high resolution photo

[Steve's Girl]

Technically, what is a high resolution photo? Is it based on file size, format, etc?

 

[dburg30]

To me hi-res means the number of pixels used to make up the picture. So IMO a 12 megapixel will give you a higher resolution then a 7 meg.

 

[Steve's Girl]

To me hi-res means the number of pixels used to make up the picture. So IMO a 12 megapixel will give you a higher resolution then a 7 meg.

Well, that is what I thought too. But, I recently gave someone a photo that I took and they have requested a hi-res copy. I gave them a 100% quality jpeg converted from a RAW. My camera is set to large image size. So, I'm not really sure what they are asking for.

 

[GrillMouster]

Some times resolution descirbes the number of pixels in an image. The number of pixels can be expressed as pixel dimensions or as megapixels. An example of pixel dimension is "1800 x 1200", where the image has 1200 rows of pixels with 1800 pixels in each row. A Megapixel is roughly one million pixels, so a 1800 x 1200 image is roughly 2 Megapixels (or 2 MP for short). Resolution has nothing to do with file type. Two different file types, e.g. TIFF and JPG, can have the same dimensions. The file size of a JPG would likely be smaller than that of a TIFF with equivalent resolution because the JPG is more file compression. Note then file size refers to how much memory the file occupies in memory; not how big the image will look on screen or in print. Two images of the same type, but different resolution will likely have different file sizes, because the image with higher resolution contains more pixels, and thus, will have a larger file size. All else being the same, an image with high resolution will appear to have more detail and clarity than a lower resolution image displayed at the same size. Images are often described as being "low resolution" or "high resolution", but there are no exact ranges that define what is considered low or high resolution. It's subjective, it's relative, and it changes as technology advances. It's safe to say that a 640 x 480 image is low resolution -- it's not even a half of a megapixel.

Some times resolution describes how many pixels fit into an inch on a screen or how many dots of ink are in each inch of a print. For example, a compuer screen may fit 72 pixels in an inch, or a print may fit 300 dots per inch. Pixels per inch (ppi) and dots per inch (dpi) are often used interchangeably, even though they really are different. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that one pixel of ppi is the equivalent of one dot of dpi. An 1800 x 1200 pixel image printed at 300 dpi, would yield a print size of 6 x 4 inches (1800 pixels divided by 300 = 6 inches, and 1200 pixels divided by 300 = 4 inches). Some would say that any image with enough pixels to create a common 4"x6" print at 300 dpi is high resolution, any image without enough pixels for a 4"x6" print at 300 dpi is low resolution. Because screens display far fewer pixels per inch, low resolution files can look great on a screen. So, if you'd like to share an image that will viewed on a screen, but not destined for print, then you should shrink the image to a lower resolution image, so that it has fewer pixels, and thus, a smaller file size. The smaller file size will enable you to upload it faster and the recipient to download faster.

 

[GrillMouster]

Well, that is what I thought too. But, I recently gave someone a photo that I took and they have requested a hi-res copy. I gave them a 100% quality jpeg converted from a RAW. My camera is set to large image size. So, I'm not really sure what they are asking for.

The jpeg quality setting affects the amount of compression, not the resolution. You could take a 12 MP RAW file and convert it to a 1 MP jpeg at 100% quality, but that wouldn't be a high resolution file.

 

[Steve's Girl]

OK, here is the response I got when I asked the individual specifically what they meant by hi-res. They said a hi-res photo is at least 300dpi and is greater than 4mb. The image I gave them was 3013 X 2411 pixels, but only 1.4 mb. I used a skin smoothing feature in an editing program and that compressed the file down to 1.4mb. The unedited jpeg was 5.25 mb. So, should I do the skin smoothing on the RAW file before converting to jpeg? Will that decrease the amount of compression?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

OK, here is the response I got when I asked the individual specifically what they meant by hi-res. They said a hi-res photo is at least 300dpi and is greater than 4mb. The image I gave them was 3013 X 2411 pixels, but only 1.4 mb. I used a skin smoothing feature in an editing program and that compressed the file down to 1.4mb. The unedited jpeg was 5.25 mb. So, should I do the skin smoothing on the RAW file before converting to jpeg? Will that decrease the amount of compression?

