Jump to content

Welcome to the Alamy Contributor Forum. Log-in using your existing Alamy account details. If you're not registered yet then you need to create an Alamy Contributor account to be able to post here. Once registered, you'll be able to choose a forum display name and there will be a link to your images on Alamy within your profile. Please have a read of the rules and announcements before posting. Your first post will be moderated before appearing. Welcome to our photographer community!


Photo
- - - - -

Nikon D5300 Image Size for Submission

Nikon D5300 Image Size

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 AndyM

AndyM

    Forum newbie

  • Verified
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 2 weeks ago

Shooting Raw 14 bits with Nikon D5300 compressed, I get images that are 1080 x 1620 when I save as jpg with Nikon Capture NX2 which are too small to be submitted to Alamy stock photography: What am I missing as Nikon specs rate D5300 image size up to 6000 x 4000 L?


  • 0

#2 TobyH

TobyH

    Forum newbie

  • Verified
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted A week ago

Andy,

 

Sounds like something is out of whack in your NX2 workflow. If I were you I would pick it to pieces to double check the steps. When you convert from RAW your pixel size should be the same but i'm guessing maybe you have a setting that's shrinking it at that point.

 

Do you have access to something else to test it out? If you don't have a creative cloud subscription (adobe) already you could maybe try a trial version of Lightroom to see how it differs.

 

I should point out that I don't use Capture NX2 (Lightroom / Photoshop CC here), i've found Nikon software to be buggy as hell and their support rather unsympathetic. 

 

I know that's not much to go on and maybe you've already resolved this yourself but it's a place to start.

 

Good luck

 

TobyH


  • 0

#3 Roman78

Roman78

    Forum newbie

  • Verified
  • Pip
  • 44 posts
  • LocationEifel, Germany
  • Images:84

Posted A week ago

Something in your export settings must be wrong. I used that NX2 software once (I shoot whit a D3300) and was able to export at 6000x4000.

 

Nowadays I use DxO Optics Pro 9 Elite, has quite a good Lens Correction in it. 


  • 0

#4 vpics

vpics

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 683 posts

Posted A week ago

Why do you shoot in a compressed mode?
  • 0

#5 MDM

MDM

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 1,504 posts
  • LocationEngland
  • Images:2872

Posted A week ago

Why do you shoot in a compressed mode?

 

Nikons have a lossless compressed raw mode so why not as this saves space on the memory card and there is no difference in quality? I am guessing the only difference between lossless compressed and uncompressed besides file size would be in the speed at which the files get written to the card and the number of shots possible before the buffer fills up but I've never tested it.

 

EDIT: I don't know what the advantage of uncompressed over lossless compressed would be unless it takes the camera a little extra time to perform the compression. I await enlightenment.


Edited by MDM, A week ago.

  • 0

#6 vpics

vpics

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 683 posts

Posted A week ago

I think some Canons have a feature where you can save half size RAW files.
  • 0

#7 AndyM

AndyM

    Forum newbie

  • Verified
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted A week ago

Hi, Thanks for commenting.  I also had a similar problem with my D800 and found that menu setting for jpg was Basic, plus copies of View and Capture NX2 were long in tooth and seemed buggy since Nikon long ago discontinued support.  I downloaded fresh copies and reset Image to RAW + Fine and got my setup back on track to generating images that pass the QA size criteria.  I like the colors with NX2 and the control points.  


  • 0

#8 TeeCee

TeeCee

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 349 posts
  • LocationDevon, UK
  • Images:4767

Posted A week ago

Not entirely sure how any "compressed" mode can be lossless.
Much easier to buy another couple of cards, and shoot full size ...


  • 0

#9 MDM

MDM

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 1,504 posts
  • LocationEngland
  • Images:2872

Posted A week ago

Not entirely sure how any "compressed" mode can be lossless.
Much easier to buy another couple of cards, and shoot full size ...

 

Are you a programmer? Of course it is possible to compress data without losing any information - e.g. lossless compressed TIFFs have been around for years and there are numerous programmatic algorithms for lossless compression. Nikons have both lossy and lossless compressed raw options. I've never used the former. Why would they have a lossless option if it wasn't truly lossless? I'm guessing it could lead to lawsuits if they advertised a file format as lossless and it led to data loss.


Edited by MDM, A week ago.

  • 0

#10 MDM

MDM

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 1,504 posts
  • LocationEngland
  • Images:2872

Posted A week ago

Just to add a few things.

 

Nikon say:

Lossless compressed NEF images are compressed using a reversible algorithm, reducing file size by about 20–40% with no effect on image quality.
 

Uncompressed NEFs from a D800 are around 75MB whereas lossless compressed NEFs are around 45MB. Obviously there is a storage issue here assuming one permanently keeps the raw files (I do) and, given that there is no difference in image quality, it seems pointless generating files that are almost twice the size for no good reason at all. I keep my processed images as PSDs as well as the NEFs so I am not a scrooge in terms of purchasing storage including backups but why produce huge raw files when it is not necessary and has no effect on image quality?

 

Inspired by this conversation, I decided to see what the difference between lossless compressed and uncompressed NEFs is in speed using high speed continuous mode on my D800E. This is not rigorous science but it does give an idea of what is happening. The buffer allows 16 shots after which it has to start writing to the card. It takes about 18 seconds for the buffer to regenerate to the 16 frames for lossless compressed files and 25 seconds for uncompressed. So if frame rate is important then using uncompressed files is not the way to go - in other words you get about 30% more frames per minute using lossless compressed over uncompressed.

 

So why not shoot lossless compressed NEFs? I can't think of any reason not to do so - I await further enlightenment.


Edited by MDM, A week ago.

  • 1

#11 David_Buzzard

David_Buzzard

    Forum newbie

  • Verified
  • Pip
  • 38 posts
  • LocationWhistler BC, Canada
  • Images:2325

Posted A week ago

First thing, get yourself a copy of Adobe Lightroom, or preferably, Adobe Photoshop.  The photo bundle for both is $10 US a month and that's a deal for what you get.  Life is way too short to be putzing around with Nikon software.  

 

Second thing, turn off the JPG setting on your camera.  The imaging software is using the JPG's instead of the NEF's, and you've probably got it set to a lower resolution version.  Unless you need shots directly out of the camera, you don't need the JPG files and they just confuse things.  By using JPG's, you're basically knee capping your camera.


  • 0

#12 Phil Robinson

Phil Robinson

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 1,206 posts
  • LocationMaidstone, Kent
  • Images:29896

Posted A week ago

Deleted - missed part of your post.


Edited by Phil Robinson, A week ago.

  • 0

www.PjrFoto.com





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users