File size for real estate photography

<p >I just shot a property for a real estate agent. The images are great but I am not sure what size files to give her. She is going to use them in print and online. I shot them with a 5D so they are fairly large files. I don't want to look like too much of an amateur so ant advice about industry standards would help. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks, Rocky</p>

<blockquote>

<p>She is going to use them in print</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What sizes?</p>

<p>How large is "fairly" large? I hope you are not giving her the RAW file or a TIFF?<br>

JPEG should not be too bad at all.</p>

<p>Online use should not be a problem when speaking of resolution as high quality settings are rarely if ever needed.</p>

<p>"Print" use is another matter entirely.</p>

<p>Unless you know the specific use for printing; my best advice would be to offer her the highest possible native resolution from your camera as JPEGS burned to a CD or DVD.</p>

<p>Make sure you keep the master files and do not alter them.</p>

<p>Publishers/end user/printers often specify a particular resolution and color space.<br>

Concerning the latter; I hope you shot these in RAW.</p>

<p>There are different requirement depending on the output device even in print.<br>

Give them the largest, highest quality JPG. You can downsize them but harder to upsize without any loss of quality.</p>

<p>In the early 1990's in Southern California Real Estate images were on real estate BBS sites.<br>

<br /> Images were max VGA; ie 480x640 pixels since many folks ran VGA and SVGA (600x800) monitors and were using 9600 or 14.4 modems. Images on the BBS where tidy jpegs; often 30 to 50k in size.<br>

<br /> In scanning realtors film images for them; I often cropped and made a downsized compact VGA image that did not bog folks transfers on X, Y, Z modem or Kermit.<br>

<br /><strong> Unless one *knows* what the image is for; there are no answers to the file size required</strong>.<br>

<br /> If that house's image is for a 2 page glossy high end magazine; then one might need a 11x17 image at 300 ppi for say a 135 line screen magaizine. This means you need an non upsized 3300 by 5100 pixel image; about 17 megapixel.<br>

<br /> If the image is one of those postage stamp sized images in a newspaper; one might need a 1 by 1.5 inch image at 170 ppi for a 85 line screen image. This means you need a 170 by 255 pixel image; ie a 0.04 megapixel. You can use any cellphone; or buy a barbie bubble pack digital and have total overkill.</p>

<p>Beware that in SoCal; some realtors have been shooting their own "real estate" images for about 15 to 17 years with digital. Plus they do their own inhouse color printing too.</p>

<p>You could probably assume that someone didn't hire you to shoot a magazine spread when you have no experience doing real estate. You could probably assume that by print they mean that they are going to make up flyers on the office copier, with a number of images on a standard 8.5x11 piece of paper, with room left over for the company logo, contact info, property info, etc... That being said usually a file suitable for a 4x6 print would probably work just fine.</p>

<p>You should provide two sizes, possibly three. One sized for the MLS, one for print, and if you want you can make available the full sized files should they feel the need to use them. To find the MLS size go onto your local MLS site and have a look at the file sizes. In my area it's 300x400 pixels, but that's not a standard from what I understand. Many times the listing agent will use an external site with a virtual slide show, and the print size works for that.</p>

<p>Even if they print it the size of a roadside billboard, your full resolution TIFF files should be more than adequate. These prints use a certain method of rasterisation which effectively only utilises around 100dpi (and that's maximum) and even then, their printing systems make this more than enough to cover a whole billboard (check one of those suckers at close up and you'll see what I mean...;-)</p>

<p>So no, I cannot see resolution or file size being an issue. At least upwards. Now, if I were you, I'd hand them the TIFF files and let then reduce and optimise them for the web according to their needs and the complexity and size of their website. Don't get involved in the process.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...I'd hand them the TIFF files and let then reduce and optimise them for the web according to their needs...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They're real estate agents, not graphics personnel, some may not even know the difference from a Tiff and a pdf. Their MLS probably only takes jpegs, their VT software takes jpegs, their printers take jpegs, you can't say that about any other format. I'd give them the Jpegs that I'd want to see on the MLS, in print, and in their virtual tours. To do anything else just makes them jump through more hoops than they need to. It's like going to a furniture store, paying full price yet still having to assemble the product once they deliver it with their truck. Keep it simple (for them).</p>

<p>I worked for many years in the marketing/graphics department of a huge real estate group. The agents would submit photos to me for publication in our glossy magazine, published 6 times per year. In order to keep requirements simple for the agents, no matter where they got their photos from, we insisted on images being minimum 1600 pixels on the long dimension.</p>

<p>You would be suprised by how many clueless agents took photos, which had already been reduced from native size down to 400 x 300, and enlarged them again to 1600 pixels.</p>

<p>I would strongly suggest supplying a real estate agent with TWO sets of sRGB JPGs. One at native size, and one at a size optimized for posting to the web and emailing. And expect that they will lose your CD within 3 days of you delivering it.</p>