|
Poster |
Post |
|
|
27/11/2009 10:41:53 p.m.
|
|
|
 Pixelated
Posts 107
|
Hi folks, well I typed up a large reply, and the site ditched me and didn't post it! 
I'm not going to retype the whole thing, and perhaps it's just as well, but I will say that Oliver is 100% correct.
As a graphic designer in the print industry I really don't care what ppi resolution the image is that I may purchase. It's the pixel count that matters. The Canon 400D makes images at 3888 pixels x 2592 pixels. Whether 300 of those pixels are in one inch, or 150 of those pixels are in that inch doesn't matter, because I will change this to suit according to the final size of the image on the printed page.
And contrary to what is generally thought, any graphic designer worth their salt will know how to do that and will also know the difference between dots per inch and pixels per inch. Dots per inch refers to the final output by a printer, pixels per inch is not dots per inch. 
I am much more concerned with the quality of an image, and that means if I must purchase jpg files, I do not want compression artifacts. And to be honest, I don't even like the the jpg compression that the camera does. I prefer to shoot RAW and I do the processing rather than the camera, and output to jpg. But that's another issue.
- Thysje
|
|
29/11/2009 8:05:12 a.m.
|
|
|
 Canon_S.I.
Posts 283
|
Hi all,if the photographers do not have to change their images to 300DPI,will this mean that anyone with a $200 8mp point and shoot camera will be able to upload images to mychillybin?i certainly hope not,it takes long enough now to get images cleared not to mention a drop in image quality ect ect,i know i have spent a small fortune on software and hardware to help lift my photography and to me dropping standards to please a minority is a step backwards,i say leave things the way they are,it only takes a click of a mouse to change dpi settings in your respective software programme.Thanks 
|
|
30/11/2009 12:42:25 p.m.
|
|
|
kathleen Posts 221
|
I agree with Canon SI on this one. I like to have the final control of how my image is finished and presented. I would like to see it left as it is now with the photographer in control of their final image.
Sincerely, Kathleen.
|
|
30/11/2009 2:04:01 p.m.
|
|
|
Pixelated Posts 107
|
I too like to have final control. But when the designer gets it he/she has the final control.
You will find that the designer will change the size of the photo to suit the space required, so that output size is around 300dpi Dots per inch for output by printer. What photographers are concerned with is ppi - Pixels per inch.
The Canon 400D creates photos at 10.1 megapixels which is 3888 x 2592 pixels. Whether it is at 75ppi or 300ppi, this pixel count doesn't change. The quality of the photo does not change with the ppi resolution. Only the size. If I purchase the full size pic (3888 x 2592 pixels) at 300ppi, the size of the image on paper for offset printing is just a bit larger than A4. 8 megapixels is nothing to be sneezed at if I want a smaller photo than A4. And I'd happily accept a photo at 8mp if the quality is good, and I won't care if the original isn't set at 300ppi, because I can do that myself. But quality is the key and it still needs to be a good quality photo not an inferior snapshot, and even someone with the most expensive equipment can produce those! It's not the equipment that takes good photos it is the photographer.
In my job I have to accept low resolution photos for my work, and I change the resolution to 250ppi or 300ppi for the offset print process after I know what size their finished size in the brochure/magazine or whatever, will be. Accepting low res photos doesn't mean their quality is inferior. Far from it. The quality has to be great.
However, as I suspected, unless you are in the print industry this whole concept is difficult to grasp, and the myths continue to be perpetuated. I know some of my printer clients gave up years ago, and knowing otherwise will happily tell their clients "the photos must be 300dpi at least"!
Here's an exercise for you. In Photoshop, take an image and open the 'Image Size' dialogue box. Uncheck the Resample Image checkbox so you aren't altering the image size. Now, under the heading Document Size: alter the Resolution to whatever you want, and watch the changes to the physical 'Document Size' and also look at the Pixel Dimensions. You will see that the pixel count in the Pixel Dimensions box doesn't change, all you are changing is how large or small the pixels are in one inch. If you make the resolution 300 pixels/inch you will see that output size of the document is smaller because your pixels are smaller in order for 300 of them to be packed in an inch. If you make the resolution 150 pixels/inch your output document size will be much larger because the pixels are larger - only half the number are in that inch, so they must be larger. There aren't any less because your pixel amounts stay the same.
It's only when you have the Resample Image check box checked, that you will physically alter the size of the image by taking away or adding pixels.
Anyway, enough. Just create more wonderful photographs to be accepted, that's all I ask.
|
|
30/11/2009 3:29:50 p.m.
|
|
|
kathleen Posts 221
|
Correct, the designer does get the final control, I am fine with that, but it's a photographers satisfaction of their work when we have presented it to the quailty that it is wanted enough to be purchased.
