How to Tell Quality of Photos from Wedding CD?

Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by quinn_ly, Jul 6, 2009.

  1. Hello,
    I have recently received a CD containing 'high resolution' photos taken at my daughter's wedding (this was my daughter's idea! Apparently her friend, the photographer, only shoots, doesn't edit or offer any photo packages & then promptly burns via CD) So, for the past several months, I have been learning how to use Photoshop CS3 for just this project. I am using Bridge to store & Photoshop to make minor corrections such as color & balance, minor skin flaws etc. & then planned to re-size so that I can have a lab print off mostly 6x4's & a few 8x10's. It appears all files were shot in JPEG vs RAW format.
    My question is how to tell if I received 'high res' copies, cuz I am thinking that I did not. (photos all seem 'unfocused). And won't resizing to 6x4 further jeopardize the quality of output since the files I received are enormous?
    Here is a typical property of a photo: Dimension - 31.1 x 21.0; 496 KB; 72 ppi.
    I am learning alot from this great forum & having fun tweaking the wedding photos; it's just that I think in the long run - I may be just wasting time...trying to get a good clear quality photo when it may be an impossibility.
    Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions!
    -Quinn
     
  2. Hello: You have enough resolution for 4x6 and 8x10 prints. Not sure why you will have problem to size images to 6x4 inches. This is how I do it. Open a file, go to Image, select Image Size, in the box type in 6 (make sure the unit is not pixels, if it is change to inches), set resolution to 300 pixels per inch, make sure constraint and Resample boxes are checked (usually default mode). This should work if the image you started with has width to height ratio of 3 to 2. Many digital cameras do not have this ratio.
    If the original image is not in 3:2 proportion, then you will need a different procedure. In that case, open the image, select crop tool, in the boxes for Width and Height type in 6 inches and 4 inches, in Resolution box type type in 300. Then crop the image and use Save AS command give different name and save with Quality of 12.
     
  3. If you were sold High resolution CD that is not what you got... I would ask for the full file size so you can make your adjustments and print to any size you like. You might also consider hiring someone to PS your favorites as there are many aspects to PS that make it not an easy program to learn. I have a 10MP camera and my typcal size file after some cropping is 4.75MG - 3778x2518 at 300dpi
     
  4. Those are tiny file sizes. 496 KB???
    My normal file size after cropping and working over in PS is still around 4-5KB. And I shoot JPEG!
     
  5. Dimension - 31.1 x 21.0; 496 KB; 72 ppi​
    If you were to have received full-res files, the file sizes should be about 4 - 8 MB as Jpgs on that CD (a full wedding will generally take a DVD, there's so many pics. Especially from people who just shoot and burn). The ppi has nothing to do with it. BUT, what do you mean by 31.1 x 21.0? Pixels? Inches?
    I really think with that small of a file, you are going to have a hard time getting anything better than a 4x6. And I personally wouldn't even do that.
    My question is how to tell if I received 'high res' copies, cuz I am thinking that I did not. (photos all seem 'unfocused).​
    The other problem I see: if the pictures look "unfocused" it is not a "high res" problem. You MIGHT be able to sharpen them a little, but it means the photographer took soft images. Whether this is not being able to tell his/her camera where to focus, slow shutter speeds, or cheap bad lenses, who can say.
    You've got 2 big hurdles that are unrelated.
    If the wedding contract says "high res" then I'd be going back asking for the full-res JPEG files from the photog.
    As for the soft images, if they're just bad shots, then you just got bad shots.
     
  6. And won't resizing to 6x4 further jeopardize the quality of output since the files I received are enormous?​
    Just noticed this.
    Did you mean to say MB instead of KB? Because 496 KB is one tiny file.
     
  7. Thanks for all your responses. Looks like many file sizes are more like 2-3MB afterall. I'm still unclear as how exactly to tell if they are high resolution or not? The dimensions (32.4 x 48.4) seem huge! ppi 72 - yet previous posts I've read advise to ignore this number, but again unsure.
     
  8. Thanks Maria for clarifying the file sizes for me. Seems my last post crossed yours...and yes, some files are KB others MB.
     
