login info join!
Forums > Digital Art and Retouching > File Size? Search   Reply
Photographer
Clarence Zimmerman
Posts: 4,047
Orlando, Florida, US


are you pushing the limits?
PC?
MAC?
Desktop?
Laptop?

I just retouched a 22meg cr2, my final psp was 1.46 GIG took a few minutes to save/open and do things like surface blur etc.

I'm using a PC Laptop, gateway M685-E with Nivida 256 meg onboard graphics < ps does not like it but it works

I'm actually surprised how well it is handling. And I'm sure I could modify my workflow to help keep the file smaller but I like to see how far I can push the limits. smile

Interestingly I only duplicated the background layer around 10-11 times for the various purposes needed.

Now storage, well that's a different problem right there. Its a good thing terabyte drives are so much cheaper these days. smile

So what is your experience?
Mar 23 13 11:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
pellepiano
Posts: 2,265
Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden


Clarence Zimmerman wrote:
Interestingly I only duplicated the background layer around 10-11 times for the various purposes needed.

I have never used more than two I think and seldom go over 500mb in my 22mb cr2 files ( filesize in Photoshop, not as saved ). What would be the reason for that many copies. What do you do to them smile  ?

Mar 24 13 01:36 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
AKMac
Posts: 306
London, England, United Kingdom


I think one of the big advantages in being freelance is not having to carry the burden of a risk-averse boss looking over your shoulder all the time. When working in 16bit, as soon as the file starts to get heavy, I get to a convenient point and save off that version. Then I flatten and start on a new file. If needs be, I can always go back and find what I need, should the client want a different look, but it happens very rarely.
And even if it takes a little longer, it doesn't add up to the amount of time lost by carrying an ever increasing file through numerous saves and other time-consuming operations - not to mention raking around trying to find layers in an ever increasing stack. I think the benefits of carrying every layer created from start to finish, if the file gets to the point of being bulky and confusing, are questionable. I'm not advocating living dangerously - just being sensible.
Mar 24 13 02:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
C h a r l e s D
Posts: 9,304
Los Angeles, California, US


I've got a MacBook Pro, and larger vector images slow it way, WAY down.
Mar 24 13 03:33 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Peano
Posts: 4,106
Lynchburg, Virginia, US


Clarence Zimmerman wrote:
Interestingly I only duplicated the background layer around 10-11 times for the various purposes needed.

I'm curious to know for what purposes you needed to duplicate the background layer that many times. Would you mind sharing, please?

Mar 24 13 05:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Clarence Zimmerman
Posts: 4,047
Orlando, Florida, US


Peano wrote:

I'm curious to know for what purposes you needed to duplicate the background layer that many times. Would you mind sharing, please?

well like I said in the OP mines probably not the most efficient methodology for layers it just works for me to not worry about it atm. smile

Not all of them get this large but I think this is the largest yet. smile 1.46 gig? lol

anyway here is an idea of the duplicate background layers I used:
2. Copy of the original to not mess up the original.
3-6. I have 4 copies in one group where I was working on an effect for the lips.
7-8 Are copies in my high pass frequency separation / heal / dodge group
9-11 are copies in a new technique I picked up the other day for adding grit, but I modified it for sharpening instead.

For the lips I guess I could have just created a layer with only the lips portion but it was just as easy to copy the whole background.

The last three was a new process. I may not always use this process but I did like the results.


mostly I'm impressed my system is handling the files so well especially after all the fear mongering that was going on about the new file sizes being output from cameras these days.

Mar 24 13 07:16 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
iy-nyc
Posts: 82
New York, New York, US


PERFORMANCE RELATED ARTICLES FOR MAC USERS:

Link for optimizing Photoshop CS6 performance
http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizi … uring.html

Link for optimizing Photoshop CS5 performance
http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizi … Intro.html

Link for optimizing Photoshop CS4 performance
http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizi … Intro.html

Link for optimizing Mac performance
http://macperformanceguide.com/Mac-Ways.html

I hope above articles will be helpful.
Best,
IY
Mar 24 13 07:45 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Greg Curran
Posts: 204
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Peano wrote:

I'm curious to know for what purposes you needed to duplicate the background layer that many times. Would you mind sharing, please?