I don't quite agree on the "it's not the equipment that takes good photos, it is the photographer" Equipment does play a big part in the quality of photos taken, but yes, a great photo is seen through the eyes of the photographer on composition, lighting etc, but your equipment gives you control on the quailty that photo becomes. I know this personally through kit-set lenses that comes with your SLR's, some just don't make the grade for quality sharp images, therefore I have all my own quality lenses and when buying cameras I buy body only and continue to use the lenses I have.
Sure, there is some great compact cameras out there, and when used correctly can give you some stunning photos and are just as good as a photo from a large meg camera, just depends on the size photos being perfect for what size prints or what you want them for.
I do understand what you are saying on the file sizes, to see them on screen at 72dpi or 300dpi makes no difference until sizing for printing, but I still would rather make that final adjustment to my photo (choosing it's dpi) before up-loading to my portfolio rather than having a software in-between me and my portfolio, thats what I mean buy having final control of my photo, thats until it's purchased 
Good explanation though pixelated into a designers views, thanks for that.
From knowing people without computers it sort of explains why photo labs save their images from cards onto CD at 72dpi and still print from that 72dpi photo. People only getting 6x4 photos printed it would not matter from a large file.
Regards, Kathleen.
|
|
30/11/2009 4:58:27 p.m.
|
|
|
Pixelated Posts 107
|
Hi Kathleen, I certainly accept that it's the photographer's satisfaction to upload the best quality photo. I am a photographer too.
And I wouldn't want a piece of software making changes between my upload and what's presented on the site. However, I think there are changes made to the images on the site anyway, to get the different sizes on offer and I know too that the colour quality can suffer with the conversion of the image to get one acceptable as the preview image on the site for customers to view. But this isn't specific to MyChillybin. As a designer I often see a better quality download than the preview image on the website. I could easily go into another topic here, but I won't!
Just a small thing, what you are seeing on screen is ppi not dpi. We see images in pixels not dots. Dots per inch refers to the dots a printer prints out on paper. People always get the two confused. But you can take a 300 ppi photograph and print it out at 1200 dpi. The two are not related. All printing is done with spraying fine dots of ink on paper. This is where the resolution term 'dots per inch' came from.
On the matter of equipment. There are plenty of people with dslr cameras that take snapshots and mediocre photographs. Then you get famous photographers like Chase Jarvis who can take fantastic photos with an iPhone. But I do know where you are coming from, and I love my dslr for its quality and versatility. Just that equipment alone doesn't make a good photographer any more than a garage full of tools makes you a mechanic. Or a computer with design software makes you a graphic designer for that matter (have met a few that thought if you had the tools you could design anything, when in reality they didn't have a drop of artistic ability between them).
Interesting thread...
|
|
30/11/2009 6:16:42 p.m.
|
|
|
kathleen Posts 221
|
It is interesting Thysje. I always thought screen res was dpi, same as printing is dpi, thought ppi & dpi were the same.
Great to hear from people on all sides of photography, it's amazing what little things we mislead ourselves on.
I'll agree that it is the person behind the tools working them that get whatever results they put in, and all the best tools of the trade won't make a machanic, builder or photographer, but I still believe the tools or equipment is important to get the best job done. I would rather un-screw a screw with a screw-driver than with my fingernail if you know what I mean.
I can't see how even a great photographer can catch say a bird in flight if he does not have the right gear to do it. Without the correct lens and ability to manual change his camera to over or under expose to the lighting conditions, how would he get his best shot.
Just a little thing we will have to agree to dis-agree on, 
but that's cool, everyone has different views, a bit of a boring world if we were all the same.
Regards, Kathleen.
|
|
30/11/2009 7:06:39 p.m.
|
|
|
oseiler Posts 10
|
Hi,
Thanks Thysje for explaining DPI vs. PPI. Unfortunately it really remains a myth for many people and someone in the middle of the process between taking the image and finally doing the physical print job needs to be across it and sort it out properly.
Canon_S.I. wrote:
Hi all,if the photographers do not have to change their images to 300DPI,will this mean that anyone with a $200 8mp point and shoot camera will be able to upload images to mychillybin?
As explained earlier changing the DPI setting of an image can be done on any image without affecting any other bit of the image. You can set the DPI setting of an image taken with my crappy 6 year old mobile phone to 72, 300, 5000 or whatever you can dream of. That limits uploading to mcb to people who can actually make use of software that changes the DPI setting to 300 for them. Limiting access to uploading pictures to people who know how to change the DPI setting to 300 seems to be a rather weired approach to ask for a decent image quality.