  9. Change the dpi to 300 and compare the result to Francie's numbers.
     
  10. Hi Quinn: Here is how you can tell: Open image in Bridge. Go to metadata panel and look for what camera he used. Then find out what is the dimensions in pixels of the photos from that camera. See if the size of the photos you received have the same dimensions in pixels as the camera is capable of. For JPG format files, you cannot tell if the pictures are full size as produced by the camera or not by just looking at the size in KB or MB as it varies depending on compression applied and the type of the image. He may have used a camera from 5MB and gave you full resolution or he may have use 24 MB camera (extremely unlikely) and gave you severely cropped and reduced images. . If he used 5MB camera, the JPG size will be anywhere from about 1 to 1.5MB. Chances are the photographer gave you images that are more than sufficient to make 4x6 prints and probably 8x10 also. Sandy
     
  11. I usually print at 240dpi (or PPI actually). You can sharpen images in batches for printing as needed and when you do so, view them at the intended print size on screen to have an idea of how it will look in print. The printed images will be less sharp than that on your monitor in most cases.
    It sounds like they have a low res image though since you should be getting a file size of more like 1 - 2 MB from that size image. You should understand that many digishooters are giving the "high res files" without ever setting their camera to capture high res images. Many cameras default to a good quality versus fine quality when used in jpg mode.
    CS3 is a great tool so keep it up and ask here for help.
     
  12. Hi Sandy,
    Thanks for the idea to check camera type & Nadine - I will change the dpi to 300 & see what hapens.
    What I found was a Canon EOS 30D being used. Beginning to think it may be my old LCD monitor that isn't displaying photos clearly & it may not be the quality of the photos afterall! I'll be sending the files to a lab to print so I haven't purchased paper or cartridge but will plan to buy some supplies tomorrow to check the output from my hp 6310 printer. I shouldn't have jumped the gun - but seeing some of the shots (many not very well thought out)& completely missing a lot of other ones, & noticing that a tripod wasn't used - plus spending $1200 for the unedited copies of everything really makes me wonder if I am wasting time....We'll see tomorrow. Thanks for the great tips everyone!
    ~Quinn
     
  13. David - I believe some files are on the low end, but it also looks like I have many that are 3-4 MB thankfully too!
    I'm looking forward to printing a few out on my printer rather than sending everything to the lab so I can make an honest evaluation.
    Do you & most other photographers use a tripod while shooting a wedding? Thanks for your help.
    ~Quinn
     
  14. Correction- 4-5MB...not KB...oy...I need to go to bed.
     
  15. Betty - Thanks - I knew what you meant to say (MBs). I appreciate you input. Sweet dreams...
     
  16. Don't forget that the images will need to be some unsharp mask for printing.
     
  17. Quinn Ly,
    What matters is the size AFTER you open it in Photoshop. That information is at the bottom left in the border of the open file ... and should read something like: Doc: 9.69M/0 bytes.
    If THAT is reading at 3M or 4M, then you do not have "high resolution" files. However, with the numbers you provided I do not think this is the case.
    Jpgs are a compressed form of digital file to save space. A jpg image that is 21" X 31" @ 72 ppi uncompresses to around 10 meg. when opened in Photoshop. If resized to 240 ppi printing resolution at 10 meg., the image would be a little bigger than 6" X 9". Any print enlargement over 8"X10" would be pushing it for higher quality reproduction, but a 4"X 6" or 5" X7"and even a 8" X10" print should be no problem.
    Some people's definition of "high resolution", differs from others. I personally would not consider a 240ppi 6"X9" file as being high resolution ... but your photographer may. I suspect the photographer's camera is a 10 meg model ... that he shot jpgs, and gave you the files straight from the camera.
    Also, you should also be aware that if you repeatedly open a jpg, do something to it, and re-save it ... the image quality will eventually be compromised. This is because every time you re-save as a jpg., it re-compresses the file to make it small again. To do that, it tosses out some digital data. (Note that the images on the DVD are probably locked as "Read Only" so you cannot ruin the originals because you cannot save back to the DVD.)
     