I recently worked on a 5gb file,  probably 50 layers, some stamps of the whole thing some soft light layers, color layers, adjustment layers merging of a few different elements.  Just like to be able to have a completely  non destructive file available.  I could have merged some layers and brought the file size down, but at that point I was too deep into the retouch.  It gets confusing sometimes so I try to keep the layers to a minimum, but there is the odd time it just gets out of control.

Mar 25 13 05:14 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Peano
Posts: 4,106
Lynchburg, Virginia, US


Greg Curran wrote:
I recently worked on a 5gb file,  probably 50 layers, some stamps of the whole thing some soft light layers, color layers, adjustment layers merging of a few different elements.  Just like to be able to have a completely  non destructive file available.  I could have merged some layers and brought the file size down, but at that point I was too deep into the retouch.  It gets confusing sometimes so I try to keep the layers to a minimum, but there is the odd time it just gets out of control.

The reason I asked is that I often see people needlessly duplicating the image layer for some effect or other.

For instance, they'll duplicate the background layer, change blend mode to soft light (or screen, or multiply), and adjust layer opacity. The same effect can be achieved with an adjustment layer in soft light mode -- and it doesn't increase the file size at all.

Or they'll duplicate the image layer in order to selectively blur certain parts of it, when the same thing could be done on a blank layer using the blur tool.

Mar 25 13 08:17 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
iy-nyc
Posts: 82
New York, New York, US


My primary expertise area is compositing rather then skin retouching, so dealing with the huge file sizes is my everyday challenge. Approx 99% of my client files came from hi-end Hasselblad cameras (flat tiff size is 240+MB) . My psb files are usually larger then 10GB, even sometimes larger then the 20GB (usually when I am expanding the image).
Dealing with this size of files forced me to use Solid state raid internal drives for both system and Photoshop scratch disk. I keep my work in progress layered image files an external SSD raid.

Dealing with Nikon, canon, etc files are relatively easy to handle without need of a monster computer, because of their small file sizes. I don't understand why some of the retouchers building tons of layers when they are doing beauty retouching! If you are in this group of retoucher, then you should re organize your workflow and back to basic!

Below is the sample for one layer retouching! The original 16 bit tiff file size 76.4 MB.

Soft light layer D&B retouching strokes!
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/130325/10/51508a478f032.jpg
Model: Karelea Mazzola-MM# 5215
Photographer: Vitaly Druchinin-MM# 9138
Retoucher: IY-NYC-MM#2957705
Copyright 2011 Hotpixel LLC
www.digitalphotoshopretouching.com
Mar 25 13 11:33 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Krunoslav Stifter
Posts: 3,843
Santa Cruz, California, US


iy-nyc wrote:
Below is the sample for one layer retouching! The original 16 bit tiff file size 76.4 MB.

Looks great. Love the soft light mask, but you add some filter to it right? smile

BTW. I don't think you need 16 bit for an image like this though. And it would save you size and processing time.

Mar 25 13 11:55 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Retouch007
Posts: 403
East Newark, New Jersey, US


this is very interesting to read most images I work on are processed through Capture at 8bit, 16bit if clients asks for it or for big advertising job. I used to retouch like that when i started now I retouch right on the jumped layer the rest are color/contrast/etc. You have original underneath you can always brush back anything from the original artwork.
Mar 25 13 12:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
iy-nyc
Posts: 82
New York, New York, US


iy-nyc wrote:
Below is the sample for one layer retouching! The original 16 bit tiff file size 76.4 MB.
Looks great. Love the soft light mask, but you add some filter to it right? 

BTW. I don't think you need 16 bit for an image like this though. And it would save you size and processing time.

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/130325/10/51508a478f032.jpg
Thank you Krunoslav,

Yes, very mild dust&scratches filter is applied on soft layer mask to blend brush strokes, this is a habit from my earliest traditional retouching. My brush strokes on soft layer mask exactly the same strokes that I was using 30 years ago (by the way I am 63 years old young men!)