Tell them that they don't know what they are talking about. a 3013 x 2411 photo is 7 megapixel photo and is hi-res by just about any standard currently in use. Furthermore, you could save that picture at many different levels of jpg compression so that the file was quite large (5 megabytes) or quite small (less than 1 megabyte) but it would always be a hi-res picture. The image quality would be lower with more compression, but it would still be hi-res.

The bit about the dpi is a non-sequitur that demonstrates that they don't know what they are talking about. The dpi setting describes how many dots per inch you want to print the picture at. You can save the same picture at 72dpi or 600dpi and the image file doesn't materially change. The only difference is that your picture file (3013x2411) would print at 42"x33" in the first case and 5"x4" in the second case. The first picture would be much larger but have fewer dots per inch and the second picture would be much smaller with more dots per inch. They shouldn't worry about your DPI setting and should print at the size they want.

The 4 megabyte file size is a bit more meaningful, but it is still probably a confusion between megapixels and file size. The two are related in that pictures with more megapixels result in larger file sizes - all other things equal. However, a picture with very little detail (imagine a minimalist picture of a solid white sheet of paper on a solid black background) will result in a much smaller file than a picture with lots and lots of fine detail (imagine a picture of finely chopped confetti). To restrict to a certain file size is to presume too much.

Their focus should be foremost on the resolution (which you have done an admirable job with) and only secondarily on the compression level. They should only complain about the latter if the file looks bad because of compression artifacts.

 

[GrillMouster]

I agree 100% with what Mark said. If you don't mind my asking, who is this person requesting a high-rez file, and what were the circumstances, and what is his/her intended use for the image? Did the person pay you?

 

[Steve's Girl]

I agree 100% with what Mark said. If you don't mind my asking, who is this person requesting a high-rez file, and what were the circumstances, and what is his/her intended use for the image? Did the person pay you?

OK, here is the story. I recently hired a design firm to update my marketing materials for my business. They thought it would be a nice touch to have a family photo on the back panel of my brochure. They insisted that I had to use their over-priced photog who would take this family photo for a bazillion $. And for another bazillion $, I could have the copyright to the photo for personal use. I saw his work and was not that impressed. So, I told my design person that we had recently had family photos taken and asked if I could use that one instead. They said only if it was a professional hi-res photo. I did neglect to tell them I had taken the photo myself. When I gave them the photo they said it was low-res and they would need a hi-res copy. So, that led to my question.

I think I know what I need to do. I did some edits on the photo and when I saved the edited version, the default compression was applied. I now know how to change that and will save the file without any compression applied.

Below is the photo.

I have this printed in a fairly large size on my living room wall and the resolution is fine. So, I'm not sure why they need such a huge file to print it on the back of a brochure. It may be a whole 3X5 inches when it is printed.

 

[boBQuincy]

High Resolution is one of those buzz words (buzz terms ?) that has no meaning, no definition. Someone knowledgeable is not likely to use it without adding a definition, like a total number of pixels, horizontal by vertical pixels, or dpi times dimensions (which are all the same thing).

Even then, as discussed, there is still the issue of compression (which has nothing to do with resolution but a lot to do with image quality). Besides, we all know that digital is just not that good yet and real photographers use film!

 

[Anewman]

High Resolution is one of those buzz words (buzz terms ?) that has no meaning, no definition. Someone knowledgeable is not likely to use it without adding a definition, like a total number of pixels, horizontal by vertical pixels, or dpi times dimensions (which are all the same thing).

Even then, as discussed, there is still the issue of compression (which has nothing to do with resolution but a lot to do with image quality). Besides, we all know that digital is just not that good yet and real photographers use film!

I agree with Bob, High res to one person can be low res in another persons opinion.