  18. Two things I would add to this is.
    First, make a duplicate of that cd and two copies of each image on your hard drive. It's easy to either ruin a picture when learning PS therefore it's good to have a copy available and second once you are done with the corrections you can compare the new and the old side by side to make sure go got what your want.
    second, to add to the confusion I'd get the monitor calibrated, other wise you are hoping that what you see on the screen is what is going to print. Sometimes (often enough) the screen might not be showing you the real colors and contrast, meaning that your are editing the picture based on wrong data. I'd also suggest to take the prints out. May be even Costco.
    Best of luck
    Alex
     
  19. 31.1 x 21.0 in @ 72 ppi = 2239 x 1512 pixels (at approx 3/2 ratio). Seems plenty hi-rez to me. Maybe they were shot in basic or normal mode (high compression) instead of "fine" (low/optimum compression). At $1200 with no tripod, memory cards or edited photos, it seems like a steal for the photographer. Hope the captured moments are powerful enough to make up for the blunders.
     
  20. Go to Image/Image Size. Change resolution to 240-300 (240 will give a bigger print size). Make sure the resample box is UNCHECKED. A natural print size will show under Document Size. Click Ok.
    But I'll betcha these steps are all done automatically if you take your photos to a commercial printer (ex. Walmart). Why don't you print off a couple and see how they look - might be suitable and save you lots of time.
     
  21. In regards to using a tripod....we hardly ever use a tripod. Tripods restrict movement, angles, and make noise. During some formal shots in especially dark churches we will use them, but never outside of formals, maybe a monopod if needed during the ceremony. In the new age of wedding photography and photojournalism as well as advancements in photography equipment, tripods at weddings are a thing of the past.
    Some will certainly disagree and that is expected.
     
  22. Wow, lot going on here.... First, to the OP, I would not bother printing these on a home inkjet printer (or even a dye-sub); it will be cheaper to use a mini lab found at places like Walgreens. It would be better yet to use an online lab such as MPIX.com. Such a lab will usually be more consistent in their output (and with MPIX I know you can have them NOT color correct an image which means you are getting what you sent- invaluable for comparing what you think you are do in post to what you are actually doing). Next, 2239x1512 isn't a small JPEG. That seems pretty good to me. Most labs will be able to deliver an 8x10 from that without any problems. We don't actually deliver much larger than that. We use to deliver 5MB + JPEGs but an overwhelming number of clients didn't like the large file size: too long to open/save, too long to cache, and so on. Most "consumers" only have whatever RAM came with the computer! We deliver constrained @ 2400x2400 and have never had any complaints. As to whether $1,200 is a steal.... well again, the file sizes seem ok to me. Without actually seeing the work, knowing what was delivered, and how many hours- I might find $1,200 a steal on the Bride's part. I wouldn't show up with my lenses for 8-hours for $1,200. There was another thread where some "professionals" didn't see the value of shooting Raw- IMHO, that is more of a disservice.
     
  23. Yes , I think $1200 for 8-12 hrs work is a steal "... for the photographer" as Indraneel stated. I'm guessing he didn't spend a lot of time up front selling and planning etc. Maybe I'm wrong. But then again, maybe he did and has overhead of duplicate bodies and flashes and an assistant etc.
    In this day of Lightroom 2 and PS it does seem to me that if you advertise "hi res" you could do better in the file size dept.
    I wrote this while the above poster was submitting his comments and so did not see them until after my post went up. I'll have to say I never thought about customers having slow computers, small RAM etc., but upon reflection can see how larger files would cause some headaches.
     
  24. Regarding printing snapfish.com has really fast turn around and is only .09/4x6. Right now - for about another day, I think - they're even doing 50 free 4x6. Or 50 for .02 each, I forgot. It's a good way to get some fast proofs to see what you have. They don't even charge that much for shipping. .09/print is less than half the cost of an at-home dye-sub 4x6, and .10 cheaper than walmart.
    Regarding a tripod. We don't use one, but then we have 1) Image stabilization and 2) don't take 1 second long exposures when hand held, either. Tripods get in my way, and make it too hard to move around during a wedding. I also refuse to use one during formals, because if you step away to arrange somebody - that's when the ring bearer is going to take a sprint up the aisle and trip on the tripod. They also don't fit w/ our method of focus & recomposing, so.... no. No tripod. I don't see that many other photogs using them around here, either.
     
