left !

Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

Re: close but no cigars yet
by Ralph Hajik on Nov 26, 2006 at 7:14:04 pm

Hi michael B demille,

I just shot over 2000 pics from China with a Canon 20D in continuous JPEG format. They're all 2544x1696 in size. I shoot in TV mode. I never shot in combination JPEG/RAW which might effect the size as mentioned earlier.

Ralph Hajik
Westmont, IL



Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS THREAD   •   VIEW ALL THREADS   •   PRINT   •   NEXT THREAD >>


FORUMSTUTORIALSMAGAZINEDVDsBOOKSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

© CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved.

[Top]