How to Tell Quality of Photos from Wedding CD?

<p>Hello,<br>

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.<br>

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?<br>

Here is a typical property of a photo: Dimension - 31.1 x 21.0; 496 KB; 72 ppi.<br>

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.<br>

Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions! <br>

-Quinn</p>

 

<p>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.<br>

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. </p>

<p>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 </p>

<p>Those are tiny file sizes. 496 KB???<br>

My normal file size after cropping and working over in PS is still around 4-5KB. And I shoot JPEG!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Dimension - 31.1 x 21.0; 496 <strong>KB;</strong> 72 ppi</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you were to have received full-res files, the file sizes should be about 4 - 8 <strong>MB</strong> 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 <strong>ppi has nothing</strong> to do with it. BUT, what do you mean by 31.1 x 21.0? Pixels? Inches?<br /> 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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My question is how to tell if I received 'high res' copies, cuz I am thinking that I did not. (photos all seem 'unfocused).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>You've got 2 big hurdles that are unrelated. <br /> If the wedding contract says "high res" then I'd be going back asking for the full-res JPEG files from the photog.<br /> As for the soft images, if they're just bad shots, then you just got bad shots.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And won't resizing to 6x4 further jeopardize the quality of output since the files I received are enormous?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just noticed this.<br>

Did you mean to say MB instead of KB? Because 496 KB is one tiny file.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>Thanks Maria for clarifying the file sizes for me. Seems my last post crossed yours...and yes, some files are KB others MB. </p>

<p>Change the dpi to 300 and compare the result to Francie's numbers.</p>

<p>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</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>CS3 is a great tool so keep it up and ask here for help.</p>

<p>Hi Sandy,<br>

Thanks for the idea to check camera type & Nadine - I will change the dpi to 300 & see what hapens.<br>

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!<br>

~Quinn</p>

<p>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!<br>

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. <br>

Do you & most other photographers use a tripod while shooting a wedding? Thanks for your help.<br>

~Quinn</p>

<p>Correction- 4-5MB...not KB...oy...I need to go to bed.</p>

<p>Betty - Thanks - I knew what you meant to say (MBs). I appreciate you input. Sweet dreams...</p>

<p>Don't forget that the images will need to be some unsharp mask for printing.</p>

<p>Quinn Ly,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Two things I would add to this is.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

Best of luck<br>

Alex</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. <br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Some will certainly disagree and that is expected.</p>

<p>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 <em>think</em> you are do in post to what you are <em>actually</em> 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 <em>my lenses</em> 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.</p>

<p>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.<br /> 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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. : )</p>

<p>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.</p>