I have seen cheap electronics(pda, phones, toys) advertise that they take HIGH RES photos.

I also agree with Mark, resolution has nothing to do with file size... there is a connection but they do not share definitions.

For a brochure, even if it is a full page 7mp is actually overkill.

 

[GrillMouster]

When you said that the file size decreased after you did some skin softening, I suspected that additional compression was automatically applied when you saved the file as a jpg.
If the design firm is hell-bent on having a large file size, save it as a TIFF. Realistically, the quality of the final print won't be any better, but it will shut him up. A small photo on a press-printed brochure shouldn't require such a high-resolution file, so I'd give second thought to using this firm again in the future. It sounds like they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[DueyDooDah]

... They insisted that I had to use their over-priced photog who would take this family photo for a bazillion $. And for another bazillion $, I could have the copyright to the photo for personal use. I saw his work and was not that impressed. So, I told my design person that we had recently had family photos taken and asked if I could use that one instead. They said only if it was a professional hi-res photo. I did neglect to tell them I had taken the photo myself. When I gave them the photo they said it was low-res and they would need a hi-res copy...

You could also opt for another company. This one sounds limited in knowledge and talent.

 

[MICKEY88]

A small photo on a press-printed brochure shouldn't require such a high-resolution file, so I'd give second thought to using this firm again in the future. It sounds like they don't know what they're talking about.

I think they know exactly what they are doing, sounds like a scam they use to get people to use their photographer, they probably complain about the photo a customer submits, no matter what size or resolution,quality the file is..

just like the so called modeling agencies that will represent a wanna be model as long as they pay for a photo shoot with their photographer..

 

[GrillMouster]

I think they know exactly what they are doing..

I think you're right, MICKEY88.

 

[Steve's Girl]

Update - I called the firm I am working with and they have agreed to use my photo. Their receptionist is the one who gave me the low-res business. She has been given a general guideline to use for a preliminary screen of photos. She followed the guideline, but otherwise doesn't know what she is talking about. Once I got past her to someone that did know, they said the resolution was acceptable. All is well. I've learned something about editing and file compression, etc. Thanks so much for everyone's help in explaining resolution. I am now better educated!

 

[webshark3]

Tell them that they don't know what they are talking about.

LOL, I read one line into Steve's Girl's response, started to laugh, and said "I'll let Mark answer this one."

The two are related in that pictures with more megapixels result in larger file sizes - all other things equal. However, a picture with very little detail (imagine a minimalist picture of a solid white sheet of paper on a solid black background) will result in a much smaller file than a picture with lots and lots of fine detail (imagine a picture of finely chopped confetti). To restrict to a certain file size is to presume too much.

Well said. I know some Sigma (Foveon) users who were rejected from competitions and Stock Photo sites because their RAW files were "only" 4.7MP. Many don't understand that there's 3 photodetectors per pixel, and that 4.7MP goes a long long way (up A0 prints and beyond).

 

[Quicklabs]

I sure don't know the answer to technical questions, but I know a great family photo when I see it!
Nice work, there!

 

[dburg30]

Update - I called the firm I am working with and they have agreed to use my photo. Their receptionist is the one who gave me the low-res business. She has been given a general guideline to use for a preliminary screen of photos. She followed the guideline, but otherwise doesn't know what she is talking about. Once I got past her to someone that did know, they said the resolution was acceptable. All is well. I've learned something about editing and file compression, etc. Thanks so much for everyone's help in explaining resolution. I am now better educated!

Cool! That's good to find out. She was just doing her job, so you cant blame her on that. Glad it sounds like you got it worked out. And I agree, nice photo

 

[Steve's Girl]

I sure don't know the answer to technical questions, but I know a great family photo when I see it!
Nice work, there!

Cool! That's good to find out. She was just doing her job, so you cant blame her on that. Glad it sounds like you got it worked out. And I agree, nice photo

Thanks. Everytime I see that photo, all I see is the remote in my right hand. I should have done a better job of concealing it. But, I'm not going to complain. That little remote saved me a bunch of $.