DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Full-Res Wedding Shots
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 15 of 15, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/28/2007 10:23:28 PM · #1
I just did a wedding for a "friend" where I told them I would give them a CD of the pictures so they could get prints as they wish. Here's my dilemma, the wedding didn't start until 7:30pm and it was getting dark so at full resolution, the pictures are quite noisy. i'm thinking of having one disk with full resolution pictures for prints, and another disks with web-viewable (100k) small-res images.

one question, should i give the full 2336x3505 shots or smaller for the "full res". i ask this b/c of course, at full res, there's tons of noise and "blur" from the low light. printing should be fine, but i was wondering if i should limit the resolution for the large files.

i know most of you will say "that's easy, just don't give a cd with full res pictures" so i'll take that option out before we get started ;)

thanks so much everyone, really appreciate your input
 08/28/2007 10:28:49 PM · #2
I don't see how you can help the noise situation by limiting the resolution. Just means if they DO try to enlarge 'em, the noise will be worse.

R.
 08/28/2007 10:41:58 PM · #3
well, i know the noise will still be there, i'm just saying i don't want them judging the quality of the pictures of the "full res" when, just about any shot at 2336x3505 will look "not so sharp" if i'm making any sense. they look great at 800x?. and would print an 8x10 just fine, maybe i'm confusing myself lol
 08/28/2007 11:50:52 PM · #4
One thought... When I sell a CD to my customers, I specifically tell them that they will be formatted to 4x6" resolution at 300 dpi (1200x1800) and that, for anything larger than 4x6", they will need to come to me for prints.

Then, because anywhere they go, they are going to be asked for a printed permission form to print their images, I give them exactly that. With the 4x6" print limitation spelled out in writing and stating that anything larger must come back to me.

The vast majority of the 4x6s are converted from raw only (no editing). Which I tell them is another reason why they will want/need to come back to me for larger prints.

So... give them the smaller sizes. Then if they want larger prints, you can do the whole "Neat Image" thing on them and prep them "right" so that you can get a good quality print out of it.

Maybe it's too late since you already told them you'd give them full res images. You can always talk to them about it. Be honest and up front. Tell them why it's a "good thing" to limit their print sizes to 4x6s.

Anyway, just a thought.


08/29/2007 12:30:09 AM · #5
great idea, thanks so much david. this is a close friend so i will explain it to her. i did the whole ordeal for $800 so she got a deal anyway she looks at it.

again, thank you :)
 08/29/2007 01:46:44 AM · #6
YOu could always run an action with Noise Ninja across them (set to your specs) and then let the puter work awhile.
 08/29/2007 02:56:32 AM · #7
I would agree with dacarzyn - process the images for printing to include a light noise filter and large radius sharpening algorithm.

In my experience, noise is not an issue for most B&G's and noise filtering is acceptable to a far greater degree than here in DPC-land. People do tend to notice blurriness, however (which is why I would always recommend sacrificing noise for focus and pushing up ISOs where in doubt).

If you have promised them full res images, then deliver on what you promised. Maybe make them want to pay extra for you to process and arrange the printing, (eg by showing them a worked up fully post processed sample) but don't force them into using you for extra $$ if that was not part of your deal.
 08/29/2007 07:57:46 AM · #8
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't see how you can help the noise situation by limiting the resolution. Just means if they DO try to enlarge 'em, the noise will be worse.

Downsizing generally helps reduce noise. Imagine downsizing by 4 in each direction, a simplified algorithm would take each 4x4 array of pixels and average it to one pixel. Assuming noise is random and more or less evenly distributed, it would be canceled out by other noise or at least minimized. The downsizing algorithms are probably more complex than a simple average.

Incidentally, a 12MP image will look less noisy than an 8MP image at the same enlargement even if all other factors are equal becasue each pixel that is greatly affected by noise will be smaller and therefore less noticeable. Again, this assumes that noise is random and more or less evenly distributed.

When you enlarge the downsized image, you lose sharpness and may induce artifacts.