  25. It sounds like this friend photog said that their Large files are "hi-res." What's more accurate is that the photos dimensions but the resolution is 72ppi. If you increase the ppi to 300 and reduce the width and height of the photograph by 1/3 to compensate, you will pretty much get a more "sharp" resolution (because it is compacting it more) in the provided space. This photog is misleading you a bit saying he's shooting in high resolution. I shoot in RAW and the files are enormous (upwards of 20MB each). I then give the client .jpg versions at 240ppi - they're about 8MB a piece. This allows them to print much better than a 4x6. This is what your photog should have done, IMHO.
    As for price, I offer packages that low (even one at $750) only because I am, in the big picture, still new. I have only been shooting since 2005 and do not yet feel my product is worth the high-dollar wedding photogs out there... yet. : )
    These folks who just got their hands on a Canon Rebel digital SLR and think they can charge $500 for a wedding are really taking huge risks AND they are definitely devaluing the market. This makes the uneducated bride (which is most of them) think they can pay $400 or $500 and get good wedding photographs. I really REALLY hope they are at least looking at more experienced photog's portfolios to see the difference before they make a huge mistake.
     
  26. This is a genuine example of what happens to the typical consumer who hires a shoot and burn photographer because it's a "steal". Look at what Quinn and family are going through and will probably never make an album. Last I heard, Kodak published a statistic that fewer than 3% of brides who hire a shoot and burn photographer will ever make an album.
    Historically however, this isn't much different than the bride who used to hire a photographer who would hand over the film or perhaps a set of proofs and negatives. Those too seldom ever left the shoebox.
    Those who value good photography will hire a professional and those who are looking for nothing more than a bargain will not. As time moves on, more and more of the general public thinks that our post production and album creation is so simple. Now we can reflect on a consumer's point of view....-Aimee
     
  27. SO I don't think you got 'high resolution' photos on that disk. Simple fix . Since the photographer is your daughter's friend, perhaps you can ask her for another cd, one with the pictures that came straight out of the camera. No compression what so ever. I doubt she was shooting jpegs at the wedding @72dpi. Hopefully she has them stored somewhere.
    Best of luck,
    pv
     
  28. Let's back up a moment... resolution has nothing to do with ppi (as Maria M pointed out earlier). The OP didn't actually give us resolution per say but did tell us that many of the files are 32.4"x48.4" @ 72DPI. That's a resolution of 2333x3485 pixels. That is PLENTY of pixels for all but the most serious photo editors. At 300dpi that is enough to natively print a 7.77x11.62 print. That is MORE resolution than a 6MP camera from which we consistently yielded 16x24" prints (back in the days of the Canon 10D or Nikon D70). So by what the OP has told us, there is plenty of resolution. As I have stated, we have run into more problems delivering anything higher. 8MB jpegs? I just had a 16x24 canvas wrap around delivered from WHCC and that was from a 3MB JPEG file. It's gorgeous. Granted, that is from the converted Raw file. But delivering 8MB JPEGs to a bride, from my experience, is just asking for trouble. You only need that file size for editing and if you want to do serious editing you will be shooting in Raw and still subsequently delivering a JPEG anyway. In this case, by resolution alone, the OP received significantly high resolution. We simply don't have enough information to say whether the bride got a good deal or not. We don't know the OP's market, we don't know the hours worked, and so on. But like I said, I wouldn't show up with my lenses for $1,200 for 8-hours. As far as any album goes, I would think the bride would have known whether she was getting an album. I know I couldn't deliver an album within a $1,200, or at least not one I would put my name on. But then the choice becomes would you rather have cheap photography and with an album or good photography without an album? I personally don't care what another chooses, the point being it is the Bride's choice. All I am saying is that we shouldn't be knocking the efforts of the original photographer based on the information we have. And I would be the first to be upset about a photographer charing any money and then showing up with a camera and kit lens, no flash, no back ups, shooting JPEG!
     
