rab_l

<p>Just for clarity, I thought I'd explain my understanding of this issue as there is the possibility of some confusion on this issue.<br>

So all my figures below are relating to files from a Canon 5d mark iii<br>

When we talk about the size of a Jpg file there are two Mb figures, the open file, and the closed file with compression. So the original full Raw Canon file is 5760 px X 3840 px, this as an open file is a multiple of the two pixel dimensions, so when open in photoshop is a 63.3Mb file.<br>

I then save this as a Jpg maintaining the 5760 x 3840 pixels at a compression setting of 11 in photoshop [ I do this as if I open a jpg that is 8Mb as a closed file, then re-save it at 12 it will close as a larger file size than it started at, but 11 seems to keep the file size the same], the file size will typically be between 8Mb and 16Mb, this depends on how much detail is in the image, so tree foliage and grass will compress less successfully [16Mb] than say a white button on a white cloth [8Mb].<br>

If i do as your photographer has and downsize the file to 3500px on the long side it will become 2333 on the short, giving me an open file of 23.4Mb. If I use my same save quality of 11 my closed compressed file becomes from about 3Mb to about 6Mb, again depending on detail. So this would tally with the file sizes you have, which would tell me the files have been saved at a high quality, low compression, for those pixel dimensions.<br>

I haven't at any point given a dpi value as this can be set in photoshop to whatever figure you wish to put in and doesn't affect the file size or quality one way or the other, however if I have a file that has a dpi value set and then change the figure in photoshop, photoshop will by default resample the image making it larger or smaller depending on the dpi I set, however if I un-tick the resample box the file size will stay exactly the same, both open and closed regardless of the dpi value I enter.<br>

My experience almost no one ever understands this, the number of times I've had people in the industry tell me the file is only 150 dpi and too small, so rather than explain it, I've changed the file to 300 without resampling therefore sending them back the exact same file, same dimension, same quality but with the box saying 300 instead of 150, and they're happy.<br>

Don't send clients tiff files unless they want to make lot's of lossless changes to them, a jpg is much smaller, printable unlike a tiff, and easier for most people to handle on there computer, there is no quality difference in first generation tiffs and Jpgs made from the same raw file.<br>

As a wet print is usually made on paper requiring a resolution of 240dpi your 3500 pixel file will print up to 14.5 inches on the long side without loss of quality, I think you could go bigger on an inkjet as they mostly work at 150dpi [although I don't claim to be an expert on inject, but it's what I was told] without a discernible loss of quality.</p>

 

<p>It's a screen grab from Bridge.</p>

<p>With regards my earlier post, these are the thumbs I mentioned. All one camera and shown in the time sequence they where shot in. These were all acceptably sharp, not that I always get as many that work, but I would always expect to have a few to choose from.</p><div></div>

Thank you Marc, I'm genuinely flattered coming from yourself.

With most all my aisle shots, including from that wedding I do have shots taken in a portrait orientation showing the dress

full length. That particular sequence had about 8 usable shots and I changed the orientation a couple of times mid

sequence.

I tend to be in one shot mode and often walk backwards shooting in my mid stride and try to minimise my movement as I

trip,the shutter. I find the focus to be more accurate this way than my standing in the one spot shooting as the couple

approach even in servo mode. When I next get to the computer I'll post some thumbs of the sequence.

Having said all this, it's a little like us all telling Ralph how he should dress and have his hair cut, what works for me or

anyone else is not necessarily going to suit him. None of the advise being given is wrong, but it is coming from a variety

of philosophies, all of them legitimate.

<p>and second.</p><div></div>

<p>Just to offer an alternative to flash in any form, these are both without flash. The B&W image was taken with a 70-200/4 @ 80th f4 1600iso. The second is a December wedding taken with 85/1.2 @ 80th f2.5 2500iso<br>

I'm sure they won't be to everyones taste, but personally I find it more flattering, but also it's how the couple will remember the moment.<br>

If you use flash it usually floods the area with light and transforms the space into something it wasn't.<br>

I always think it's like going to a nice restaurant with candlelit tables, if you throw a floodlight across the room the ambiance is lost.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I don't normally post here although I do look in from time to time. I don't post because I don't share the general aesthetic of the forum, which seems to be very flash oriented and not something I personally like, but I was intrigued by your approach as I don't think I've read of anyone going to a wedding with such an arsenal of equipment as you did.<br>

I have to say, I think the area you most need to address is basic composition, you don't seem to me to have paid any attention to foreground or background in any of the shots you've posted so far. Most of your images include details creeping into the frame which could either have been excluded, or included with a compositional balance. Even your set shot of the bridesmaids has a bit of plant, a bit of wall, and a bit of an arch, it's just sloppy.<br>

I know this will sound very harsh, and I'm sorry to be mean, but you set your self up with such a seemingly encyclopaedic knowledge of gadgetry that I really thought you'd produce something quite strong. Your response to criticism has been to retreat into yet more technical jargon, but that's not the fundamental problem I'm afraid.</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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. <br>

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.<br>

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. </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>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. <br /> 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].<br /> 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.<br /> I've attached the screen grabs of both and as you can see the <strong>document</strong> size of the 550dpi is in fact <strong>smaller</strong> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> Sorry for the pedantry, and I'm keen to be put right as I say. Where am I going wrong?</p>

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.

