Image Resolution Given to Clients

<p>Hi Kevin,<br>

Probably 2-4 times a year, I have someone contact me about a picture I took 2 plus years after I took the picture. These requests include things like 'Do you have a picture of my grandfather (grandmother or ?) at my wedding. He just died and if you have a picture, I would love to be able to use it at his(her) wake' <br>

These occasional requests, I consider it an honor to fill and sort of my professional obligation to the fulfilling the concepts of legacy for my clients. <br>

If I only saved the JPEGs that I provided my client, many of these pictures would never have survived, but, for me, the wedding JPEG pictures are trivial in value compared to being able to provide them those very special pictures of a loved one in a time of need.<br>

Maybe you have never had these kinds of requests, but I have had them frequently enough to know that expanding space is an inexpensive solution to being able to offer something very special to my clients.<br>

Just a thought.</p>

Steven, a raw file or a jpg file are both just digital code stored on a media device, be it a DVD, memory stick or hardrive. If

that media becomes corrupted or damaged and the digital code is no longer readable, then you'll have a problem

regardless of it being a raw or jpeg file. There is nothing about a jpeg that is less secure than a raw file.

 

The only advantage keeping a raw file has over a jpeg would be the ability to re-edit the raw file, possibly because you

would like to use newer software that wasn't available to you when you first edited, or just change for changes sake, you

have far more flexibility with the raw file.

<p>Not a pro, but just a question. I can understand that keeping an archive of raw files from a wedding can be quite costly for the photographer. Does anyone supply encrypted files on DVDs? The storage is the responsibility of the wedding party. You are the only one to have the decryption key. When they want more prints, etc, they give you their disk, you decrypt it, and do your work. This way the only thing the photographer has to archive is the key. I'm not talking some 8 letter passwork, more like a 256 bit key or something really serious. Yes someone can crack that 20 years from now, but really, would you care at that point?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone supply encrypted files on DVDs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't and I don't know anyone who does.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote >

<p >For photographers that give their clients digital copies (as compared to having them purchase prints), I was curious what resolution folks give to their clients. What are the pixel dimensions (i.e. longest and shortest edge) and pixels per inch. I am running out of hard drive space and want to delete the RAWs after I have provided the clients with jpg copies. And I want to retain the jpg copies forever, just in case something goes wrong with the clients' copies. I currently give my clients images that are 3000x2000 pixels with a 500ppi. Others?? thanks much!</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >Kevin, you didn't mention what software you use, which can make a difference in output, what file format is saved, storage options, and retrieval ability.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I use Adobe Lightroom to process Wedding RAW files and when adjusted, <strong>provide client's with Jpegs at 12" on the long side @ 300 ppi in sRGB color space</strong> (550 ppi is over-kill that wastes storage space, and just makes overly large files that are slow to open on most client's computers and very slow to auto convert to 72 ppi web based usage on most sites ). I burn these to an Archival Gold 100 year DVD which is read only so the Jpegs cannot be destroyed by the client. I am now looking into the "Stone" Millenniata DVDs which are virtually indestructible as tested by the US Navy Seals (all other DVD forms failed their tests).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >http://www.zdnet.com/the-1000-year-dvd-is-here-7000009771/</p>

<p > </p>

 

 

<p>300 ppi is good for most printing up to 11X14 prints without compromise, and 360 ppi for larger print possibilities. Clients do not need super sized files especially if they are NOT printing all 1,000+ of them as 16X20s. If a client wants a huge print, I tell them to come to me for that. Printing very large is a different discipline and requires skill. </p>

 

 

