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

benedium · 5th August 2004

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.

5th August 2004

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

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.

zod · 5th August 2004

the client would rather prefer a 300kb jpg??

benedium · 5th August 2004

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.

mpenza · 5th August 2004

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

2100 · 5th August 2004

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.

oeyvind · 5th August 2004

you'll be amazed on what interpolation can do!

Azure · 6th August 2004

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.

ckiang · 6th August 2004

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

Regards
CK

louispang · 6th August 2004

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.

5th August 2004	#1
benedium Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Upp Thomson Posts: 1,188	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.

5th August 2004	#7
oeyvind Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 3,556	you'll be amazed on what interpolation can do! __________________ flickr

5th August 2004	#3
zod Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,295	the client would rather prefer a 300kb jpg??

5th August 2004	#5
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,397	some algorithms could increase pixel count while reducing the impact on quality. photoshop might not be able to achieve it without additional plugins.

5th August 2004	#6
2100 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,116	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.

6th August 2004	#9
ckiang Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 6,597	Can try the professional interpolation softwares like Genuine Fractals, PhotoZoom Pro etc. Regards CK

6th August 2004	#10
louispang Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Sabah, Malaysia Posts: 103	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.