Image Resolution Given to Clients

Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by kevin_mora, Nov 8, 2013.

  1. 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!
  2. I hope you'll take this constructively.

    If you're using the word "clients" in the same paragraph as "running out of disk space," then you need to re-examine your pricing.

    You can buy 3TB drives for practically pizza money these days. There's no reason to ever get rid of those RAW files, and there's no reason not to have three copies of them on drives stored in multiple physical locations.

    If something "goes wrong" with what you've delivered to a client, just re-batch the JPG output from the RAW files again. If you're going to ditch something, ditch the JPGs. Because having the RAW files means you can re-think what you're delivering, whereas the JPGs are a one-way street. But mostly, just find a way to charge for one more hour of your time every month, and buy another big disk drive. They're cheap!
  3. Thanks for the input. However, I don't want this thread to get off-topic, so if folks have any input re: the size of the images they give their clients, I would appreciate it.
  4. it


    I also send 3000 pixels on the long side.
  5. Keven - " I am running out of hard drive space and want to delete the RAWs after I have provided the
    clients with jpg copies."

    I totally agree with Matt. The only difference is very minor. Along with the RAW I also save the jpegs. I
    surely don't want to redo my editing.

    This may help a bit. Save your images to a second and third hard drive. Also make a DVD. At the end of
    each year take out the drives and label it for that year. For example 2013 is coming to an end. Label it
    2013 and then put in some new drives. Heck, they are only $50 now! Same with the saved DVD. Label it
    per client. If a couple calls you simply ask what year their wedding was and pull out that HD or the
    DVD. Keep hard drives (HD) is a cool, clean, dark place, like a closet.

    I never mess with the main hard drive, although I use a raid. There are 5 different types of raids. The one
    I use is a called "Mirrored raid." It mirrors the main hard drive, so if the main hard drive bites the dust
    you simply promote the mirrored drive as your main. Nothing is lost. The word "Raid," can also be
    spelled "Reid," however you probably won't find or ever see that spelling.

    Hope this helps.
  6. Ian, thanks so much for the response. Glad to know that others provide 3000 pixels on the long side too.
    Bob, thanks for the input, however, I am hoping to get more info on image resolution.
    Can anyone else provide a comment about what resolution size they provide to clients? Thanks so much.
  7. Full size at 300 ppi. If the image has been cropped, I give whatever the cropped dimensions are. In your contracts, you should specify the size of files that are included, if you're not already doing that.
  8. grh


    Post-crop non-resized, whatever that turns out to me.
  9. I have to be deliberately redundant... you really need to hear what Matt and Bob said. Your responsibility as a professional (and especially as a photographer of weddings) actually extends to the archiving of quality images. Throw the jpgs away, KEEP the raw files. Hard drives are now cheaper than DVDs. If you can't afford new hard drives on a regular basis, I predict you will soon be engaged in a different line of work.

    You have the answer to your other, less significant question. The priority emphasis on creating a proper archive, as stated by almost every responder to your question, should be a clue... t
  10. Since you asked for more details, most photographers usually use that magic number of 300 DPI, which was already stated. You can print something around a 16x20 if the image is of excellent quality.

    However if someone wants a larger size, a 16x20 lets say up to a 40x60. I often save a raw file as a TIFF file. With jpegs lots of information (dots per inch) are lost when converted from RAW. This is a very good reason to save the Raw files as the others above have said. Tiff files are somewhat the same as Raw files, however if needed, you can actually add more information replacing the Raw file information. Yes photo labs can read Tiff files just like jpegs.

    Hopefully this clears up your question along with managing a well organized studio and a computer system. For the most part I think that this is pretty much close to what the pros usually do.

    I realize you didn't ask about the valuable input that the others have posted, but sometimes a simple question needs to be extrapolated to really answer your question.
  11. Thanks to those who are providing responsive feedback. With respect to those who feel the need to discuss my decision to delete raws, please know that I have have been thorough in my deliberations. Hopefully this will end the side-conversation (please note, if you are going to throw in your two cents about what I should do with my RAWs, I would appreciate you providing a response re: image resolution, otherwise you aren't contributing in a meaningful way to's forums)
  12. Kevin,
    I am now intrigued by this conversation. In terms of ppi, it varies between 75 and 300, depending on their intended use. Rarely above 300 ppi.
    But more importantly, I am extremely curious as to 'been thorough in my deliberations' as many of us do not delete RAW files, but increase storage. I am sure most of us would be fascinated by your insight or thought process into this sort of puzzle. Perhaps you would be willing to share?
  13. I give clients a set of jpgs at 1040 long side at 92 or 120 ppi primarily for viewing on their computer and sharing with family friends. Or we will put a folder up on Smug Mug with a password they can pass around to friends.
    Sometimes I will create a simple slide show and give them that.
    I will also give them disks with full-size Tiffs.
    We will also have prints prepared if they want at an extra cost.
    I am running out of hard drive space and want to delete the RAW...​
    Sorry, I think this makes Matt's post relevant and good advice. For a wedding, never dump you raws. Rack them off and store them, hopefully in more than one place.
  14. Just to add to the above, I never give out the Neffs except in rare circumstances like a graphic artist is going to incorporate a photo into a design and requests a copy.neff.
  15. In the past clients would perhaps want to print a 8x10. With the aspect ratio of current dslr (1:1.5) that would translate to an uncropped 8x12. Image resolution for a good print is usually sufficient at 300 dpi, which gives us an image size of 2400x3600.
    However this is 2013 and not 1993 so I would suggest delivering your image in a resolution compatible with 4K viewing, aka ultra HD or 2160p. This is the resolution every electronic gadget will be heading for. The pixel dimension is 3840×2160. Since the aspect ratio of the image is 16:9 and your still images are likely not 16:9, stick to the 3840 pixel dimension on the long side. So 3840 x 2560 pixels if it's an uncropped dslr image. With these pixels the client can also make a great looking print just like before.
    An alternative to this to not resize the clients files and just let them stay in whatever resolution they are.
    Keep in mind that the dpi information in the file has no importance as it is metadata only. The image resolution is in the pixel dimension. But you can put 300 dpi in there for good measure.
    When it comes to backup it's unsuitable to use harddrives on a shelf as long term storage. A lot of harddrives will have failed after sitting unused on the shelf for a couple of years. There are a number of reasons for this. And you'll probably have a hard time even being able to hook up your sata or usb drive to anything in 10 years time.
    From a professional point of view ditching the raw is a perfectly viable alternative. The client got the jpegs so it makes sense to be able to give them new jpegs should the need arise. I bet most photographers do not have in their contract that they need to safe keep their clients images for decades.
  16. it


    I know two professional photographer running very successful businesses who dump their RAW files unless the client specifically pays for archiving. ($500+) I keep mine, but that's just me.
    Why do people insist on giving this guy advice he didn't ask for?
  17. Seems if someone question is related to stating they need to create disk space, there's an implicit question. but no matter, no one insists anyone take the advice.
  18. I just shot my first wedding a couple of weeks ago. I gave them everything, all the RAW files, 300 ppi print files of the
    best shots (131 of them) cropped to popular print sizes, and the same files in reduced size for emailing, Facebook, or
    whatever. Now, keep in mind a couple of things; I shot the wedding for free, as the groom is a friend of mine, so I
    considered this my wedding gift to them, plus, this was my first wedding shoot, so the experience was worth it.
    Personally, if I shoot any more weddings (I have no real plans on becoming a wedding photographer, but I might do one
    from time to time) I would do the same. If they pay for the service, I'll give them everything.
  19. Why do people insist on giving this guy advice he didn't ask for?​
    Probably because this is a forum for discussion of photography related techniques, equipment etc as it relates to wedding photography in particular. People learn by reading different viewpoints and can make up their own mind. The purpose is not simply to answer the question posted by the original poster.
    Or put another way: Why did you post another question and not just give the OP the advice he asked for :)
  20. Steven,
    Here is more info about my thought process. I give my clients about 800-1300 photos for weddings. If each RAW image is 20-40MB, it adds up. I edit the images and give them jpgs at 3000 pixels, so they can print them up. I then save copies of their jpgs forever. I also save their RAWs for one year. However after a year, I want to delete their RAWs. I see no purpose to holding onto client RAW images for any longer. If they ever have a problem (lose their images). I will always have the jpg copies ready to re-send to them. I give them a year grace period in which time I can edit their RAW images more, if they want it. But after that, they don't get any more edits, they will just get another copy of the jogs I sent them.
    So that is my thought process.
    I understand people have their own opinions on this, but once I asked for people to simply give me their thoughts on image resolution, I really wish they would have done so. Instead, many folks felt it necessary to give me their opinion on keeping RAWs. For instance, had I said I was unhappy with Nikon and was going to switch to Canon and wanted to know what Canon camera I should get, i would hope I wouldn't get tons of responses about why I should stick with Nikon. I would hope I got responses related to my request, namely, what Canon camera to get. If people really felt the need to tell me why I should stick with Nikon, the decent thing for them to do would be to also answer my question and let me know, which Canon I should get, if in fact I decide to make the switch. Make sense?
  21. I have to add some humor here. I shoot with Canon's. The 1Ds Mark 3's. Everyone should. YuK - Nikon.
    Boooo! Everyone should shoot with the D series Canons.

