How to Tell Quality of Photos from Wedding CD?

[aimee_pieters]

<p>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.<br>

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. <br>

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</p>

[prasanth]

<p>SO I don't think you got 'high resolution' photos on that disk. <em>Simple fix</em> . 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.</p>

<p>Best of luck,<br>

pv</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>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!</p>

[sven keil]

<p>If you know what a Fourier transformation is, then:<br>

Compute the amplitude or power spectrum of the image.<br>

Whiten the spectrum - the power spectrum of natural images falls approximately with the square of spatial frequency, or take the logarithm and visualize.<br>

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.<br>

Is easier as it sounds ;-)</p>

[brad_hutcheson]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[oistein]

<p>Hi Quinn,<br>

Open a file in Photoshop and click "Image" followed by "Image size.." <br>

What is the pixel dimension?<br>

It sounds like the files are quite small from your initial post.<br>

Best, Oistein</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>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.</p>

[stp]

<p>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.</p>

[quinn_ly]

<p>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!<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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'. <br>

Oistein asked about image size, here are the stats:<br>

Pixel dimensions: 23.4M, Width 2336; Height 3504; Doc Siz-5.84 inches, 8.76 inches; Resolution 400 pixels.<br>

I am confident that I will be able to get some good 5x7's and maybe even 8x10's. Not great, but good.<br>

Now wondering if there is any information I need to make sure is checked off when sending files to an on-line lab...<br>

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!<br>

~Quinn</p>

[quinn_ly]

<p>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</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>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!</p>

[quinn_ly]

<p>Good point, John! I would have never thought to tell them NOT to color correct - does this mean they would not white balance either? <br>

Look for a few photos I'm getting ready to send. Thanks! ~Quinn</p>

[indraneel]

<p>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).</p>

[oistein]

<p>Quinn,</p>

<p>With the <em>pixel dimension</em> 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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>Can you show any of the photos on the web by the way? It would be interesting to take a look.</p>

<p>Oistein</p>

[fotografz]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[ben_goren]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>b&</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Quinn,</p>

<p>Some labs simply cannot <em>not</em> 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.</p>

 

[quinn_ly]

<p>I have just gathered a few images for you to view. Here is the link:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=5241920<br>

~Quinn</p><div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>See ... we have to look at the work before making lofty judgements and critisms.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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!</p>

<p>FYI, you can upload larger images to the photo.net gallery.</p>

<p> </p>

[laura_kamler]

<p >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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Enjoy your album, I hope it gives you the experience you are looking for.</p>

<p > </p>

[oistein]

<p>Quinn,<br>

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.. <br>

Oistein</p>