  29. If you know what a Fourier transformation is, then:
    Compute the amplitude or power spectrum of the image.
    Whiten the spectrum - the power spectrum of natural images falls approximately with the square of spatial frequency, or take the logarithm and visualize.
    If you have non-zero entries close to the Nyquist frequency (its value equals half of the image size), then you have a true high resolution image. Otherwise, the frequency where you see the last non-zero amplitudes, multiplied by two, gives you an estimate of the true resolution.
    Is easier as it sounds ;-)
     
  30. I did the calculation on the resolution listed by the OP, and it comes out to a little over 3MP. An EOS 30D is 8MP. Of course if you are using Windows XP or above all you have to do is right click on the file and select properties and it will give you the resolution of the file. It looks like the resolution was turned down in the camera so the photographer could get more images on the memory card or maybe so they would all fit on a CD rather than DVD. Either way it sounds like someone failed to deliver high resolution files. At best the photographer didn't know what they were doing, and at worse they were being deceptive and cheap. I missed where a tripod was first mentioned, but there is usually too much movement by the photographer to use a tripod at a wedding.
    Divide the short side of file (should be about 1512 in the example you posted) by the short side of the size print you want to make. Don't use the long side measurement for an 8X10 because the camera format is 8X12, and dividing by 10 will show that you have more dpi than you really do. An 8X10 would end up being a little under 200 dpi when printed, which isn't ideal, but with good files is enough for a decent print. Since the photos seem unfocused I'd be worried that the prints won't even be decent at 4X6 though. I'd make the adjustments you want to a few and upload them to Adorama or one of the other printing companies listed to see what you will actually get. Of course for test prints you could also just use Walgreen's/Wal-Mart/Costco, etc. For final prints I highly recommend one of the better online labs though. I frequently use Adorama and I've been happy with them, but others have used MPix and some other labs and recommended them highly too. The few weddings I've done I used Pro Photo in Lakeland Florida, and they were outstanding. Of course they are expensive and the last time I did a wedding I was still using film, but they had already been doing digital prints as well for some time back then.
     
  31. Hi Quinn,
    Open a file in Photoshop and click "Image" followed by "Image size.."
    What is the pixel dimension?
    It sounds like the files are quite small from your initial post.
    Best, Oistein
     
  32. OK, the first post outlines a 2232 x 1512 file. That is enough resolution for a NATIVE 5x7 print @ 300DPI (perhaps the file was cropped); which you don't need (300dpi) for a 5x7 print. In any event, that is enough resolution for any decent lab to produce an 8x12 print as the lab will simple up-rez the image for their printers. Having a lab up-rez an image isn't all bad.... the NATIVE resolution of a Nikon D700 will yield a native 14.2 x 9.44 print. So if you are doing a 16x24 you or your lab is up-rezzing the file. Bottom line, I don't care how you slice and dice it, there is plenty of resolution there for anything but the largest of re-prints. And even then, better labs will still be able to yield a good print. As far as image softness goes... I need to see an image. My wife's parent's CRT was very dark and very soft- had nothing to do with the actual file quality. And finally, as far as a tripod goes, to each their own. I use a tripod because one of my favorite lenses in the Nikon 80-200. Most of the time I am at a shutter of 1/60th or less in many churches. In that case, nothing beats a tripod. I don't need one with shorter lenses. But if I need to go to 1/60th or less, I can't use the VR on the 70-200- or at least not get as many keepers as using the 80-200 on a tripod.
     
  33. stp

    stp

    That's the job I want -- show up at a wedding, shoot a bunch of photos, and simply hand them off to the "lucky couple" to do the rest I do 30% of the work, they do 70%, and I get paid 100%. Truthfully, I'd be ashamed to do this kind of wedding photography. I just did a wedding for a friend, I selected the best, did some PS on some, sized a bunch to 5x7 and sharpened, then selected several for 8x10 or 8x12 and sharpened, and put everything (originals, edited, and sized/sharpened on a DVD for them. I also printed a number of the 5x7 and 8x10/8x12. To ask the B&G to edit, sharpen, and print is asking too much, IMO.
     
