Image size, card upload speed, quality

[Gary Silverstein]

Hi All -

While there seems to be some general gushing about the 21-mpxl cameras now available from Canon, I have very real-world questions.

First, I will preface it with the fact that for the last two years, we have been shooting 10-mpxl Nikon D80s. The images enlarge well to 24" X 36," @ 100-150 dpi (for either photographic or inkjet prints), print well in brochures, and other printed materials to the 11"X17" covers, and 11 3/4" X 22" inside 2-page spreads we have done, and the black and white verticals we shot for an advertiser, that were enlarged and cropped to 18" X 42."

Many years ago, while still shooting 4X5, one of our clients wanted to put one of our images on a 14-foot X 48-foot billboard. I had the film scanned to over 100 mb and called the billboard printer to see what size file he needed. He asked for no more than a 25 mb file!

Recently, we upgraded to Nikon D300s to get the ability to get a bigger enlargement, if needed, and the newer technology's noise reduction. I discovered that at 14-bit color, the raw file size increased, by 50% over the images from the D80, and that was with compression. Without compression, the file size was around 2.5 times as big.

I ran a test. I took an image taken at full res and at 14-bit, enlarged it in Genuine fractals to 40"X60", and then sliced an 8.5"X11" part of the image from the enlargement, and printed it on an 8.5"X11" photo paper in my $44.00 (no lie, it was on sale at Staples) Epson inkjet printer, and it seems sharp and clear to me.

Now, three questions come to mind:

First, what makes any 21mpxl camera so desireable, over say, the same brand at 12mpxl? The only thing I can think about is room to crop. Since I don't generally crop my architectural images that much, I wouldn't believe that most pros, taking well-thought-out images, would crop theirs either.

The second question is: since my customers aren't asking for images as large as 40X60, why pay all those extra dollars for a camera that can make them even bigger. Also, unless a photographer is making so much money that he needs a huge tax write-off, why buy cameras that are twice the price of a Canon 50D or Nikon D300? Everybody seems wowed over full frame. While there may be technical advantages, will the client see it in the images? I know some have old film lenses that require full-frame to get a wider image, but lenses aren't that expensive. We use a 10-30mm zoom and an 18-200mm zoom for coverage, and it works fine. I think I spent less than $1,200 on both lenses together.

Last, what about upload time, save time, and storage of files from the cards to the computer? I just came back from a commercial (non-architectural shoot), and it took over two hours to offload two relatively full 4gb SanDisk Ultra II CF cards.

What have some of you done to make that part go faster? And what are the approximate times that it takes you to offload these large files?

Finally, before everyone runs off to buy that dream machine, ask yourself if the customers are really willing to pay for all this expense on your part. If they can't see the difference, will they pay for it?

Gary Silverstein
We Shoot

[Thomas Bliss]

Hi Gary,

Well... for me, I don't want to be caught delivering a "sub-par" image. I shoot everything as though it will indeed end up on a billboard.

I made a terrible mistake once and shot half a job in jpeg. I was shooting a Golf Charity Event the day before and had my camera set to the highest jpeg setting and not raw. The next day on a interiors job when some hours later to my horror I noticed it! JPEG!!! OMG! We had already moved on from the "Hero" shot and I must have looked like death because the client asked me if everything was ok... I said yes and continued on, albeit scared half to death.

That night I sent the files to a friend to have a look at, and he said how big do they want to go? I told him bus stop shelter poster, backlit. (BTW If you ever need specs on that sort of thing a great site to visit is WALL )

Anyway he said they were going to be fine, just be careful "do not work in jpeg" open and save as RAW, or DNG, and work in PSD or tiff and add layer masks. He added that if they were any smaller I'd have been in big trouble and I was very lucky to have been shooting in 16mp. So does size matter? Asking me I'd say yes. Would I ever shoot a job in 10mp... never.