More then 100% agree your comment regarding 16 bit versus 8 bit file. I agree that there is no advantage and quality gain starting to work with 16 bit files.

By the way I have your amazing The Art of Dodge & Burn – High End Industry Retouching Techniques – Series Three, and I can recommend everyone!!! Best wishes for your new Real World Retouching for Retouchers and Photographers DVD.

With my best,
IY
iynyc50@gmail.com
Mar 25 13 12:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
iy-nyc
Posts: 82
New York, New York, US


What about the file transfer pain!!!
Below request just came to me from one of my retainer client. Requested final CMYK file sizes are 209"w 89"h, after cropping! My main problem will be transferring final files to the client via online !!! rather then working on images.
Below is the request;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have retouching work that needs to be done for the Mag Jewels York Ave Vinyl. Attached is a PDF for reference.
I need the large diamond on the left semi-siloed - leaving in the shadow and sparkles on the far left end. The shadow in the bracelets in the middle need to be slightly taken down extended and faded. 
The final output size of the vinyl is : 209"w 89"h
The Diamond is placed at 653%
The bracelets are placed at 815%
The Brooch is placed at 1430%
I think if we can rez up to 200 DPI instead of 300 DPI we should be ok for printing on 3M vinyl.
The job is due to disk out on Tuesday, March 26. Are you able to complete this job for us? If so, can you provide and estimate so that I can get a PO?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mar 25 13 12:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Krunoslav Stifter
Posts: 3,843
Santa Cruz, California, US


iy-nyc wrote:
Yes, very mild dust&scratches filter is applied on soft layer mask to blend brush strokes, this is a habit from my earliest traditional retouching. My brush strokes on soft layer mask exactly the same strokes that I was using 30 years ago (by the way I am 63 years old young men!)
iynyc50@gmail.com

lol Thanks for the reply. smile

iy-nyc wrote:
More then 100% agree your comment regarding 16 bit versus 8 bit file. I agree that there is no advantage and quality gain starting to work with 16 bit files.

Yes, very true. That is actually something I spend a lot of time recording on. Wanting to make a clear case.

So for example if you save 8 bit file and 16 bit file from the same source you would not see any difference. The difference is only there if you edit the file. But not every edit is the same. So for example if you had a lot of hard transitions in shadows and highlights or gradients in the background maybe and you were doing curves type adjustments or hue/saturation than yes  16 bit can offer better resistance to posterization or banding during that kind of editing. Otherwise in an image like this with no particularity challenging smooth gradients and no harsh transitions 8 bit is more than enough. And if you actually needed to make a big correction and would expect problems, changing to 16 bpc at that point would give virtually all the advantages of working in 16 bpc the entire time, with the added benefit of working with the smaller manageable 8 bpc file troughs the rest of the process.

iy-nyc wrote:
By the way I have your amazing The Art of Dodge & Burn – High End Industry Retouching Techniques – Series Three, and I can recommend everyone!!! Best wishes for your new Real World Retouching for Retouchers and Photographers DVD.

With my best,
IY
iynyc50@gmail.com

Thank you so much. Appropriate your support.

Mar 25 13 01:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
iy-nyc
Posts: 82
New York, New York, US


Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

Looks great. Love the soft light mask, but you add some filter to it right? smile

BTW. I don't think you need 16 bit for an image like this though. And it would save you size and processing time.

Thank you Krunoslav,

Yes, very mild dust&scratches filter is applied on soft layer mask to blend brush strokes, this is a habit from my earliest traditional retouching. My brush strokes on soft layer mask exactly the same strokes that I was using 30 years ago (by the way I am 63 years old young men!)

More then 100% agree your comment regarding 16 bit versus 8 bit file. I agree that there is no advantage and quality gain starting to work with 16 bit files.

By the way I have your amazing The Art of Dodge & Burn – High End Industry Retouching Techniques – Series Three, and I can recommend everyone!!! Best wishes for your new Real World Retouching for Retouchers and Photographers DVD.