  34. Stuart, Alex, Indraneel, Betty, Steve, John, Al, Maria, Aimee, Prasanth, Ms. Keil, Brad, Oistein, Stephen ~ Thank you for the time you took to offer your comments & suggestions. They were all very helpful!
    First thing I need to do is make an second copy of the original cd (not dvd)& then copy & save an additional or 2 copies of the files I plan to keep. Good idea to have a few photos processed at an on line lab so I will most definitely check out the various ones such as Snapfish, Mpix, Adorama & may even look at Pro Photo. These photos need all the help they can get.
    I couldn't agree more with Aimees post that statistics show a small percentage of bride's actually making an album from a cd! But then again, my daughter insisted on this photographer & loved the idea of a cd. When I ask her about this decision - after actually receiving the cd - she tells me that if it wasn't for the 600 photos - well I wouldn't have a new hobby (Photoshop) & I am getting quite the kick at.
    It was good to learn that a tripod was not necessary, however, it was the only thing I could think of that may have caused many of the photos looking 'unfocused'.
    Oistein asked about image size, here are the stats:
    Pixel dimensions: 23.4M, Width 2336; Height 3504; Doc Siz-5.84 inches, 8.76 inches; Resolution 400 pixels.
    I am confident that I will be able to get some good 5x7's and maybe even 8x10's. Not great, but good.
    Now wondering if there is any information I need to make sure is checked off when sending files to an on-line lab...
    Thanks again. You are some very good folks on this forum & I have taken note of all of your expertise. You have all helped me out imensensly!
    ~Quinn
     
  35. Michael, I meant to add in the above posting that I am thinking of contacting the photographer after reading your post, to see if (she) has the original that she can send me. Thanks for the suggestion. Quinn
     
  36. Quinn Ly, 2336 x 3504 is enough resolution for a native 7.79x11.68 print @ 300DPI. And you do NOT need to do anything in Photoshop to resize this image. In other words, you have all you need for an 8x12 print and any decent lab will be able to deliver even a 16x24 from that resolution. I repeat, resolution isn't the issue. Now if the images are indeed OOF (out of focus), that would be an issue. An unsharp mask may help but in reality, nothing can save an OOF image. The real issue is how well your monitor is calibrated. This is why I recommend using someplace like MPIX and telling them NOT to color correct the image. Most, if not all mini-labs will automatically "correct" an image. The person making minimum wage behind the counter might not even know this- it's a behind the scenes automatic adjustment. Then when you get your print back you are looking at the adjusted print from the lab comparing that to your monitor. Problem is that you don't know what adjustment the lab made and we don't know how well your monitor is calibrated. Finally, I am not saying your daughter's photographer did a good job or bad (I would need to see some images first!), I am just saying you have all the resolution you need!
     
  37. Good point, John! I would have never thought to tell them NOT to color correct - does this mean they would not white balance either?
    Look for a few photos I'm getting ready to send. Thanks! ~Quinn
     
  38. John, you're right. I don't know about the hours worked or working conditions, so $1200 may or may not be a steal for either. Also the photographer is a "friend" and that changes things a whole lot. I'm guessing no assistants were used as they cost more than storage for high quality jpegs. On the other hand, it might all be a simple misunderstanding. Maybe the CD is actually for proofs/low quality jpegs. The selected ones would be burned on to another CD in all their RAW glory (caused by lack of a DVD writer and DVDR media obviously).
     
  39. Quinn,
    With the pixel dimension you indicate there are enough pixels for printing A4 (8x12 in) at 300 PPI (pixels per inch). Sounds like the photos were taken with an 8 megapixel camera. That is usually more than enough at least for a wedding album. For large prints and if you are a bit picky, you might not be that satisfied when it comes to details. Keep in mind that it is NOT just about the camera. The lens is also of crucial importance when it comes to image quality.
    If the size of the files are 2-3 MB each, the quality of the files should be pretty good. Low compression and not too much loss of details. In your initial post you say some 400 kb - that would be a highly compressed jpeg which might show artifacts, especially if you do some editing.
    Can you show any of the photos on the web by the way? It would be interesting to take a look.
    Oistein
     
  40. Right Oistein, without actually seeing the images, I don't see how people can comment on the quality/price ratio here, or any other factor of the photographer.
    I've had clients ask me why a photo was "fuzzy" when in fact it was a shallow depth of field image ... most people are used to seeing 4" X 6" P&S images where everything from your toes to the horizon is in focus. Who knows what the images really look like? And we all know most digital images need to be sharpened.
    There are more people going for the shoot and burn option due to the economy ... and of course Kodak would publish stats like that since they are supporting the notion of making enlargements and albums because that's the business they are in.
     
