Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Why would a pro give a 300+MB TIFF photo?

  1. #1

    Default Why would a pro give a 300+MB TIFF photo?

    Hi, Just wanna ask the pros here why a photographer would give a client a 300+ MB TIFF file per picture? It is not DIed and looks like a simple shot taken by a Nikon D1x. It takes forever to open and preview... thank god windows xp provides a thumbnail image of the file in the folder.

  2. #2
    Jason H0
    Guests

    Default

    does he charge by the nos of CDs he passes to the client?

    Quote Originally Posted by benedium
    Hi, Just wanna ask the pros here why a photographer would give a client a 300+ MB TIFF file per picture? It is not DIed and looks like a simple shot taken by a Nikon D1x. It takes forever to open and preview... thank god windows xp provides a thumbnail image of the file in the folder.

  3. #3

    Default

    the client would rather prefer a 300kb jpg??

  4. #4

    Default

    Oh i found out that he was instructed to provide an A1 size photo to use for blowing up.
    But with a nikon D1x how does he do that? i checked the file through windowsxp and it says its got 24bit depth and is 12000+ by 8000+ pixels and is 300dpi. How do you increase size of photo to huge proportions without killing the quality? Anything we can do in photoshop?
    On my original note, i guess he should have also provided smaller jpegs as well so that my art director can view it faster.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    some algorithms could increase pixel count while reducing the impact on quality. photoshop might not be able to achieve it without additional plugins.

  6. #6

    Default

    Stair up-ressing lor. Just upsample the res in 10% increments and repeat till you get your desired print size. You reduce the impact of pixellation, the pic just looks blurrer as if shot with a soft lens. If it's really shot with a D1X and blown till 3m by 2m, it won't look good. You can see such prints in shopping centres and shops, some are significantly better than others.

    Other apps, maybe it could be a scan from 120 film. Each image easily over several tens of meg even if it's a simple scan into jpg.....depends on your app, the scanner's capability and how much you willing to pay.

  7. #7

    Default

    you'll be amazed on what interpolation can do!

  8. #8
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    ClubSNAP community
    Posts
    2,775

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benedium
    Oh i found out that he was instructed to provide an A1 size photo to use for blowing up.
    But with a nikon D1x how does he do that? i checked the file through windowsxp and it says its got 24bit depth and is 12000+ by 8000+ pixels and is 300dpi. How do you increase size of photo to huge proportions without killing the quality? Anything we can do in photoshop?
    On my original note, i guess he should have also provided smaller jpegs as well so that my art director can view it faster.

    Ben, not everyone has any cow sense, y'know. Personally, I'd always provide a tinier jpeg image. But then again, there are nutcases on the production side who want A0-sized photo images at 300Kb and below. In TIFF, mind you. Email me to chat more if you want.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Can try the professional interpolation softwares like Genuine Fractals, PhotoZoom Pro etc.

    Regards
    CK

  10. #10

    Default

    I have produced 24 inch x 36 inch prints from 6MP jpeg files...and they all look great.

    Just upsize 10% in PS until you get the size you want. For every three 10% upsize, I also apply a 50% Unsharp Mask. That help reduce the softness. You have to play by ears on this. Some prefer to upsize 10% for 4 times before applying USM. You have to see which works better for you.

    Also you will need 200-300 dpi for such enlargements though a lab said 100dpi would be sufficient.

    You can still see pixelation looking at the pix 6 inches away. But an enlargement is not meant to be viewed from such proximity. Still, a 6MP enlargement still beats enlargement of the same size from a 35mm negative.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •