Photography

steve@thaib · #1 07-03-2006, 22:59

Ok, dumb question time again.

I know there are a few very serious photographers out there, and maybe you can answer this one for me.

Is there an accepted minimum \ maximum file size for printed publications? What size files would be acceptable to a magazine or newspaper editor?

I'm working with a website developer just now and he is constantly moaning about image size \ resolution. Are there any rules of thumb to follow or not?

dawsey · #2 08-03-2006, 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve@thaib

Ok, dumb question time again.

I know there are a few very serious photographers out there, and maybe you can answer this one for me.

Is there an accepted minimum \ maximum file size for printed publications? What size files would be acceptable to a magazine or newspaper editor?

I'm working with a website developer just now and he is constantly moaning about image size \ resolution. Are there any rules of thumb to follow or not?

PM Erik1 Steve. He is the pro snapper working for mags and publications.
I think he may be in LOS at the moment though

steve@thaib · #3 08-03-2006, 01:42

Will do, maybe he needs an apprentice?

stevem · #4 08-03-2006, 02:53

Pics for the web dont need to be anywhere near the quality as for print media.

steve@thaib · #5 08-03-2006, 02:59

I'm aware of that, so was a little surprised to be asked for bigger files.

When I did my first website a couple of years ago, it was 20kb up to 50kb max for an image. I know things have changed but am wondering if there are any guidelines?

stevem · #6 08-03-2006, 03:37

I always think that 50k is a good limit, keeping in mind folks with low speed connections.

Nicke · #7 08-03-2006, 03:42

For print, your highest quality photo may be fine, and let the magazine resize it if needed. For web, it is very low quality and it depends on what size (it is often pixel resolution) they want and then optimize it (save for web) to make the smallest file size as possible.

Webmasters want small files for faster loading/pages.

For web use it is often less than 640 pixels width, and the file size is usually 30-100kb.

Magazines use 300 pixels/inch so if you know what size they want you can resize yourself.

steve@thaib · #8 08-03-2006, 03:49

That's probably part of the answer, 300 pixels per inch. I guess what I'm getting at is that just about every picture I take will be fine for web use even after cropping. But how much cropping makes a picture US for publication?

300 per inch, I will go and have a look at that later.

Nicke · #9 08-03-2006, 04:24

In Photoshop, if you know you are working with a pic for print, you can set dpi to 300 and when you resize enter the actual size in mm/cm/inch and the quality will be good enought.

Another drawback with print is that is often CMYK colors instead of RGB, so you may need to convert to CMYK aswell. (CMYK is bad for some range of colors, e.g. blue tones)

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve@thaib

That's probably part of the answer, 300 pixels per inch. I guess what I'm getting at is that just about every picture I take will be fine for web use even after cropping. But how much cropping makes a picture US for publication?

300 per inch, I will go and have a look at that later.

dogblower · #10 08-03-2006, 10:40

For websites I knock the resolution down to 72 dpi (dots per inch) and usually max dimensions of 640 x 480 pixels. For magazines usually 300 to 600 dpi, depending on print quality. I also usually check what format they want the file in (jpeg, tiff etc) and what color registration (CMYK, RGB etc).

spartan · #11 08-03-2006, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve@thaib

Ok, dumb question time again.

I know there are a few very serious photographers out there, and maybe you can answer this one for me.

Is there an accepted minimum \ maximum file size for printed publications? What size files would be acceptable to a magazine or newspaper editor?

I'm working with a website developer just now and he is constantly moaning about image size \ resolution. Are there any rules of thumb to follow or not?

Most publishing houses want the photos taken on a camera with at least 12mb of resolution. I personally think it's a load of %$#@. Example, if I shoot a spread using a MarkII or even the new 5D no worries. However, if they see that the shot was taken on a 20D(my favorite camera for handheld journalistic shots due to its smaller size) I get all kinds of flack. So now I eliminate the camera data from the file and they have no idea which camera I used. The file size is always going to fluctuate depending on the composition of the shot and your parameters. But any file less than 3.8meg would look pretty suspicious.

http://www.onrequestimages.com/www/P...uirements.aspx

steve@thaib · #12 08-03-2006, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by spartan

Most publishing houses want the photos taken on a camera with at least 12mb of resolution. I personally think it's a load of %$#@. Example, if I shoot a spread using a MarkII or even the new 5D no worries. However, if they see that the shot was taken on a 20D(my favorite camera for handheld journalistic shots due to its smaller size) I get all kinds of flack. So now I eliminate the camera data from the file and they have no idea which camera I used. The file size is always going to fluctuate depending on the composition of the shot and your parameters. But any file less than 3.8meg would look pretty suspicious.

http://www.onrequestimages.com/www/P...uirements.aspx

My interest here is not really the pictures. That's not to say I don't enjoy them, it's that I write articles for papers and magazines more and more and am becoming aware that everyone wants images as well. If you can supply both parts of the package you are far more likely to sell a piece of work.

I'm not looking to be a photographer, I just want to supply usable images with my work. It looks like Photoshop is going to be the answer here, though I will download the GIMP software as well.

I don't ever expect, for instance, to have an A4 size photograph published. So by the look of it if I can offer a 3.5mb image that would be good enough. At that size, there is room enough to crop which is what I need.

What is the difference \ advantage of a TIFF rather than JPEG file?

Nicke · #13 08-03-2006, 18:38

With tiff you are not loosing any details, with jpg it uses a compression format that lose details to create smaller files, most of the time not visible for the eye but still.

steve@thaib · #14 08-03-2006, 19:44

So if you wanted a bigger file use TIFF?

I can convert a RAW file into JPEG which comes down from 5.5mb to 3.5mb, still a big file. But would converting it to TIFF give me a 5.5mb file? IE no compression?