DSLRUsers.com

Having been called on to take pictures for work colleagues and some friends, I am now wondering in what format I should supply the images to them. For the most part, the images will be used in newsletters and brochures. Most likely they will resize and just drop the photos in.

My questions are:

- What size should I supply the images? My D70s produces a 3008x2000ish file. Does it matter if I want to crop the pic, thus reducing the overall pixel count?

- Should I convert to 300dpi? At 3008x2000 my computer would not be abe to cope with the resulting file size.

- Should I sharpen? Straight out the camera digital pictures look very soft, but as I don't know whether the client will resize, I am not sure if I should use USM.

Any advice on these questions or links would be much appreciated.

Jonas

Jonas, you should be asking them, not us. I would suggest supplying the best jpg you can. If they want the best quality for printing supply the largest fine jpg. If they are electronic newsletters supply them about 800 pixels or so wide in a reduced quality as they download faster and the difference wont be visible

Good point Glen. Where possible I will ask how they want to receive it, but I suppose I am keen to find out how to supply images generally.

Can I assume that when you supply images to a magazine, they specify how they want it and in which format?

By default, the camera captures the images at 300dpi (then again I shoot in Raw, not Jpeg).

If it's for a magazine, provide it at full res at 300dpi. Edit the image as you see fit. You are the photograher providing the image to the client or their designer. It is your work, not someone else's so feel free to crop or sharpen as you see fit.

If the designer or the client wants to re-edit the image, that's their responsibility then You've done your bit so they can pay up

A couple of years ago, (and before I knew better) I read on another forum that you should supply the original image (ie no PP) to the buyer, in this case a magazine. So stupidly, I did this thinking that the graphic artists would make the adjustments etc to the image. When I received a copy of the magazine, I was somewhat taken aback as the printed image (in mono) was really flat. So the moral of the story is, send them what you want to appear published Do all the post processing prior to sending it to them. If they want the original, they will contact you but most of the time, they would like the photographer to do all the work - that is what you are being paid for!

Also, if you are starting to sell your work for publications, I would strongly recommend that you shoot RAW. I appreciate this takes up a lot of room but hard drives are cheap as chips (I run two in my PC plus an external) and if you think all you need is 80 gb, double it! You can never have too much HDD.

Also, don't undervalue your work.

Cheers
Sheila

I agree with Sheila, i have sent the paper pics and have not done anything to them and they have wrecked the pics. I do all the work and process/crop etc.. before i send the files even to the magazine.

I have like 300 gig oh hard drive space and well i still need more at times and well everything i shoot i come home process and then burn it to dvd etc... All backed up.

Jonas, after reading my comments I realised it could be interpreted I meant shoot in jpg. I would suggest shooting in raw, then converting to whatever format requested. I suggested jpg as almost anything can read it.

I echo Sheila and BBJ comments, I supplied a whopping big tiff file for a mate to use in some advertising, aware he was using a graphic artist and they may need to colour match, sharpen, crop, etc. When I saw it in print they had done a grand total of nothing

Jonas - for quite a few years I have supplied many, many thousands of photographs to all manner of clients.

If I am producing pics where I am also the graphic designer, I know exactly what I need to do to obtain the end result. If I am supplying the photograph(s) as ”raw” products for the client I ask for a brief as to exactly what they require. Often they will use my pic(s) as supplied so I can work on them for the best end product. There are also many times when I supply pics that will be worked on by graphic designers. An example of this is the wine photography I do for Woolworths. My pics are supplied to designers, so the only work I do on them is colour balancing, deep etching (if required) and a degree of smart sharpening.

The main consideration is always shoot RAW and always keep the RAW image and your reworked image backed up.

Most magazines are printed at 150lpi and the rule of thumb is to double the lpi for the dpi. Pics taken at 240dpi come within the boundaries of acceptance for 150lpi. Always remember that to take a pic down in size for print is not a problem but be very careful about enlarging a pic for print as pixelation can and will be a problem.

Jonas wrote:- Should I convert to 300dpi? At 3008x2000 my computer would not be abe to cope with the resulting file size.


Jonas

I thought I would answer this question. If you shoot RAW, you can set up in Adobe Camera RAW ("ACR") the size you require using a drop down box. If you choose 300 dpi, all further images you bring into ACR will be at that size. That will be the default until you change it. Generally, the images from your camera will be around 4 to 5 MB, depending on the particular image. This is ample for selling images to magazines (which, generally speaking, need far less depending on the size of the print they require). As I mentioned in my previous post, you might have to instal another drive or alternatively, get into the habit of burning RAW images to a CD (or two!).

Regarding softness of your images, you say that they are very soft which would indicate to me that you may have to look at your lenses. While digital images are softer than P&S images, they should not be "very soft".

Cheers
Sheila PS BTW, love the fisherman with the beaut sunset. Nice work indeed.

I supply my images to clients on archival high quality DVDs. I only supply images that have been PP'd. I also make two back ups of these images as well as the orignals. I have one of these as a working disc and one as a backup disc. I use Nero to back up, which is pretty easy. I figure that you can't be to careful with your images.

If I'm required to supply printed images I get them printed at a camera store on archival quality paper after I PP them at home. You can't compete with the prices by printing at home as opposed to commercial printing (IMHO anyway).

Shooting fine JPG isn't a problem, but you will certainly get more options and flexibility throught shooting RAW.

Thanks for all the input from members. It's great to hear everyone's advice.

As for shooting RAW, its something I've looked at but have realised that I'm limited by my computer at the moment (and to lesser extent, the fact I only have a 1Gb memory card). It runs MS ME and I think RAW Shooter Essentials and other RAW converters requires Windows 2000 minimum. Plus it has little available HD space nor a CD burner.

I'm looking at options for upgrades, but that means less $$$ for camera gear. The sacrifices we make...

Shiela, my images are soft when viewed at 100%, but you're right, no softer than any other DSLR.

I really do think that a new PC might be in order! They are getting cheaper by the minute and now have all the stuff you need for digital photography - ie. DVD/CD burner, USB2 ports etc etc. You really must back up your work and if you do not have a burner, you may get a lot of grief when your somewhat ageing hard drive does a runner! Before you buy any lens, you really do need to upgrade your PC. Buy at least 2 gigs of RAM and two hard drives (rather than a larger HDD which could crash - nothing's perfect ). Working with two drives is not difficult. Software editing programs do take a lot of RAM (Photoshop needs at least 2 gigs to run as it should).

Cheers
Sheila

Supply the pictures as you want them used.

For best effect, shoot RAW, do whatever post-processing you require, create a JPEG and supply that. If you need to do any further work, for example removing dust spots, cloning out errant background people then do that too. Then send the images. You cannot rely on graphic designers to do any of that and you may be disappointed with the results.

Also, be reluctant to crop as the designer may want to bleed the edges of the photos. If there's something horrendous that needs cropping then do that, but otherwise leave it as-is. You could also supply two version of the photograph, one cropped, one as-is.