    Yes, Yes, I'm joking.
  22. "what resolution folks give to their clients" -
    I currently give my clients images that are 3000x2000 pixels with a 500ppi.
    Seems that you are preoccupied with image resolution, that is usually meaningless. You do not need to know how they will use the files.
    Also, perhaps (?) you shoot with a 12 MP, 16 MP, or even with 24 MP numer of pixels camera, yet you provide only 6 MP images to customers. You are doing disservice to your customers.
    Give all your pixels to the not worry about the resolution.
  23. Just to clarify dpi here, as it seems to trip a lot of people up.
    All images have a dpi figure in their metadata, I don't honestly know why, as at this stage it says nothing about the file size itself, which is completely determined by the pixel count.
    So my default dpi figure given to my exported files from Lightroom and photoshop is 240dpi. If I open the file in photoshop and select filesize, it typically will tell me the file is 2574x3862 pixels, the resolution is set at 240dpi, but this is the thing, it could say 72, 480 or whatever you assign to it in Lightroom, but the pixel dimensions, and therefore the file size would remain the same.
    Now at this stage in Photoshop if I select image size, and add or lower the dpi figure while the 'constrain proportions' box is ticked, it will add or subtract the same proportional pixels from the file making the file size larger or smaller dependent on the dpi set. However if I uncheck the CP box, the file size and pixel count will remain exactly the same regardless of the dpi figure.
    When it comes to making prints, as long as there are enough pixels to provide for the required print size at the printers dpi setting then it's fine, so in my case the maximum print size on the long side of 3800 pixels, printed at 300dpi would be just over 10 inches. I think you can get great results from an inkjet set at 150dpi, so my maximum print size then would be just over 25 inches.
    Hope that makes sense. I've had graphic designers and magazines ask me for 300 dpi files as the file is too small, and I just change that figure, send them back an identical file except for the change in dpi and they're happy. Sometimes it's easier than trying to explain.
  24. I agree 100% with DPI… there is no point in assigning any number when dealing with the actual number of pixels. We give clients 3000 pixel images. According to MPIX, this is enough for them to print a 16x20. I like to define the output for two reasons. One, consistency. Even if I have cropped an image, the pixel size remains constant. Two, that is roughly half the file size as "full-resolution" (depending on my camera). I have found that most clients find it less difficult to browse 100's of images with a smaller file size versus a larger file size.
  25. I give my clients their photos in two forms: high resolution images at 4500 pixels-300 dpi on the long side, and web-ready images at 1000 pixels-96 dpi on the long side.

    You should check out Crashplan. I pay something like $7/month for unlimited data so that I can have everything backed up into the cloud. I also back up onto external harddrives, but I keep all RAW's for 1 year, then I delete all the RAW's except for the corresponding ones that I sent to the client.
  26. Hi Kevin,
    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'
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Just a thought.
  27. 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.
  28. 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?
  29. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Does anyone supply encrypted files on DVDs?​
    I wouldn't and I don't know anyone who does.
  30. 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!​
    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.
    I use Adobe Lightroom to process Wedding RAW files and when adjusted, provide client's with Jpegs at 12" on the long side @ 300 ppi in sRGB color space (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).
    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.
    For my storage, 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.
    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.
    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 Tiff files.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Hope this helps a little,
    - Marc
  31. 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.
    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].
    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.
    I've attached the screen grabs of both and as you can see the document size of the 550dpi is in fact smaller 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.
    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.
    Sorry for the pedantry, and I'm keen to be put right as I say. Where am I going wrong?
  32. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
  33. Not sure what you are dong there Rab ... but it has me intrigued.
    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.
    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.
    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).
    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.
    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.
    BTW ... it is PPI (Pixels Per Inch), not DPI (Dots per Inch) which is a printing term.
    - Marc
  34. 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.
  35. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    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​

    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.
  36. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
  37. Thanks Jeff.
    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.
    - Marc
  38. 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.
    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
    I never give out RAW
  39. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
  40. 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.
  41. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member


    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.
    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.
    Is there something specific that is not clear about his processes?
  42. 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.
    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.
    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.

Share This Page