With my best,
IY
iynyc50@gmail.com

Mar 25 13 01:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
iy-nyc
Posts: 82
New York, New York, US


Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
Yes, very true. That is actually something I spend a lot of time recording on. Wanting to make a clear case.

So for example if you save 8 bit file and 16 bit file from the same source you would not see any difference. The difference is only there if you edit the file. But not every edit is the same. So for example if you had a lot of hard transitions in shadows and highlights or gradients in the background maybe and you were doing curves type adjustments or hue/saturation than yes  16 bit can offer better resistance to posterization or banding during that kind of editing. Otherwise in an image like this with no particularity challenging smooth gradients and no harsh transitions 8 bit is more than enough. And if you actually needed to make a big correction and would expect problems, changing to 16 bpc at that point would give virtually all the advantages of working in 16 bpc the entire time, with the added benefit of working with the smaller manageable 8 bpc file troughs the rest of the process.
--------------------------
IY-NYC wrote;
Below link is interesting. 9 experts voted for 16 bit and a master expert (Dan Margulis) voted for 8 bit! Dan has prepress background and knows CMYK very well from real life. So his votes has meaning for me. I worked in a large premedia/prepress CMYK environment from 1995 to 2012. Files automatically converted to CMYK by x-inet server, (a propriety cmyk profile attached) and image editors /retouchers start to work on 8 bit CMYK files. There wasn't any quality lost except the images siloed into the graded backgrounds (banding problem as you stated above), mostly adding a little noise solved the banding problems. Most of the time a gradation shows banding on the screen and also on hard proof, but not on the final prints, because moire hides them!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/15128382

I am glad that you are not thinking different then Dan Margulis. So we both know most of the time there is no advantage to use 16 bit and abuse the computer and lost time exponentely, but there is other side of the mirror the client. Most of them insist to have both 16 bit RGB, and a printing device optimized CMYK file!
Best,
IY
Mar 25 13 01:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
iy-nyc
Posts: 82
New York, New York, US


Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

lol Thanks for the reply. smile


Yes, very true. That is actually something I spend a lot of time recording on. Wanting to make a clear case.

So for example if you save 8 bit file and 16 bit file from the same source you would not see any difference. The difference is only there if you edit the file. But not every edit is the same. So for example if you had a lot of hard transitions in shadows and highlights or gradients in the background maybe and you were doing curves type adjustments or hue/saturation than yes  16 bit can offer better resistance to posterization or banding during that kind of editing. Otherwise in an image like this with no particularity challenging smooth gradients and no harsh transitions 8 bit is more than enough. And if you actually needed to make a big correction and would expect problems, changing to 16 bpc at that point would give virtually all the advantages of working in 16 bpc the entire time, with the added benefit of working with the smaller manageable 8 bpc file troughs the rest of the process.


Thank you so much. Appropriate your support.

Below link is interesting. 9 experts voted for 16 bit and a master expert (Dan Margulis) voted for 8 bit! Dan has prepress background and knows CMYK very well from real life. So his votes has meaning for me. I worked in a large premedia/prepress CMYK environment from 1995 to 2012. Files automatically converted to 8 bit CMYK by x-inet server, (a propriety cmyk profile attached) and image editors /retouchers start to work on 8 bit CMYK files. There wasn't any quality lost except the images siloed into the graded backgrounds (banding problem as you stated above), mostly adding a little noise solved the banding problems. Most of the time a gradation shows banding on the screen and also on hard proof, but not on the final prints, because moire hides them!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/15128382

I am glad that you are not thinking different then Dan Margulis. So we both know most of the time there is no advantage to use 16 bit and abuse the computer and lost time exponentely, but there is other side of the mirror the client. Most of them insist to have both 16 bit RGB, and a printing device optimized 8 bit CMYK file!
Best,
IY

Mar 25 13 01:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Artist/Painter
JJMiller
Posts: 468
Buffalo, New York, US


printing device optimized 8 bit CMYK file!