<p ><strong>For my storage</strong>, I output and catalog the same images I give to them as DNGs straight from Lightroom Export ... this preserves ALL corrections that were made in LR or any LR plug-in such as PS or OnOne or Nik Efex software, allowing editing of 16 bit Tiffs @ 360 ppi in the recommended Pro RGB color space for better editing options, color fidelity, and/or cropping severely using a more data rich file going into the processing ... In contrast, a Jpg file is 8 bit and is a compressed file format ... so every time you open a Jpeg, work on it, and close it, it re-compresses the file and data is lost.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >http://www.jmg-galleries.com/articles/jpeg_compression.html</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also, unlike some other RAW converters, LR is non-distructive ... meaning I can make a virtual copy of any saved DNG file with its' corrections intact and revert it to the original RAW state with no corrections. I've done this numerous times to make better B&W conversions than the color processed version can achieve.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >For another example, I sell quite a few Albums, and some clients don't come back for their's until a year or more later. My standard album is 12" X 18" + Bleed when open with no gutter fold, and I often use the full size of one key photo that may even be cropped from the original. I can output the needed file at 25" @300 ppi straight from the LR Quick Collection function and drop it in place. These are provided to the Printer/Binder at their request as 300 ppi <strong>Tiff</strong> files. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >My in-studio printer accepts 16 bit data, so my printed files are quite large because I output the files as 360 ppi 16 bit ... and have run tests that show much better printed results than 8 bit Jpegs. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Finally, LR is an excellent Cataloging program where years of weddings and be cataloged and quickly retrieved. While you didn't ask about storage, I think it is very relevant to your question because of the amount of wedding files one can collect over time. Jpegs or DNGs will eventually add up to needing additional storage off your computer. Preferably in at least two separate places. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >BTW, I suspect, saving the original retouched file in DNG format wouldn't be all that much larger than a 550 ppi Jpeg at full size ... but even if it were, the IQ and DNG data rich properties would be light years ahead of the Jpeg. Do not confuse web converted 72 ppi files with saved 550 ppi jpegs. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Hope this helps a little,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >- Marc</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >.</p>

 

 

 

 

<p>Hi Marc, I'm always impressed with your depth of knowledge and willingness to share it, so please don't take this as me being argumentative, in fact your above post has me questioning my own understanding of dpi, and perhaps I'm missing something obvious. So if I explain how I see it, perhaps you could correct what I'm missing. <br /> After reading your post I've tried exporting a jpg from the same raw file from LR, both are exported without setting a maximum pixel width, so they will have the native pixel width of the sensor [well actually the file had a slight crop, but both exports are the same].<br /> One I set the resolution to 240dpi, and the other to 550 dpi. On the desktop both unopened files are exactly the same size, both files opened in photoshop are exactly the same size, when I open the image size dialogue box in photoshop it shows identical file and pixel dimensions, but the dpi figures, and indeed the document sizes differ.<br /> I've attached the screen grabs of both and as you can see the <strong>document</strong> size of the 550dpi is in fact <strong>smaller</strong> than that of the 240dpi. This is because what it's telling me is that for the files available pixels, the maximum print size if printed at this 550 dpi value will be 17.5 cm, and at 240 dpi it's 40cm. The file quality and resolution of both files will be identical regardless of the dpi value in the metadata, it really only serves to show the maximum print size for the dpi figure.<br /> My understanding is that by Adobe allowing a dpi factor to be allocated to a file has caused most people to wrongly associate this figure with a files resolution, if you weren't able to set a dpi figure in the files metadata, then you would it would be clearer, a files quality [bit rate aside] and size is determined by the pixels available. To further confuse things, once the dpi figure is set in the metadata, if you change it in Photoshop the default settings are to proportionally add or subtract pixels, but as I said previously uncheck the CP and resample boxes and you can reset the dpi figure without altering the file size or quality.<br /> Sorry for the pedantry, and I'm keen to be put right as I say. Where am I going wrong?</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Rab, you are not wrong at all, you're right. I can't understand why dpi seems to cause such confusion when it's really very simple.</p>

<p>The dpi/ppi information in a file is just metadata, actually called XResolution and YResolution in the Exif information. This is where stuff like shutter speed, aperture etc also are stored. Has nothing to do with Adobe BTW.</p>

