Best file sizes to deliver to client on digital media

<p>I currently give all edited photos back to my clients in digital format such as a thumb drive, and the clients do their own printing. I edit NEF photos in Photoshop Elements 14 and save as JPG files. Which Image Quality should I save as? Quality 12 saves as large files usually at least 20MP, Quality 10 saves maybe 9MP, and Quality 8 is usually around 3MP. Is it better to deliver final pics at at 15 to 20MP or smaller file sizes? <br>

Thank you!</p>

<p>the highest quality levels do *very* little to actually justify the increase in size. This may be somewhat image dependent (fine detail, etc). I'd go w/ 8/10</p>

<p>It really depends on what your clients need. If they are only making relatively small prints (8x10 or smaller) then smaller JPEG files should be fine. If they are making 24x36, they might be unhappy with smaller files.</p>

<p>Large files never hurt, except when working with a very underspecified computer. Similarly, USB sticks are very cheap today, so really no reason not to give customers full-sized files. I'd go quality 12 too - it may not make much difference but it saves arguing with the customer who thinks he's being sold short.</p>

<p>The answer to your question depends on balancing off what size prints your customers want/need to make and what size prints you want to enable given what you charge.</p>

<p>Since you are giving them the files for the purpose of making prints, I see no reason not to give them the highest quality files possible. That means go ahead and use 12. The point isn't whether 12 is much different than 10 but rather than there's no reason not to go with 12. Memory is cheap these days -- I saw a 64GB thumb drive this week for $12.95. 4GB DVDs are maybe 25 cents.<br /><br />There are other photographers who only give their clients low resolution files so they need to come back to the photographer to buy prints. The risk of that is that clients will make prints anyhow, and end up showing their friends poor-quality prints that don't reflect the quality of the photographer's work.</p>

<p>I suppose I might give them both 12 and 8.</p>

<p>If they want to upload to Facebook or some other site, it takes a long time with many 30MB files, and there is no need. FB won't store all the bits, anyway. (FB does have two upload modes, one stores pretty much screen resolution, and the other somewhat more, but nowhere near 30MB.)</p>

<p>I hope you have an automated process for doing the conversion, especially if it is many files.</p>

I agree with Glen. For printing, large files are usually better and if printing large then they are a must. If uploading to a

website, they are overkill and it takes more time to upload. And if the site has a size restriction they will have to be

reduced or the site will resize it and that takes even more time.

<p>Thanks alot for all the feedback. It was very helpful and I appreciate it!! I just upgraded my photo hosting site so that customers may print their pics if wanted, I assume file size makes a difference here as well?</p>

<p>You would want to upload a file big enough to make a good quality print at the largest size that you make available. Craig's point about poor prints always being the fault of the photographer is a good one, and you want prints ordered from your website to be excellent so that your clients will spread the word that you are a good photographer.</p>