I work in a photo lab, and the printers use 8 bit RGB. So yeah, many output devices use 8 bit. 16 bit is more for heavy post pro if I understand correctly, less degradation of images. But still though, a 1.5 GB file is a bit extreme, personally I would work at around 2x the print size, then scale it down for printing when I was done. This could be a bad method though heh, but it works for me (digital painting).

Mar 25 13 02:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Krunoslav Stifter
Posts: 3,843
Santa Cruz, California, US


iy-nyc wrote:
Below link is interesting. 9 experts voted for 16 bit and a master expert (Dan Margulis) voted for 8 bit! Dan has prepress background and knows CMYK very well from real life. So his votes has meaning for me. I worked in a large premedia/prepress CMYK environment from 1995 to 2012. Files automatically converted to 8 bit CMYK by x-inet server, (a propriety cmyk profile attached) and image editors /retouchers start to work on 8 bit CMYK files. There wasn't any quality lost except the images siloed into the graded backgrounds (banding problem as you stated above), mostly adding a little noise solved the banding problems. Most of the time a gradation shows banding on the screen and also on hard proof, but not on the final prints, because moire hides them!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/15128382

I am glad that you are not thinking different then Dan Margulis. So we both know most of the time there is no advantage to use 16 bit and abuse the computer and lost time exponentely, but there is other side of the mirror the client. Most of them insist to have both 16 bit RGB, and a printing device optimized 8 bit CMYK file!
Best,
IY

Yeah I read that very carefully before I was going to record anything on it and I think most of them who advocated 16 bpc did it as a safety net and in the wrong context. Mostly out of fear and lack of consideration for many users. More is not always better and often is worse. Same are the people who advocate ProPhotoRGB as the only valid working color space. Again for the same misleading reasons.

I have done many tests and many explanations why that is in the is new DVD that I'm making and I think I covered all the basis for people to see for themselves what works and what does not work and why and finally dispel the myth about the whole bit depth thing? The story of 8 vs 16 bpc is highly context sensitive and not as black and white and many would have us believe. Understanding the pors and cons can be beneficial, rather than committing to one over the other no matter what the situation is.

BTW. If you work in 8 bpc and you need to deliver 16 bpc because they are paranoid you simply up sample it at the end to 16 bpc and deliver, or you can try to explain to them that for them doing further editing having a 16 bpc file from the start and upsampeling to 16 bpc later by themselves is virtually identical.

Mar 25 13 04:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Krunoslav Stifter
Posts: 3,843
Santa Cruz, California, US


iy-nyc wrote:
What about the file transfer pain!!!
Below request just came to me from one of my retainer client. Requested final CMYK file sizes are 209"w 89"h, after cropping! My main problem will be transferring final files to the client via online !!! rather then working on images.
Below is the request;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have retouching work that needs to be done for the Mag Jewels York Ave Vinyl. Attached is a PDF for reference.
I need the large diamond on the left semi-siloed - leaving in the shadow and sparkles on the far left end. The shadow in the bracelets in the middle need to be slightly taken down extended and faded. 
The final output size of the vinyl is : 209"w 89"h
The Diamond is placed at 653%
The bracelets are placed at 815%
The Brooch is placed at 1430%
I think if we can rez up to 200 DPI instead of 300 DPI we should be ok for printing on 3M vinyl.
The job is due to disk out on Tuesday, March 26. Are you able to complete this job for us? If so, can you provide and estimate so that I can get a PO?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm. If he means 209"w 89"h I suspect with the resolution of 200 PPI that is something people would see at very close range, unless off course he don't know that an image that large viewed at a distance could have a lot lower resolution. Is this a billboard?

Mar 25 13 04:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
iy-nyc
Posts: 82
New York, New York, US


Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

Yeah I read that very carefully before I was going to record anything on it and I think most of them who advocated 16 bpc did it as a safety net and in the wrong context. Mostly out of fear and lack of consideration for many users. More is not always better and often is worse. Same are the people who advocate ProPhotoRGB as the only valid working color space. Again for the same misleading reasons.