I keep all my rights to the images I make, and resell them at either Cornerhouse or Picturesque. I never know where an image may end up, and I want to be prepared for that billboard.

Give me pixels... and lots of them!

my two cents.

Best Regards
Tom

[Gary Silverstein]

Hi Tom -

I don't think smaller size equates with "sub-par," when the client's or photographer's needs are satisfied with the results.

We used to have 14mpxl Kodaks, and we traded them in on 10mpxl D80 Nikons, as these cameras were newer, and produced a better, though smaller image.

We probably work as much or more than some of the photographers in this organization, and we have yet to have a customer complain that the images were too small, or were inadequate because of 10mpxl cameras. A lot of our work these days is from repeat customers. Another thing is that we got to keep more of the money we made, as we were investing less in cameras that were going to be made obsolete in less than 2 years.

We recently upgraded to 12mpxl to gain a little size, plus get better technology (better noise control + 14-bit).

My intention, at present, is to probably keep these new cameras until they wear out.

Thanks.

Gary
We Shoot

[MossPhotography]

Hi Gary & Tom-

What it really boils down to is using what you have to your best ability. Gary is definitely leaving some "money on the table" by not using a larger system. However, by his own admission, he is as busy, if not busier than others on this site.

As far as quality, I'll put my PhaseOne P25 up against the images captured by any 35mm system. There is no comparison. Having said that, for the most part this summer, I've been shooting with my Nikon system. The Sinar hasn't seen a lot of work this summer, but its there when I need it. And there are times when I need it.

Use the tools you have, and find the niche that works.

If you have no complaints from clients, you're doing the right thing.

Keep shootin' everyone.

~V~

[Gary Silverstein]

Hi Vic and Tom -

One of the reasons I started this thread was to find out if there was a low-cost way to speed up the process of uploading the raw images from the CF card to the hard-drive (I am using SanDisk Ultra II memory cards @ 4 GB each). These larger files are taking much longer to load. Less than 200 raw images took close to an hour to upload. How do you guys do it with the humungous file sizes you are dealing with? Now, I don't want to spend a lot of money, and bear in mind that I have a relatively fast cpu (3.06 GHZ), 3 GB of memory, and lots of hard-drive space @ 7200 RPM. I am also running a PC, and Windows XP, and don't want to go to all the expense and effort to change that. I've read that even the extreme high-speed cards won't work well without new faster card readers, and all that looks pretty expensive. Are they that much faster?

Thanks.

Gary
We Shoot

[MossPhotography]

Gary-

I guess I should ask what kind of reader are you using? If possible, use a firewire reader, they are faster. I don't understand why it would take so long. I use 1GB and 2GB cards, and shoot RAW. However, it only takes about 5 minutes to upload to my desktop (my 1Gig), and just a tad longer if I'm in the field and uploading to my laptop. I'm not even running a fast MAC. I'm still using an older G5 desktop.

I am using Lexar 80x CF cards, but I don't know if that makes a difference. I also use SanDisk Ultra II cards. I don't notice any major difference in the speeds.

You may want to check your card reader and/or it's cord. Also, how do you import the images? Do you use a program, or do you just put them on the desktop? I'm always importing into CaptureOne Pro.

The download speeds you're talking about seem EXTREMELY slow. In my estimation, you should be able to upload 8 gigs in about 30-40 minutes, max.

I can't help you with the PC specs, I'm a MAC snob. Hey Tom, aren't you one of those PC weirdos?