<p>The dpi information is just used so that an image can have a default size in inches or centimeters. Without dpi a 1000x1000 pixel image has no size in inches or centimeters. But if we say it's 300 dpi the default size of the images becomes 3.3x3.3 inch. If we say it's 100 dpi, the default size becomes a 10x10 inch image.</p>

<p>Only certain types of software actually use the dpi information. If you send the images to a lab to make prints the dpi is not used. It's the size of the prints for instance a 8x12 inch that determines the size and then the image is scaled to fit when printed.</p>

<p>If the image appear on a webpage the dpi information is not used at all. It will just show up in a size determined by the page or in a size where one pixel on the screen equals one pixel in the image file.</p>

<p>If you import an image file into a layout software like Adobe's Indesign or something like Microsoft Word, the image will show up in it's default size based on the dpi. But you can easily change how big you want the image to appear and in that case the software will disregard the dpi setting.</p>

<p>Not sure what you are dong there Rab ... but it has me intrigued.</p>

<p>The OPs question was what size do each of us use to give clients files and/or store our own versions. He mentioned that he used 550 PPI and I questioned using that resolution setting because at any given image size it would produce a larger file size for storage ... which I believe is the issue ... storing a lot of images and using up drive space.</p>

<p>So I selected on of my shots and exported it 3 times from LR as an 100% quality Jpeg, 12" on the long side ... one exported at 240 PPI, one at 300 PPI, and the another at 550 PPI. I then clicked Command>I (Info) for each file to see what the actual unopened file size was.</p>

<p>The 240 PPI file was 3.1 MB, the 300 PPI version was 4.7 MB ... and the 550 PPI version was 14.2 MB (a significant difference when storing thousands of wedding images).</p>

<p>I then opened each file in PS. The 240 PPI version was 16.6 MB, the 300 PPI was 26.0 MB, and the 550 PPI was 87 MB. Why the huge jump from 300 to 550 I haven't a clue ... I even made sure they were all 8 bit, and they were. (???) I'll double check that when I get a minute.</p>

<p>I did learn that the DNG file is considerably larger than even a 550 PPI Jpeg, so I was wrong in that regard. Probably because it also carries a full sized jpeg preview and all the corrections data ...but I'm not sure about that either.</p>

<p>BTW ... it is PPI (Pixels Per Inch), not DPI (Dots per Inch) which is a printing term.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Marc, in LR when you export the jpegs enter the size in pixels like the OP, not inches. Then you'll see that regardless of dpi all images are the same size on the disk.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I then opened each file in PS. The 240 PPI version was 16.6 MB, the 300 PPI was 26.0 MB, and the 550 PPI was 87 MB. Why the huge jump from 300 to 550 I haven't a clue </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is pretty simple. If you assume that you are talking about 12", since you didn't give the short side, let's just say it's square, a 12" image at 240ppi would be 2880 pilxels per side. Multiplying the two sides gives you a total of 8.3MP contained in the image. Doing the same thing at 300ppi gives you a file of about 13MP. Doing the same thing at 550 gives you about 43MP. The reason the numbers go up non-linearly is easy to see if you understand that you are multiplying the two sides. Since the total is affected by other factors, such as compression, the file size won't be exact, but the multiplying the two sides makes it clear how it jumps quickly.</p>

<p>Ok I see what's happening, when you export from Lightroom you have the resize to fit box checked, so you're exporting the file for a specified print size at a specified ppi, therefore a 20" print at 300ppi requires 4800pixels on the long side.<br>

I do export like this when I'm sending files to my lab for printing and I don't want the files to be bigger than necessary, but generally I don't have that box checked you see. So if I'm shooting a full Raw file on a Can5D, it's 5700 on the long side, so the exported file will also be 5700 on the long side, but the file will have whatever ppi value I gave it at export [actually I leave the LR default of 240], and the file size will be the same size regardless.<br>