08/29/2007 09:18:48 AM · #9
Originally posted by dwterry:
One thought... When I sell a CD to my customers, I specifically tell them that they will be formatted to 4x6" resolution at 300 dpi (1200x1800) and that, for anything larger than 4x6", they will need to come to me for prints.


I do the EXACT same thing, and most people understand the concept. But one client who I saw again at another event a few months later said she had one printed at 16x20 and it "didn't look quite right." Duh! I always clearly explain the size thing, and I even put "For 4x6" prints only" on the cd's Lightscribed label.
 08/29/2007 10:18:09 AM · #10
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
I do the EXACT same thing, and most people understand the concept. But one client who I saw again at another event a few months later said she had one printed at 16x20 and it "didn't look quite right." Duh! I always clearly explain the size thing, and I even put "For 4x6" prints only" on the cd's Lightscribed label.


Hmmm... maybe we should try watermarking the images with a watermark that says "4x6 only" on it. And set it so small that at the 4x6" size it is barely visible, but at 16x20 will become obvious. :-)
 08/29/2007 10:25:44 AM · #11
Originally posted by dwterry:

Hmmm... maybe we should try watermarking the images with a watermark that says "4x6 only" on it. And set it so small that at the 4x6" size it is barely visible, but at 16x20 will become obvious. :-)


I think you're on to something there. Or maybe something like those microdot "void" images they put on checks. :-)
 08/29/2007 11:12:56 AM · #12
What I do is give a CD with the sized down prints for the web. The full res copys are uploaded to my smugmug site. If they want to order anything larger then a 4X6 they have to order it at my website (at cost). That way I know they are using a quality lab and that the prints will come out good.
 08/29/2007 11:21:17 AM · #13
Why not just put a copyright release with them that states they are only to be used for 4x6 prints and any other use violates the release that way no lab will print them larger then 4x6 and if the parties print them on there own you can always say, "did you read the release?"

MattO
 08/29/2007 11:48:48 AM · #14
Hi Jon, this is an issue we experience when people opt for the DVD package and not one of the album packages, the easiest answer is to explain it to them, go into a VERY basic description of ISO v Graininess but just tell them that on an 8 x 10 print, even on an iso1600 image, the graininess will be virtually non-existant.
I know I sent a number of images shot at ISO1600 & ISO3200 to a lab just to see how they looked and to be honest it really isn't that noticable even to trained eyes such as ours, however maybe give them the choice that if there is a shot they really really want blown up to large dimensions, then you can control the noise using neatimage/noise ninja.

Also, remember that you & I & everyone else on this site are fanatical pixel peepers and we dont always look at the image as a memory ,the first thing we all do is expand the shot to 100% to see how noisy it is, you will find that 9 times out of 10 the B&G wont give a toss about such things as noise.

Hope this helps.

Originally posted by jerowe:
I just did a wedding for a "friend" where I told them I would give them a CD of the pictures so they could get prints as they wish. Here's my dilemma, the wedding didn't start until 7:30pm and it was getting dark so at full resolution, the pictures are quite noisy. i'm thinking of having one disk with full resolution pictures for prints, and another disks with web-viewable (100k) small-res images.

one question, should i give the full 2336x3505 shots or smaller for the "full res". i ask this b/c of course, at full res, there's tons of noise and "blur" from the low light. printing should be fine, but i was wondering if i should limit the resolution for the large files.

i know most of you will say "that's easy, just don't give a cd with full res pictures" so i'll take that option out before we get started ;)

thanks so much everyone, really appreciate your input


08/31/2007 02:10:29 PM · #15
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
Originally posted by dwterry:

Hmmm... maybe we should try watermarking the images with a watermark that says "4x6 only" on it. And set it so small that at the 4x6" size it is barely visible, but at 16x20 will become obvious. :-)


I think you're on to something there. Or maybe something like those microdot "void" images they put on checks. :-)

Make the border a microprint "line" that can't be read on a 4x6?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 07:42:02 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 07:42:02 AM EDT.