I have done many tests and many explanations why that is in the is new DVD that I'm making and I think I covered all the basis for people to see for themselves what works and what does not work and why and finally dispel the myth about the whole bit depth thing? The story of 8 vs 16 bpc is highly context sensitive and not as black and white and many would have us believe. Understanding the pors and cons can be beneficial, rather than committing to one over the other no matter what the situation is.

BTW. If you work in 8 bpc and you need to deliver 16 bpc because they are paranoid you simply up sample it at the end to 16 bpc and deliver, or you can try to explain to them that for them doing further editing having a 16 bpc file from the start and upsampeling to 16 bpc later by themselves is virtually identical.

How you know that I work on 8 bit, but delivering as 16 bit? are you reading my mind? For ethical reason, first I am trying to explain my clients that there is no benefits having 16 files, and the retouching cost will be higher. If the client still insist and if the file size is huge then I am working on 8 bit but delivering 16 bit, as you mentioned above.

ProPhotoRGB were very popular 15 years ago among misinformed image makers. Many self claimed color experts advocated it's larger gamut.I believe that still ProPhotoRGB advocates exist today for no reason. As you stated above More is not always better and often is worse. Same statement is valid for the file size/resolution too. If the final destination is a printing press with 150 LPI then 300 dpi resolution should be the maximum, more then the required resolution will result quality degradation. so more is not better.

Mar 25 13 06:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Krunoslav Stifter
Posts: 3,843
Santa Cruz, California, US


iy-nyc wrote:
How you know that I work on 8 bit, but delivering as 16 bit? are you reading my mind? For ethical reason, first I am trying to explain my clients that there is no benefits having 16 files, and the retouching cost will be higher. If the client still insist and if the file size is huge then I am working on 8 bit but delivering 16 bit, as you mentioned above.

Like I mentioned, 16 bpc is beneficial in certain situations and only for editing and only more extensive color and tone editing with smooth transitions but not delivering and not for viewing purposes. Sometimes it's hard to explain that to the client who is in fear of losing data.

iy-nyc wrote:
ProPhotoRGB were very popular 15 years ago among misinformed image makers. Many self claimed color experts advocated it's larger gamut.I believe that still ProPhotoRGB advocates exist today for no reason. As you stated above More is not always better and often is worse.

When is ProPhoto RGB benificial?

- When printing on wide gamut printers that exceed medium size gamut color spaces like AdobeRGB 1998. Mostly used and justified by landscape and fine art photographers. If the image is monochrome or low saturated and or black and white ProPhoto RGB dose not help since there is no out of gamut color to worry about.

- When you want to use it as what I like to refer to as a warehouse color space and for archival purposes. A space to preserve as much color as you can in an image in case of future technological advancements such as extra wide printers and monitors.

- In rare cases when you want to jump to another color space that is not directly supported by Adobe, such as eciRGB. In that kind of workflow eciRGB is slightly larger than Adobe RGB 1998 but you can't choose it as a option when working in ACR (Adobe Camera RAw). So one solution is to first open inside ProPhotoRGb and than convert to eciRGB

- Few other exceptions mostly not used by the average user


...so for an average user ProPhotoRGB is not needed and in RAW converters is usually used by default in some flavor of it or another.

iy-nyc wrote:
Same statement is valid for the file size/resolution too. If the final destination is a printing press with 150 LPI then 300 dpi resolution should be the maximum, more then the required resolution will result quality degradation. so more is not better.

I made video about this trying to shed some light to it.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28508998/Jeff/T … e-Size.zip

Mar 25 13 06:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
iy-nyc
Posts: 82
New York, New York, US


Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

Hmmm. If he means 209"w 89"h I suspect with the resolution of 200 PPI that is something people would see at very close range, unless off course he don't know that an image that large viewed at a distance could have a lot lower resolution. Is this a billboard?