And I totally agree with Thysje that even with the most expensive equipment you can shoot really bad images ;-)
Actually there are quite some people out there who would not consider a 400D to be a proper camera or who do not trust a lens with zooming ability or who rely on using analogue film and so on. What would you think if mcb were allowing only images taken with a Hasselblad? Then we could all go home I assume.
On the other hand today's point and shoot cameras deliver much better image quality than the most expensive DSLRs 6-7 years ago (at least at certain standard focal lengths). Would that mean you'd consider all images taken with an older model DSLR are low quality and should not be offered? That would be a quite dodgy approach.
kathleen wrote:
but I still would rather make that final adjustment to my photo (choosing it's dpi) before up-loading to my portfolio rather than having a software in-between me and my portfolio, thats what I mean buy having final control of my photo, thats until it's purchased
As Thysje said your image will be touched and changed through mcb anyway. And opposed to changing the DPI only this will actually affect the image itself, it will be rescaled and resampled, there will be a watermark across is and so on... And just image what these designers will do with your image, they'll crop it, tear it apart, morph other stuff into it and so on - which is totally out of your control ;-)
Simply changing the DPI setting can be done without touching any other information of your image, you will not be able to tell them apart except for the DPI setting. I do not see any reason why this could not be done automatically. (Of course the easiest way would be to mcb just drop this silly requirement *g*)
The requirement for 300 DPI images does actually lead to worse image quality for all photographers that do not shoot in raw and do not know how to change the DPI setting without loading their images into a photo editor and saving it again as jpg file.
Cheers,
Oliver
|
|
30/11/2009 10:17:56 p.m.
|
|
|
Pixelated Posts 107
|
"The requirement for 300 DPI images does actually lead to worse image quality for all photographers that do not shoot in raw and do not know how to change the DPI setting without loading their images into a photo editor and saving it again as jpg file."
PPI Oliver! 
You are quite correct here Oliver, I would be very reluctant to purchase a high quality jpg if it had been saved twice as a jpg. Shooting in RAW will prevent this. If shooting in jpg, the resulting image has already been post processed by the camera to what it thinks is wanted and will compress it and throw away data to do so. If you open, change and then re-save again as a jpg, even at the highest quality, you are introducing twice the amount of compression artifacts and degrading the image still further.
I've had to reject many images over the years due to jpg artifacts.
You will notice that the camera throws away pixels in the darkest and the lightest areas of an image when processing a jpg. If you shoot RAW these pixels are still available to you. But, this is a whole other subject and there's plenty of information on the pros and cons of shooting both RAW and jpg out there for anyone to look up themselves.
Time for me to quit. I am supposed to be working still as I have some deadlines...
|
|
1/12/2009 12:16:53 a.m.
|
|
|
kathleen Posts 221
|
oseiler wrote:
What would you think if mcb were allowing only images taken with a Hasselblad? Then we could all go home I assume
We all read the terms and conditions of sites and agree to these before we sign up, so if it was for Hasselblad only then we would not be joining and they would be missing out on all OUR great NZ photos.
Our choice wither to sign up and join the team 
Regards, Kathleen.
|
|
1/12/2009 5:49:18 a.m.
|
|
|
Canon_S.I. Posts 283
|
The requirement for 300 DPI images does actually lead to worse image quality for all photographers that do not shoot in raw and do not know how to change the DPI setting without loading their images into a photo editor and saving it again as jpg file."
This is my point,why have mychillybin flooded with images if people don't know how to change these dpi settings and simply upload them from their $200 camera at 72 dpi for someone else to change the dpi for them.Quality control on the part of the photographer surely helps out at the other end.This is getting way over my head here now so thanks everyone,getting to technical for my wee brain to comprehend ,going back to taking photos and saving them @ 300 DPI ,Cheers.
|
|
7/12/2009 1:40:25 p.m.
|
|
|
Karendpics Posts 69
|
Your comments are all relevent and interesting and also appreciated. I have only recently upgraded my camera and am still learning the 'ins and outs' of stock photography. I apologise if I offend anyone by saying this, but please remember where you first started and how much there is to learn about photography. I also believe that it is irrelevant whether you have a $200 camera or a $2000 camera, it is the persons eye that makes a good photo. Yes, we do need to apply all terms and conditions there is no disputing that, but as a relative newbie to photography there are 'terms' that also need to be learnt, help from others with their valuable knowledge goes a very long way to understanding.
Cheers everyone. Karen
|
|
pages:
1 2 3 4 |