Help with File Size

USAIR

The other day a good client of mine wanted to buy a couple of photos.
I usually just send a jpg file and that's good enough.
But this time they were going to print 2 photos 3' X 5' and ask about the file size.
They were going to use them on a wall printed on canvas and I think the files were OK for this.

I told them the file size was 2336 X 3504 (Canon 30D)and I think abt 5 meg.
I didn't hear back from them so I think they went another way.
Yes I will give them a call but thought I would ask you guys/gals first.

So here's my question is there any advantage for them or me to send the file in a tif format?

Or what format do I use.
The tif was about 25 meg and like I said the jpg was about 5 meg.
I know the tif is uncompressed.
Should I have save as tiff 16 bit??

Maybe I should look at others workflow...I am not really understanding something here.

Thanks
Fred

Art Scott

My personal Pro Lab prefers a sRGB jpg.......if I know a client wants a huge enlargement I also run it thru Genuine Fractals Print Pro (currently I am still using the trial version which allows you to save 20 working files......You can uprez the file and then look at it full size on monitor to see if it is to your satisfaction...if not do not save it......it doesnot cahnge your amount of prints avail until you actually save one....they also recommend you do all PS stuff EXCEPT sharpening before up rezing and then go in and sharpen[using USM])....I have had fantastic results.....the one thing I always do is to change my file from a 72dpi to at least 300dpi when I start to work on them (i make sure to have the constrain proportions ticked and everything else unticked so I do not get any interpolation fron PS) and GF Print Pro will do the uprez in opne quick step either by percentages or by actual size.....I always use the inch dimensions as that way I am getting it to correct printing size in one step.....

hope this helps

USAIR

Thanks Art
I was think of trying Genuine Fractals but so far I was doing fine without.

This is something I never had a good handle on.
I thought it was time to figure it out

Thanks again

Fred

claudermilk

The byte size of the files has no bearing here (5MB JPEG, 25MB TIFF). It's the pixel size that matters & a quick calc tells me Art's suggestion for interpolating is a good idea as you are looking at about 58ppi right now.

Just as a reminder, the dpi number saved in the file is really meaningless. I never change that & really don't know what it's set at n my files. I have x number of pixels that will be printed at y inches. Divide x by y and that's what your real ppi will be--for that size print.

dbd

claudermilk wrote:

T
Just as a reminder, the dpi number saved in the file is really meaningless. I never change that & really don't know what it's set at n my files. I have x number of pixels that will be printed at y inches. Divide x by y and that's what your real ppi will be--for that size print.

That's the ppi where you last have control of it. The printer (company) will make the last conversion in file size for the printer (hardware) and the printer (hardware) will perform the conversion to ink drops put on paper.

The details for Smugmug prints are here:
http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-quality

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com

USAIR

claudermilk wrote:

The byte size of the files has no bearing here (5MB JPEG, 25MB TIFF). It's the pixel size that matters & a quick calc tells me Art's suggestion for interpolating is a good idea as you are looking at about 58ppi right now.

Just as a reminder, the dpi number saved in the file is really meaningless. I never change that & really don't know what it's set at n my files. I have x number of pixels that will be printed at y inches. Divide x by y and that's what your real ppi will be--for that size print.

Well that's kind of my point why do they need to see in ps that it is 300 dpi?
I mean all I did is click a little box in ps I don't see any change.

Also they want big files like Bigger is better ...it's like hey do you want that photo in jpg...no no no we want it in tif it's a lot bigger so much better
I thought it was quality not quantity of the pixels

I don't want to take up everyones time on this I'm sure this is basic.
Point me to a link on this I'll do some reading.:D

I gonna look around here I must have a book on this.

Also on your math I can't come up with 58
I take 3504 divided by 14.6 = 240
Same as ps says in the Image Size box. I'm lost

Thanks guys for taking the time

Fred

dbd

USAIR wrote:

Well that's kind of my point why do they need to see in ps that it is 300 dpi?
I mean all I did is click a little box in ps I don't see any change.

Also they want big files like Bigger is better ...it's like hey do you want that photo in jpg...no no no we want it in tif it's a lot bigger so much better
I thought it was quality not quantity of the pixels

I don't want to take up everyones time on this I'm sure this is basic.
Point me to a link on this I'll do some reading.:D

I gonna look around here I must have a book on this.

Also on your math I can't come up with 58
I take 3504 divided by 14.6 = 240
Same as ps says in the Image Size box. I'm lost

Thanks guys for taking the time

Fred

ppi is pixels/length. That's actual printed length, not some labeled length in some metadata. You said 3 by 5 feet. 3504/60 = 58... pixels per inch.

When you make large prints you don't want to reduce the resolution any more than necessary. What looks good reduced without obvious effect on web viewing may not look good at 3x5 feet.

Smugmug's printer has interpolation software that has a successful history of satisfying customers. At the cost of 3x5 foot prints another printer might be concerned about your satifaction with print quality. You might not like the final print even if the problem is the original image quality, not the printers upsampling. Their easy solution is to make you responsible for the upsizing to the final resolution. Then you get to see the upsampled version and can make the call at that point on whether to quality is good enough.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com

nipprdog

USAIR wrote:

So here's my question is there any advantage for them or me to send the file in a tif format?

Yes. TIFFs saved from RAW images print sharper at poster size than JPEGs saved from the same RAW file.

USAIR

dbd wrote:

ppi is pixels/length. That's actual printed length, not some labeled length in some metadata. You said 3 by 5 feet. 3504/60 = 58... pixels per inch.

When you make large prints you don't want to reduce the resolution any more than necessary. What looks good reduced without obvious effect on web viewing may not look good at 3x5 feet.

Smugmug's printer has interpolation software that has a successful history of satisfying customers. At the cost of 3x5 foot prints another printer might be concerned about your satifaction with print quality. You might not like the final print even if the problem is the original image quality, not the printers upsampling. Their easy solution is to make you responsible for the upsizing to the final resolution. Then you get to see the upsampled version and can make the call at that point on whether to quality is good enough.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com

Dale thanks for the reply

You are correct 3' x 5'...58 ppi is not much I don't think that will look very good up close
Genuine Fractals is looking better all the time.
The company I deal with seems to want Big prints so this comes up all the time.

dbd wrote:

Yes. TIFFs saved from RAW images print sharper at poster size than JPEGs saved from the same RAW file..

I didn't think you could really tell between the two I thought the quality of jpg photos was about the same
Thanks I am doing some reading on this.

I still haven't called the company to find out what happend too busy.

Thanks guys

Fred

claudermilk

dbd wrote:

ppi is pixels/length. That's actual printed length, not some labeled length in some metadata. You said 3 by 5 feet. 3504/60 = 58... pixels per inch.

That was my math. I agree that it's getting a bit low.

For files, it seems to me they are showing a lack of knowledge of the technicalities of files size vs image size and TIFF vs JPEG. I'm sure there are examples where an uncompressed TIFF will render a better print than a quality 12/100% JPEG, but in most cases it should be unnoticeable.