Resolution Settings, Small, Medium and Large vs. Image quality

New to this forum, I am a casual photographer with a Nikon 3300 and I never really searched hard but I have searched to find out about something I read a long time ago.
My hope here is someone (pro or semi pro) can answer firmly with a certain answer.

Lets say I am using my digital camera like a "film camera" and perfectly frame what I want in the picture and do not intend on cropping.
Is there any advantage or disadvantage in image quality by taking lower resolution photos? I always take photos in the "fine" mode no matter what resolution I choose.

My Nikon 3300 offers, Large 6000 x 4000 24M, Medium 4496 x 3000 15.5m and small 2992 x 2000 6m photographs.

So my question, other then image size am I giving up ANY quality (or get better image quality) if I dont crop and use the smaller 15.5m or 6m setting for prints never then larger 11x14?

Hope this doesnt sound like a stupid question but think its legit, does taking smaller resolution photos on a 24 MP image sensor improve, decline or unchange image quality if you are not going to print a photo over 11x14?

Welcome to the forum,on the odd occasions i shoot jpeg i always use the highest settings,doing wildlife i can never be sure i will not crop.

It is a personal choice, but I strongly agree with your Fine quality. Changing away from Fine is always wrong. A good small image is always better than a large poor quality.

If you never print anything, and only view on the video screen, Small should be plenty. Screens are smaller than that. But what if the picture of a lifetime does show up that you do want to print? Deciding later seems the best plan.

Even Small size will still print an 8x10, if very little cropping. But what if you end up with something good, but which really does need substantial cropping? Or that you want a large poster print?

Is the size really a problem? Today we have very large disks and very large camera cards, etc. I think we should just bite the bullet, and be prepared for the size, and not look back. We can always resample smaller later if we choose, but going the other way is the problem.

I say, always take this biggest, highest-quality image you can to start with. You can always edit it down later to a smaller, lower-quality image, if that's what better fits your particular application fro that image. You cannot go the other way.

I keep my D3200 set to produce the largest, highest-quality JPGs, along with RAW/.NEF files. You might not use the latter now,but later on, as you advance to more advanced software on your computer, you will find that you can produce better-quality results from the .NEF files than from the .JPGs.

The only exception is if you want to shoot a lot of images in very rapid succession. In that case, you'll find that your camera can keep up a higher rate if you go to smaller, lower-quality images.

Welcome to the forum.

There is no harm in taking images at the maximum resolution. Storage both SD card and computer disk is cheap. A high resolution image can always be converted to a lower resolution one, but a lower resolution image can never be converted to a higher resolution one.

Now that you have started taking images, why not take them in RAW. If you have a decent computer, download the free Nikon Capture NX-D from their site. There are many advantages of taking RAW, the only disadvantage is the file size and the fact that you have to "process" the images. The advantages are many. For starters you have a wider dynamic range, so recovering shadows and highlights is much easier from RAW. Then there is no need for setting the camera for
. White Balance
. Lens Correction
. Noise Reduction
. Sharpness Settings

All these can be applied while processing the RAW image. Not using these settings also speeds up the camera processing, so you can shoot faster in bursts.

Welcome to the forum.

I have to agree with ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Shoot the largest, best photos you can. If space is a problem you can delete the photos you don't like once you get them on the computer.