file size for 8x10 print ???

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Gateruner

I would say that unless you have some space considerations to worry about I would keep shooting at the highest setting. You never know when you are going to get that once in a lifetime shot and someone wants to create a bill board from it. Better to have a larger file and not need it than.......

I agree, disk space just keeps getting cheaper so why throw away image data if you can avoid it. Regardless of what print size last decade's cameras may or may not have been capable of, I don't see the point in having a nice camera like the D200 and not taking advantage of the full image quality it's capable of. Even if you think you'll never need larger than 8x10, what happens when a client loves a particular shot so much that they decide they want a 16x20? Best to keep your options open, IMHO.

[rhoffart]

The reason I started this was … I want to upload the pictures from a full shoot to smugmug … let the person order their prints up to 8 X 10. Then if the wanted a larger print of a shot or two I could upload that image in full res … I always shoot RAW … I just wanted to reduce the upload time if I have 20 – 30 shots.

Sorry should have explained ...

[janetg]

rick- i have had the d200,and now own a 40d. i run all my files - regardless of visible noise content thru noiseware professional. it's the last step i do before uploading to smugmug. it will reduce the size of the files SIGNIFICANTLY! all files have some sort of jpg noise - and getting rid of it just reduces the size - not the quality.

[jeffkohn]

regardless of visible noise content thru noiseware professional. it's the last step i do before uploading to smugmug. it will reduce the size of the files SIGNIFICANTLY!

This is most likely because of one of two reasons:

1) The NR process is removing quite a bit of detail along with noise, and the less fine detail in an image the better it compresses as JPEG

or

2) After the NR process, the file is getting saved with higher JPEG compression.

I'm not saying your prints don't look nice, just that there's no free lunch and the only way to reduce file size is to reduce the amount of detail saved (either by discarding it during compression, or removing it from the image in the first place with via downsampling, NR, etc).

[BigEasy]

Originally Posted by rhoffart

Got a question … well I got a bunch of them but I’ll start with this one …

I use smugmug for printing, as a hobbyist I just don’t want to get into printing right now.

I shoot a D200 in raw … process the photo and end up with a jpg file that is;
3 – 6 MB
2592 x 3872 pixels

Now I don’t see anyone ordering a print larger then an 8 X 10…

My question is: Should I keep using the largest file possible –or- can I reduce the file size without sacrificing any quality?

thanks

Here is a easy rule I just found on the PopPhoto site:

Largest Digital Print Rule: To calculate in inches the largest photo-quality print you can make with a digital camera, divide the vertical and horizontal pixel counts (see your manual) by 200. For critical applications, or if you want exhibition-quality prints, divide the pixel counts by 250

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by BigEasy

Here is a easy rule I just found on the PopPhoto site:

Largest Digital Print Rule: To calculate in inches the largest photo-quality print you can make with a digital camera, divide the vertical and horizontal pixel counts (see your manual) by 200. For critical applications, or if you want exhibition-quality prints, divide the pixel counts by 250

This is an interesting guide, but it doesn't take into account the algorithm programs most printers use to "upsize" the photo. I've gotten great photo quality prints that were quite a bit outside the "rule" as you posted it.

[andyz]

I got my Pop Photo email today and thought about this thread too. But I agree, it is a good rule if there is no interpolation. Otherwise, sensors would have to be absolutely huge to get a big print.

[n1spirit]

Originally Posted by Daylon

I shoot a d200, and import into Lightroom - they have a handy crop tool that auto-crops to 8x10, 4x6 or whatever in the Develop section.

I have masks (simple white backgrounds with dimensions - height/width - set for each of the common print sizes) saved as separate files. I just copy the appropriate one in as a new layer in Photoshop, adjust the opacity so that I can "see through" it, and resize/reposition over the area of the photo I wish to remain - then crop and disgard the "mask" layer.

I know, long drawn out answer - and maybe not as simple a process as Lightroom (but I don't have Lightroom). I do own, however, so many different versions of Photoshop that it is getting hilarious. LOL! Oh, the money I've spent over the years (but I enjoy working with photos and now, as photography has become more and more of my mainstay hobby, it's necessary to have the tools to implement the subtle nuances in the photo I haven't yet figured out how to do on the front end, with the camera).

[MT Stringer]

rhoffart, is your SmugMug account a Pro account. If so, you can delay printing up to 7 days. I have mine set at 4 days. That way when someone orders prints, I get an email with the order info. I can then review the order and see what prints and sizes have been ordered. I also check to see if they did any cropping and if it looks OK. I can change all of that stuff and even replace the image with an image from my PC if I need to do some additional post processing. When all is right, I click Ship It and it goes to the printer.

So, you could resize your images to a smaller file size and upload them to SM, just keep the original post processed images in a safe place. The smaller files will upload faster and you always have the option of replacing it with your original post proccessed image if needed.
Hope this helps.
Mike

[Titaniumblade]

This may or may not help, but one thing to think about is that if you upload the full size image, you can order a DVD of the images if you ever loose them on your local system. (think of it as off site storage)