<p>Just to clarify dpi here, as it seems to trip a lot of people up.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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. <br>

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. <br>

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.</p>

Sorry Jeff, my post above was made in response to Rasi and before I'd read yours, it looks like I'm arguing with your post

which was not my intention, besides I've probably got it wrong.

With regards the first image, it's possible it's a shift lens rather than PP, only because all the images using this effect

have the line of focus running top to bottom centrally which a shift lens would do, if it was PP I would expect the area of

focus to be used with more variants of placement and sometimes to be more circular. I've only used camera movements

in 5x4 though, so I'm not writing from experience with 35 mm lenses.

The second image looks similar to the oof area on the 85 1.2 when you get down to about 1.6 -1.2, so could be in

camera, I'm not saying it is, just that it could be.

<p>About half the gallery images including the linked example, have a radio triggered flash gun on a light stand positioned behind the subject, this is giving the 3d effect.<br>

Then most everything has had the contrast and saturation pumped up. The naturally lit shots have the advantage of some beautiful brides and a lovely quality of Miami sunshine.</p>

<p>Very sorry to hear this. It was very obvious from Nadines posts that she was both very generous in spirit and kind of heart. My condolences to her family.</p>

Are the clients unhappy with the quality of the work or is it just the missing shots of couples that's upset them?

<p>Well you've had a lot of good advise so far Megan, but i thought I'd chip in as I'm a UK based photographer as well and know how UK weddings run.<br>

I've shot hundreds of weddings in the past thirteen years or so and I cannot remember ever being asked to get a photograph of every couple, and had I been asked, there is no way I would agree to doing it. For one thing couples won't necessarily spend all their time at the wedding together so how would you know who to pair up with who. <br>

I would agree with Nadine that it sounds like a couple trying to get an already cheap deal for free. I'm not sure how a small claims court would view it, but I would have thought the wording of their advert is in itself an acknowledgement that they were prepared to run the risk of an inexperienced photographer, offset by the low fee paid.<br>

If I were you I would offer nothing back as it will weaken your position, I would however get some testimonials from the professional photographers you've shown the photographs to, saying that in their opinion there is a level of competence in line with, and hopefully beyond the fee charged. Let them know that your prepared to stand by your work.</p>

<p> </p>

The recovery software that allows a search by file type is stellar Phoenix photo recovery, that was a couple of years ago I bought it, for

about $40 as far as I remember...

Actually, even if you have deleted them, the fact that LR cataloged them means you deffinately had them on your

harddrive, which means they should be recoverable from the harddrive you originally copied them to. I bought a recovery

program that will search drives for specific file types such as Canon Raw or Nikon. The trouble with recovering from a

drive rather than a card will be the number of files it recovers. I'll ping you a pm tomorrow with the name of the software...

A very late reply from me but worth a try I think. When you try to import files with the same name into LR, it asks if you want to overwrite

the existing file with the same name, use a unique name, typically a 2 in brackets added to the filename, or to cancel the import. As you

loaded your husbands files first, yet you still have a thumbnail of the missing files, you couldn't have overwritten at import, at some point

the files have been there for LR to have cataloged them, so you must have either deleted the files from the source folder that LR

accessed to build the thumbnails, or possibly you've accidentally moved them to another folder since LR cataloged them.

So do a search of the computer, or harddrive for one of the missing file names, it could be yourself or your husband have moved them to

another folder when burning to disk for example, certainly with a mac, if I select the files and drag them to a DVD it makes an alias of the

files which identifies the files to be burnt, but the files don't move from the folder. However if when dragging the files to the DVD icon I let

the mouse slip, they would move to wherever the cursor drops them and if it was another folder you wouldn't necessarily have realised.

<p>5d MarkII 24-70</p><div></div>

<p>Vestry, just before the signing. M6 35 lux 30th f2</p><div></div>

Sorry, I just realised you are talking about the bride entering, and as the bride enters I don't like to be too close and

therefore blocking everyone's view of the bride, so ignore my earlier advice. I don't tend to use flash but sometimes needs must.