A client of mine is asking me for one of my files which is currently 2704x3211px @300ppi, 229x272mm (24.8MB RGB Tiff) to be sent to them as a file which is 2240mm high @300ppi, which when I did a quick Photoshop upscale, is a 1.5GB RGB Tiff.
In the past, I've had no issues with similarly sized shots being printed as 3x4m window posters without having to send ridiculous sized files. Usually the printers can rasterize the image and it's handled by the press, rather than at the design stage, I thought.
99% of my work is for magazines, and the occasional A3 Double Page Spread. So I'm in moderately new territory here.
Any tips on how to do it effectively, or the sort of app or plug-in I should be looking at?
Many thanks in advance.
E
Visit COLORRIGHT to get the colors right in your digital slr, point & shoot, video camera and iPhone or iPod Touch.
A client of mine is asking me for one of my files which is currently 2704x3211px @300ppi, 229x272mm (24.8MB RGB Tiff) to be sent to them as a file which is 2240mm high @300ppi, which when I did a quick Photoshop upscale, is a 1.5GB RGB Tiff.
Well, I'm a little uncertain about what dimensions of your current file are what.
If it is 2704 px high, and your client wants the image to be 2240 px high, that would be a downsizing.
If it is 3211 px high, and your client wants the image to be 2240 px high, that would be a downsizing.
So I'm not sure why "upscaling" is involved here.
Please remember that:
• The px/inch designator tells us nothing about the image
• No image has a size in mm (or inches); our editing programs report such a size for us, but that is meaningless, calculated using the (actual) pixel dimensions and the (meaningless) pixels/inch indicator value.
I can't imagine why taking a TIFF file with certain pixel dimensions and resizing it to smaller pixel dimensions would inflate the file size from 24.8 MB to 1.5 GB.
But sometimes in doing resizing, matters of the pixels/inch setting can cause things to be done that are not what we want done.
I would be curious as to why the client wants the deliverable file to have that pixel dimension?
Often those requests (especially when a pixels/inch value is mentioned) arise from misunderstanding on the part of the client as to the significance of these things.
I have "clients" who, for some historical reason, want all submitted image files to be at a "resolution of at least 300 px/in." I just set the resolution indicator to 300 (not resizing the image in the sense of pixel dimensions), and let 'em fly. They of course always work. They either have as much pixel resolution as the recipient wants, or not (and of course there is no more to be had in any case).
You are probably well acquainted with the implications of the resolution indicator, but just as an illustration, here are two identical images, both 800 x 533 px in size, but with two different values of the resolution indicator, 5 px/inch and 500 px/inch:
Image dimensions: 800 x 533 px
Resolution indicator value: 5 px/inch
Reported inch dimensions: 160.00 inch x 106.60 inch
File size: 82.4 kB (80.4 KiB)
Image dimensions: 800 x 533 px
Resolution indicator value: 500 px/inch
Reported inch dimensions: 1.600 inch x 1.066 inch
File size: 82.4 kB (80.4 KiB)
I'm aware that ppi as a raw figure has nothing to do with the scale of the image per se.
I think you may have misread the original post, as they want to take my image, which is currently 229mm high, and have me send it to them at 2240mm high @300ppi, which would make the image 1.5GB.
Coincidentally, I just got an email from the client. They had previously said "We usually are able to get original image files at really high resolutions.", to which I asked "What do you mean by 'really high resolutions'?", their response was
"By “really high resolution” I mean high dpi."
I'm getting the impression that person doesn't fully understand the relationship between image dimensions and pixels.
I'm aware that ppi as a raw figure has nothing to do with the scale of the image per se.
I think you may have misread the original post, as they want to take my image, which is currently 229mm high, and have me send it to them at 2240mm high @300ppi, which would make the image 1.5GB.
Oh, of course, I read carelessly. Sorry.
Well, yes, they seem to be asking for an image 36,456 px high!
Quote:
Coincidentally, I just got an email from the client. They had previously said "We usually are able to get original image files at really high resolutions.", to which I asked "What do you mean by 'really high resolutions'?", their response was
"By “really high resolution” I mean high dpi."
I'm getting the impression that person doesn't fully understand the relationship between image dimensions and pixels.
I'm sure. As I mentioned, I run into that a lot.
An 88" high image rarely calls for a resolution of 300 px/inch.
But many "graphics buyers" were taught somewhere that "300 px/in is what you need for printing"! You may be encountering that here.
An 88" high image rarely calls for a resolution of 300 px/inch.
But many "graphics buyers" were taught somewhere that "300 px/in is what you need for printing"! You may be encountering that here.
I agree. So the OP should double check that they indeed are asking for the right spec’s (find out what output device they are using). I suppose its possible someone with a super big ink jet (even an Epson 64 inch) might produce a print this size but you could easily get away with 180ppi instead of 300ppi which would make the up-rezed file a tad more manageable.
__________________ Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers" http://www.digitaldog.net
I agree. So the OP should double check that they indeed are asking for the right spec’s (find out what output device they are using). I suppose its possible someone with a super big ink jet (even an Epson 64 inch) might produce a print this size but you could easily get away with 180ppi instead of 300ppi which would make the up-rezed file a tad more manageable.
And of course, since "we" do now know what kind of system the client has, or where he is having the printing done, it is entirely possible that the printing system could best mediate between the "actual" resolution of the image (as the OP has it in hand) and what their printer driver itself likes. It's not as if the sender can "add anything" by uprezing the file with any software he has. He could only do that by reshooting the shot with a camera with a higher resolution (assuming there was such a thing - maybe a big two-dimensional pano is needed).
I, for example, would never encourage someone supplying an image to me to uprez it, regardless of the size at which I wanted to print it. If I was printing it here, I would prefer to have Qimage do the mediation; if I was sending it out, I would rather have the print shop's system do it.
It's a little like international diplomatic correspondence: messages from the US to Russia are sent in English, and the Russians translate it. That way they can have several translators look at it, for example, if they are uncertain about any of the language, and be sure that idioms are best translated to suit the context of the situation.
Linear Mode