  41. Another thing nobody's mentioned -- Quinn, what magnification are you looking at these images when they appear fuzzy? If it's 100%...you should be aware that what you're doing is looking at a crop from a two foot by three foot enlargement with your nose pressed against the ``print.'' Some fuzziness at that magnification is perfectly acceptable and nothing to be alarmed about.
    I can only think of two ways to settle the quality question. Best would be for you to get a couple 8x10 and 4x6 test prints made, including at least one sharp picture and one fuzzy picture. Just take a couple of the original pictures (NOT the ones you've been playing around with in Photoshop) to your local one-hour-photo place and tell them to print as-is, no modifications at all. You want to see what your starting point is. While the color may be off, and while you can make (almost) any un-processed photo have a lot more ``pop,'' you want to know what you're starting with.
    The other option would be for you to post the full-sized pictures for us to critique. While that won't tell you if *you* think the pictures are acceptably sharp, it's probably still a good idea as you'll get lots of people telling you what to look for, along with theories to explain any perceived flaws.
    Cheers,
    b&
     
  42. Quinn,
    Some labs simply cannot not auto-correct. A lab such as MPIX has the option to not auto-correct. If you choose not to auto-correct, then that means that nothing, including white-balance will be done. In many professional environments, we actually send test prints to the lab when we first start dealing with that lab so that we can be sure what we see on the monitor closely matches the print we get back. This involves calibrating your monitor (which means having a somewhat decent monitor) with a hardware puck, and downloading the profile from your lab for the paper/ink they will be using. This is "soft-proofing". Obviously, most consumers do not go to these lengths and that is fine. But if you do a lot of color manipulation in PS and get a print back where you don't like the color- it's hard to say where the issue is! At least by NOT having the print auto-corrected you know the issue is with what you are seeing when you make the manipulation.
     
  43. I have just gathered a few images for you to view. Here is the link:
    http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=5241920
    ~Quinn
    00TswE-152713684.jpg
     
  44. See ... we have to look at the work before making lofty judgements and critisms.
    Quinn Ly, your daughter is beautiful and so are the photos you uploaded. If a good majority of the images are like those ... you more than got your money's worth IMO.
    BTW, that sun flair happens when the wedding location and time of day makes it happen ... I actually like it in the uploaded photo. Looks magical. I'd slightly straighten a couple, but for the most part looks good. That big tree B&G portrait shot is great!
    FYI, you can upload larger images to the photo.net gallery.
     
  45. Quinn I'm glad you are enjoying PS, it can be amazing. It is more than just size and crop and levels and actions and masks. It's a tool for incredible creativity for making a vision come to life.

    I would have to see the whole gallery to give a collective opinion, but I don't think these aren't bad at all. The sun flair is really cool and I love the shot of your daughter at home. Go easy on the photographer until you learn what you are looking at. On these alone, you probably got your money's worth.

    Problem is now having the knowledge to make a great album for them. A trained Photoshop connoisseur with talent could give you an emotionally moving experience. Albums are more than just photos in chronological order, unless of course that is all you desire. You might go back to the photographer and see if he/she is just that, an amazing album maker. It may be worth your time to set down with them and give them your choices and have them make one for you. And of course perhaps not. Not everyone has the eye or talent to make great albums. Like many consumers you might also not know about the incredible options that are out there for you. Panoramic layouts with inset and design that thrill the senses and help you relive that incredible day (of course the pictures need to have captured it to make this happen). The opportunities for the visual experience of a lifetime are endless, IF the person doing the album understands the flow of emotion and has an the 6th sense of design.

    Lab prints are a good idea, please don't use Walgreen’s or Wal-Mart, many of their printers are not calibrated correctly. You want these to last a life time right? Did you get a letter of release for printing from the photographer so that no one questions you? That is important.

    Enjoy your album, I hope it gives you the experience you are looking for.
     
  46. Quinn,
    Please feel free to send me a high-res photo by e-mail so that I can take a look at it. The files you've posted here are really tiny..
    Oistein
     

Share This Page

1111