My point really though, is that people generally associate the files resolution and size with the ppi, but actually for the ppi to have any impact on determining file size and resolution there has to be a specified print size as well. <br>

I'm assuming that when you have the resize to fit box checked, there is also the option to check the don't enlarge box and this is to stop you adding pixels if you specify a print size beyond the pixels available, as that would seem to be the danger in that particular workflow.<br>

Anyway I understand in your workflow why the ppi becomes relevant, and you said before why you'd prefer to deal with any enlargements being made over that size so that makes sense. </p>

<p>Thanks Jeff.</p>

<p>Rab, yes, I resize to fit on all files ... usually to 12" on the long side for clients because they don't understand all the other nomenclature. I usually crop to a ratio for 8 X 10 or 7 X 10 ... and at 12", 300 PPI, they can make any smaller print or a larger one to 11 X 14 with little to no penalty. I do not have the "Don't Enlarge"box checked. </p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My contract says client is responsible for backup of the digital files after I gave it to them. I store the RAW on my main drive for about 6 months, and then just delete them all to clear space. The RAW is backed up on 3 other drives nevertheless. I only keep jpegs on my drive in case I need to use them for anything, which eventually gets deleted after a year or so.<br>

I give them full resolution @300dpi / 16MP 24MP 36MP depending on the camera, and a web version for facebooking and stuff 1920 on the long side @72 dpi<br>

I never give out RAW</p>

<p>I know this is an old post but if anyone else is looking for information on the topic of what image size to give to clients my answer is to give them whatever you took out of your camera unless you intend to prevent them from making their own prints. If that is the case then just give them thumbnails to review that way they have to come to you for prints.<br>

On the subject of saving Raw files; I would suggest you convert whatever raw files your camera shoots to dng files. Proprietary raw files are going to constantly change however dng will remain the defacto file compatible across all platforms and are just as good if not better than raw files. Primarily because the metadata can be embedded or left as side files whichever you prefer and they be compressed, too. Ever heard of Jared Platt? He also subscribes to that method of data management for photographers.<br>

As for hard drives going bad setting on shelfs, that is true. Everything will eventually go bad, including DVDs and CDs. So, what one has to do is have a backup strategy that includes swapping out old media for new media. It's cost of doing business and your prices should reflect this cost.<br>

Jpegs are like prints, they will eventually go corrupt from moving from one place to another and sooner or later your clients will even lose the metadata, that is assuming you even put it in the file to begin with.</p>

An interesting read, please could someone advise me: I have about 400 wedding photos that I have edited on Lightroom from RAW

(some cropped at different sizes). I now need to export them to a friend who would like to receive them on disc; mainly for online viewing

and probably printing a few off. (No bigger than A4 I imagine to fit a mantle piece frame). When I go to export please could someone tell

me what dpi, resolution, pixel, size etc I need to enter so I retain as much detail as possible when they convert to Jpegs. But also making

sure that the files aren't too big for her. Thank you for your help- Laura.

<p>Laura,<br /> <br /> Welcome to Photonet. This thread is quite old. If you want different options and opinions than contained here, then you may get more varied responses if you begin a new thread.<br /> However, I suggest there is good advice above - and that you provide the files to your client as Marc Williams has outlined in his posts, above.</p>

<p>Is there something specific that is not clear about his processes? </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I do 3000 and while I didn't read through this, I don't personally keep RAW files past one year of any session. I sell via IPS and if they do not purchase the item then it is deleted anyways so that is not a huge deal breaker for me. It does save on disk space and keeps things neat and tidy. I would keep the RAWs though of any image provided to them with the exception of a wedding. <br />I understand this thread is a couple of years old now so some of the info is a little outdated but saving RAWS indefinitely is a total waste of time. <br />That exception for me would be commercial work - or if you have a running plan with a private domestic session that they would be returning to purchase these images up to five years. </p>