Bravo, yes people would see at very close range and the image elements are highly expensive (several million dollars each) These billboards are for indoor usage, and the viewing distance is very close. I told my client that 150 dpi is sufficient, we both agree.
Below catalogue link is my work for the same client.
http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/sot … x.html#/0/
Best,
IY

Mar 25 13 06:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Krunoslav Stifter
Posts: 3,843
Santa Cruz, California, US


iy-nyc wrote:
Bravo, yes people would see at very close range and the image elements are highly expensive (several million dollars each) These billboards are for indoor usage, and the viewing distance is very close. I told my client that 150 dpi is sufficient, we both agree.
Below catalogue link is my work for the same client.
http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/sot … x.html#/0/
Best,
IY

Oh, I get it. So it's a composite making the whole image very large but with individual elements enlarged to still be in the presentable quality. I guess it would depend on various factors but 150 PPI (not DPI) would probably be good compromise.

Mar 25 13 06:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
iy-nyc
Posts: 82
New York, New York, US


Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
A space to preserve as much color as you can in an image in case of future technological advancements such as extra wide printers and monitors.

You find the real reason! and I like the above paragraph.
Thans for the video, i am downloading right now. I have to back to work on the billboards, then I will carefully watch the video.
Thanks again,
IY
Mar 25 13 06:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
iy-nyc
Posts: 82
New York, New York, US


Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
Oh, I get it. So it's a composite making the whole image very large but with individual elements enlarged to still be in the presentable quality. I guess it would depend on various factors but 150 PPI (not DPI) would probably be good compromise.

Pixel per inch (ppi) is the correct terminology, dot per inch (dpi) is a common terminology within the sheet feed & offset printing industry.

I will be away from MM until tomorrow. I think time is around 3 AM in Zagreb and you are still working.

Have a great day,
IY

Mar 25 13 06:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
iy-nyc
Posts: 82
New York, New York, US


Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

I made video about this trying to shed some light to it.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28508998/Jeff/T … e-Size.zip

Dear Kruno,
The video of the conundrum of image size is an amazing tutorial and I believe must have by any kind of image-maker, not only by the retouchers and photographers, but also graphic designers, reps of the creative peoples, even prepress houses!
The old time photographers were photographers and the retoucher was retoucher. Neither photographers nor retouchers was aware about the printing processes and they don't need to know what is color separation, what is TIL/TIC, rich black, etc.
But today is different and all kind of image makers should know the specifications of the destination output device requirements to prepare a print ready or screen ready files ( destination can be a 240 TIL-133 LPI newsprint or 320-340- TIL-150-200LPI offset or sheedfed print. also can be an iPad/iphone screen or for web, etc and each destination has it's own specs) In the past skill is the most dominant component of the success, but today knowledge comes first (at least I believe it) If an image maker doesn't know about ECI,ICC,SWOP,GRACOL,Ink limit, Color matching then he or she can not command high per hour/image rates.
MM community is very lucky that dear Kruno is exist, I wish I had his level of knowledgeable source during my transition from traditional to digital!
Best wishes,
IY

Mar 27 13 10:59 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Krunoslav Stifter
Posts: 3,843
Santa Cruz, California, US


iy-nyc wrote:

Dear Kruno,
The video of the conundrum of image size is an amazing tutorial and I believe must have by any kind of image-maker, not only by the retouchers and photographers, but also graphic designers, reps of the creative peoples, even prepress houses!
The old time photographers were photographers and the retoucher was retoucher. Neither photographers nor retouchers was aware about the printing processes and they don't need to know what is color separation, what is TIL/TIC, rich black, etc.
But today is different and all kind of image makers should know the specifications of the destination output device requirements to prepare a print ready or screen ready files ( destination can be a 240 TIL-133 LPI newsprint or 320-340- TIL-150-200LPI offset or sheedfed print. also can be an iPad/iphone screen or for web, etc and each destination has it's own specs) In the past skill is the most dominant component of the success, but today knowledge comes first (at least I believe it) If an image maker doesn't know about ECI,ICC,SWOP,GRACOL,Ink limit, Color matching then he or she can not command high per hour/image rates.
MM community is very lucky that dear Kruno is exist, I wish I had his level of knowledgeable source during my transition from traditional to digital!
Best wishes,
IY

Thank you for such kind words. I myself like many others have been confused by the concept of resolution and how to practically use image size so I set out to make a tutorial that I wish I had when I need it, that is all. smile

Mar 27 13 03:49 pm  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers