sboerup wrote:
This is true. I also sold it already Mini review coming.
I just saw that. Looking forward to hearing your opinion on it. If you don't mind me asking, is there any one major reason why you decided not to switch?
The 5d3 might be just as good (IMO it is not even close)... but my lenses no longer fit on the 5d3 haha
Spencer might not openly admit he was impressed... but I know otherwise
hardlyboring wrote:
The 5d3 might be just as good (IMO it is not even close)... but my lenses no longer fit on the 5d3 haha
Spencer might not openly admit he was impressed... but I know otherwise
The D800 sensor is amazing. It's better than the 5D3. But, a mini review is coming It didn't take long for me to realize the 5D3 is better in other areas.
evertdoorn wrote:
Has any of you ever gotten remarks like 'hey it's only 4000 pixels and not the full res of your camera' or similar? Or other complaints?
Not once ever.
I don't think my clients have the slightest idea what my camera's resolution is. And it's just a matter of practicality, downsizing to some extent lets all the images fit onto one DVD.
full glory and web sized.
if i would deliver them only smaller, they would print them large and wonder why they are unsharp. it is much easier to answer "why the photos from print directory load so long"
SloPhoto wrote:
36mp is going to look downright UGLY at the pixel level in a few still usable shots. The client will be doing one of two things, pixel peeping, or letting some software do a scale to fit it on the screen. Some software is really really bad at scaling.
While I would not think of downsizing a 16mp file, once you get into 36+mp range, you can do a very healthy downscale which will drastically improve the image for the client, while still being big enough for an 8x10. Seems win win to me.
I just do what is easiest for me which is no messing with resizing; also highres to me means no gimping files by downresing and if I knew enough to pixel peep I'd probably be a bit pissed off as a client if my 'highres files' only printed uninterpolated to 8x10. That said, I may consider doing it to a consistent size to avoid any "why is this picture ____px wide and this one ___px?" when I crop but that hasn't ever happened.
Really though this is all probably a non-issue. I wonder how many people even print these days anyway.
Kittyk wrote:
full glory and web sized.
if i would deliver them only smaller, they would print them large and wonder why they are unsharp. it is much easier to answer "why the photos from print directory load so long"
I would expect a very well prepped 8x10 file (with print sharpening) would print better at 16x20 than a normally prepared 16x20 file would print at 8x10.
This is mainly due to the fact that it would be hard to stomach the huge and ugly sharpening that would be needed on the larger file if you wanted it to print well small.
most online ordering software here just re-compress it to 60% and sends over to the lab. in this case, as high enough resolution one can get, the better.
SloPhoto wrote:
I would expect a very well prepped 8x10 file (with print sharpening) would print better at 16x20 than a normally prepared 16x20 file would print at 8x10.
This is mainly due to the fact that it would be hard to stomach the huge and ugly sharpening that would be needed on the larger file if you wanted it to print well small.
Certainty most consumer labs here will resize and sharpen quite appropriately. It's just not a huge issue imo.
mikethevilla wrote:
So what would you do (or plan to do) when delivering 36 MP files? Down res to 15 or 20 MP? Just give them fatty 36 MP jpegs?
What am I missing in this question?
My 21mp 5D2 image opens up to a just-under-60meg TIFF that then "Saves As" a 7 meg JPEG at Photoshop Quality 12. Let's say we double the size of the original image--we still wind up with a JPEG of less than 20mb.
I enlarge the TIFF in PS to 30x40 at 360ppi, it still compresses to a JPEG of only 42mb at Quality 12...but how often is anyone going to do that? No lab wants a file that size, no lab thinks it needs a file that size. I change the Quality to 10--which is indistinguishable from Quality 12--and that 42mb drops to less than 20mb. If we doubled that, we get a really big JPEG, but again, is anyone going to do that?
So what am I missing that there is even discussion of 36mp JPEGs? Why is there talk about downsizing? All you have to do is not upsize.
I'm talking about delivering high-resolution JPEGs to the client. How big of files do you give them?
RDKirk wrote:
What am I missing in this question?
My 21mp 5D2 image opens up to a just-under-60meg TIFF that then "Saves As" a 7 meg JPEG at Photoshop Quality 12. Let's say we double the size of the original image--we still wind up with a JPEG of less than 20mb.
I enlarge the TIFF in PS to 30x40 at 360ppi, it still compresses to a JPEG of only 42mb at Quality 12...but how often is anyone going to do that? No lab wants a file that size, no lab thinks it needs a file that size. I change the Quality to 10--which is indistinguishable from Quality 12--and that 42mb drops to less than 20mb. If we doubled that, we get a really big JPEG, but again, is anyone going to do that?
So what am I missing that there is even discussion of 36mp JPEGs? Why is there talk about downsizing? All you have to do is not upsize....Show more →
I'm still scratching my head at the question. So you do a straight conversion with no interpolation and get at most a 19 mb JPEG at Quality 12. No, you don't want to send that by email, but that's the only place it's a headache. Otherwise, send it as Quality 10, which is all any lab wants anyway.
There is no reason for anyone who has a modern workflow now to change it just because the raw is 36mp.
RDKirk wrote:
I'm still scratching my head at the question. So you do a straight conversion with no interpolation and get at most a 19 mb JPEG at Quality 12. No, you don't want to send that by email, but that's the only place it's a headache. Otherwise, send it as Quality 10, which is all any lab wants anyway.
There is no reason for anyone who has a modern workflow now to change it just because the raw is 36mp.
That's where I'm disagreeing with you. Seeing as most of my clients print 8x10 at most as their largest print on their own, I think it's overkill. They may run into some issues uploading them to online print services if their files are bordering on 20+ mb, or even maybe 10+ mb. I don't see the need to deliver files any bigger than 5 or so mb, not to mention it makes things easier in terms of online and physical delivery.
Just wanted to see what everyone else's opinions were.
Mini review coming.