~V~

[Gary Silverstein]

Hi Vic and Tom -

Well, I've written to SanDisk regarding the card speed, and am awaiting a reply. I've also done a little checking on the web. I remember that when using regular SanDisk SD 1 GB cards from my 10mpxl cameras, it used to take about 15-17 min to upload a full card (120 - 130 raw images), so it is not a stretch to extrapolate that to allow over an hour to transfer 444 larger raw + basic jpeg files (222 each) or 3.51 GB. I have also tried shutting off anti-virus and firewall scanning of anything coming into my personal computer through my card reader. After all, the only things that come through there are images from my cameras. I seem to have a throughput of 17 raw and 17 jpgs in 5 min. That figures to a little over 3 raw images in a minute. Now the cards seem pretty fast in the camera, so I don't think it's them. I also tried an experiment. I have a USB 2.0 portable reader for my laptop, and it is no faster plugging directly into the port in the front of the computer (no wire). By the way, I am not using any program but Windows to drag-and-drop the images directly onto my 1TB drive where my primary images are stored. I have also tried the transfer to the internal hd and it seems no faster.

I have looked on the 'net for firewire cards and readers. I have found the cards for $60 - $80, the readers are harder to find, and they are more expensive than USB 2.0. I didn't want the extra expense of Extreme cards (UDMA) and the readers. Bang for the buck, and all that.

In retrospect, the first pc I had back in 1987 had a then current hard-drive with a capacity of only 20mb! It wouldn't hold even one of these images. I guess we have to count our blessings.

Thanks, guys. If you have any other ideas, or anyone else does, drop in a posting. If I get anything definitive from SanDisk, I'll let you know.

Gary
We Shoot

[Thomas Bliss]

Originally Posted by MossPhotography

Gary-

I can't help you with the PC specs, I'm a MAC snob. Hey Tom, aren't you one of those PC weirdos?

~V~

PC! No not me....

Sounds like an older card reader before the days of USB 2,0. I had to buy a card reader on the road once and it was a Radio Shack POS. Took hours to upload a 4 gig card. I have a new one that is really fast, picked it up at Best Buy for like $30.00

[Gary Silverstein]

Hi Vic and Tom -

Well, it seems I have fixed the problem. I have been researching USB, Firewire, and a lot of forums online. It seems there is USB 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, and 2.0 High-Speed. There are also no markings physically on the cables, plugs, or devices to say what is what. To further foul up things, Windows only shows one USB device that is "enhanced" in my system, and doesn't tell you which one it is. However, that seems to mean that everything that plugs in can be USB 2.0. I decided to try something. I went to Office Depot and bought a new 12-in-One card reader made by SanDisk, since all of my newest cards are also made by SanDisk. It came with a one-button deal on the unit and software to run it. I installed the software, plugged in the reader, and when it stopped installing, inserted the same card with the same images on the card as I downloaded before. It takes between 7 and 9 minutes to upload the card (3.51 GB) to my hard drive, whether I use the installed transfer program or just drag and drop using Windows. Much better. It only cost $34.95 for the reader.

Thanks for your help on this.

Gary
We Shoot

P.S. I've been playing with an image shot with one of my old D80s. It's not architectural, but it works for me. I'm attaching it to this post.

[Thomas Bliss]

Gary,

Glad that worked for you. Cheap fix to be sure. I know how frustrating it can be especially on the road.

Nice work with that PS image you are working on.

Tom

[Thomas Bliss]

Gary,

I think this card is $49.99

Calumet FireWire 400/800 UDMA CompactFlash Reader

The Calumet FireWire 400/800 UDMA CompactFlash Card Reader is a high-speed media reader that transfers image and music files from UDMA enabled CF cards over 45MB/s. It is compatible with FireWire 400 and 800 and can be used with Mac or PC computers and requires no drivers.FeaturesSupports CF memory cards (Type I, Type II) and MicroDrivesSupports Ultra DMA protocolCompatible with FireWire 400* and 800True plug-and-play with no drivers requiredHot swappableOffers transfer speeds over 45 MB/s**IncludesCalumet FireWire 400/800 UDMA CompactFlash Card ReaderFireWired 800 to 400 adapterLimited 5 year warranty* With included FireWire 800 to 400 adapter. (included)**Using a UDMA enabled CF card. Speeds may vary with non-UDMA cards.

CLICK IMAGE TO VISIT SITE: