Hi all,

I understand what I have been over in the past with regards to image sizes for upload to magazines etc (or at least i think I do), but I have come across either a very picky editor - or I really don't know what I'm doing...

I sent an image, converted to a JPEG, 300dpi, dimensions 4288 x 2848px.  This gave an image size of 35M and a file size of 5.5MB (I was aiming for as high as possible to be safe).

This was done using Cature One 4 software, all I did was process the image by selecting Jpeg 100% quality, 300dpi, 100% fixed scale, sharpening disabled. 

I have since been informed that the resolution was not good enough for a full page and that they have used the image as a 1/4 size instead (it was to late to contact me apparantly).  I provided 2 images for free as they were for and included a family member.  I haven't had direct contact with the editor at any point, but I thought I was providing an image of a useable quality? 

Any idea as to why he might have said this?  Either the editor doesn't know what he wants or I've learned nothing! 

 

Also, today I have uploaded two more images for use on a magazine cover and I'd just like to clarify a couple of things.

I processed the image in CO4 at the required spec by the buyer (500px longest length, 70% Jpeg) but the file size (not image size) came out at 250k.  They specifically request files for proof of no more than 200k (ideally 100k).  Fai enough. 

So the only way I could get an image this size was by then using PS7 and saving for web (came down to 100k).  Nice one.

When I came to upload the image it has the option to use the metadata and keywords included in the file or input them manually.  By saving for web these have been removed (I understand that). 

Anyway, my question is, would I have been better off resizing the image in PS7 and saving for web at 70%, or is processing in CO4 at 70% then just carrying out the save for web function in PS7 ok (leaving the quality at 100% at this stage)?  I can't see a difference in the final image but that doesn't mean that there isn't one...

What a way to spend your Sunday (well, an hour of it anyway)!

Cheers all

---

Don't use the resize for web option in Photoshop, as it strips all the metadata out, instead use the save as option, and select Jpeg as the file format.

As for the other point on file size, if Raw then resize in photoshop to about 50mb size, then convert to Jpeg. This should be big enough for an A3 page spread.

---

SK
The Best Photographer in the world 4th November - 5th November 2006 & 17th-18 November 2007
Oldboy’s Gallery

I understand that the resize for web option removes the metadata, it was the only way I could hink of making the file size any smaller

Ok, so after saving in CO4 as a Jpeg, 70%, 500px I open it in PS7 (currently 240k) and then select save as, and the file size is about half already (now 140k when leaving quality at 12/maximum).  So that tells me that PS7 is compressing the image again, even further. 

If so then I have now compressed the image more than the original 70% so this must be reducing the quality?   

Now, converting the image at 100% size and 100% quality to a Jpeg in CO4 (file size 22MB) , then opening in PS7, then resizing and "saving as" and setting the image quality to 7 (they say 7, or 70% as options) gives me a file size of 55k, which is less than any of the above so would seem the correct method (although I still feel like I'm compressing the image twice).

I can't open RAW files with PS7 so have to use CO4 to make the conversion to Jpeg regardless. 

I guess I should just do a straight 100% conversion then resize and save at quality 7 in PS.  Fair enough.  Wouldn't it have been nice not to have to use Photoshop at all though!!  It's an expensive piece of software just for resizing!

 

The other image that was rejected (the first) was sent as a JPEG for an A4 single page usage, hence my confusion as to why the image wasn't good enough resolution. 

Cheers OB.

 

---

Try saving as a Tiff file before converting to Jpeg in Photoshop. Everytime you save a Jpeg it is compressed more. Also, in Photoshop save as maxium size or 12, otherwise it compresses more.

---

SK
The Best Photographer in the world 4th November - 5th November 2006 & 17th-18 November 2007
Oldboy’s Gallery

Thanks OB, the bit about compressing the Jpeg everytime I save it was the answer I was looking for I guess. 

They specifically request it to be saved as quality "7" or 70% for the proof image, and then I get to send them a full size version later if they decide to use it.  I'll wait and see what feedback I get this time, if they say teh proof wasn't to the requirements I'll send it again, as a Raw-Tiff-Jpeg.   

I understand the rest from my previous posts so think that I have been learning, but it looks like I'm still stuck using 2 software packages to do one job

Oh well.  I haven't even opened the Nikon software yet  I can't be doing with learning another package to do the same thing!

---

Personelly I think the editor is talking from his rear end as at 300dpi, dimensions 4288 x 2848px. the image size is 14.3 x 9.5 inches which is a lot larger than is required for a full page spread ( not a double page). I have just supplied a image from the E-1 to a magazine for half page use that is smaller than this!

---

Paul
My glass is 4/3rds full :)

MY PBASE GALLERY

craftysnapper:

Personelly I think the editor is talking from his rear end as at 300dpi, dimensions 4288 x 2848px. the image size is 14.3 x 9.5 inches which is a lot larger than is required for a full page spread ( not a double page). 

You know it's funny but they are almost the exact words that I used when I received the call telling me what had been said (well, almost )

 

---

I think some magazines require larger resolution than normal printing sizes.  It's always a good idea to ask the magazine to send their submission criteria before sending stuff to them.  The extract below is from Montana Outdoors magazine:

Digital files. Please send 8-bit, high-resolution TIFF files on a CD or DVD. We don't accept RAW format files, as there are too many versions of RAW to accommodate into our workflow. We prefer digital files that have only little or no color correction or sharpening. Some of this work must be performed on our end, in order to optimize photos correctly for process-color magazine printing. We calibrate our color workflow and monitors to color keys provided by our printer, so it’s important that we receive images in a relatively untouched state.

Digital photos must meet minimum resolution requirements for printing. At minimum, we require a photo to be at least 8”x10” at 300 pixels per inch. Ideally, we prefer photos that are 11”x17” (a full 2-page spread in the magazine) at 360 pixels per inch. Since our magazine is printed stochastically, we require slightly higher resolution than standard line-screen printing. The bottom-line: the higher the resolution and size of your image, the larger we can feature it in our pages. Also, please include a printed sheet of thumbnail images along with your disk, for reference.

We do not return CDs and DVDs submitted to us unless specifically requested.

---

Thanks Keith, I have the criteria for a lot of magazines in the Freelance Year Book, with the "rejected" imag I was at the bottom of the pile so didn't get any information through.  I didn't even know that they wanted it for a full page at first.  Serves them right for not passing this information on.  Even if they had I'd have sent the same file.

Anyway, the two other images that I sent as proofs have been accepted (as proofs) so here's hoping that they make the cover...   I'll expect, and request, a full criteria if they want the full size version of the image. 

Cheers,

Martin.

 

---

Good luck with the mag, Martin.  Not easy to get stuff accepted by mags these days, so well done, mate.

---

martin_hurton:

I understand that the resize for web option removes the metadata, it was the only way I could hink of making the file size any smaller

Ok, so after saving in CO4 as a Jpeg, 70%, 500px I open it in PS7 (currently 240k) and then select save as, and the file size is about half already (now 140k when leaving quality at 12/maximum).  So that tells me that PS7 is compressing the image again, even further. 

If so then I have now compressed the image more than the original 70% so this must be reducing the quality?   

Now, converting the image at 100% size and 100% quality to a Jpeg in CO4 (file size 22MB) , then opening in PS7, then resizing and "saving as" and setting the image quality to 7 (they say 7, or 70% as options) gives me a file size of 55k, which is less than any of the above so would seem the correct method (although I still feel like I'm compressing the image twice).

I can't open RAW files with PS7 so have to use CO4 to make the conversion to Jpeg regardless. 

I guess I should just do a straight 100% conversion then resize and save at quality 7 in PS.  Fair enough.  Wouldn't it have been nice not to have to use Photoshop at all though!!  It's an expensive piece of software just for resizing!

 

The other image that was rejected (the first) was sent as a JPEG for an A4 single page usage, hence my confusion as to why the image wasn't good enough resolution. 

Cheers OB.

 

Hi

I thought if you used save as in elements you get a choice to lower teh quality, slider bar from 1 to 12 ? if you select lower quality that will reduce the image size.

Didnt know about the save as web remives the meta data thank you for that

Keith

---

www.milkfrog.com

Thanks Keith, I'm actually going out taking images specifically for magazines at the moment, so straight documentry shots, or with plenty of space for text etc.  Trying to picture what the editors might want. It's good to have some focus (excuse the pun). 

Keith (other Keith) yes, the quality slider does reduce the file size if you select a lower quality.  The headache comes when an editor or stock agency specifically requests a file under a certain size, but with a quality of 7.  Sometimes (a lot for me!) these two things don't go together and my image is still to large  

Save for web is the option I tend to use for forum uploads, and even to my website.  Anywhere were the image is only viewed on screen and doesn't require the metadata.  I don't think that qulaity level 7 gives good results though so I leave it at 12 for my own stuff.

---

The trouble with Save For Web, is it doesn't retain the exif details or other details like address and copyright info you might otherwise imbed in the file.  Surely it's much better to resize the file to your desired image size in Photoshop and then Save As.  That way, at least, you retain all embedded info.

---

martin_hurton:

Thanks Keith, I'm actually going out taking images specifically for magazines at the moment, so straight documentry shots, or with plenty of space for text etc.  Trying to picture what the editors might want. It's good to have some focus (excuse the pun). 

Keith (other Keith) yes, the quality slider does reduce the file size if you select a lower quality.  The headache comes when an editor or stock agency specifically requests a file under a certain size, but with a quality of 7.  Sometimes (a lot for me!) these two things don't go together and my image is still to large  

Save for web is the option I tend to use for forum uploads, and even to my website.  Anywhere were the image is only viewed on screen and doesn't require the metadata.  I don't think that qulaity level 7 gives good results though so I leave it at 12 for my own stuff.

Hi

ok, now I see the problem.

---

www.milkfrog.com

OK.......some facts as I see them

1. Many editors don't know anything about file specifications. That's not necessarily their job (unless they are art ed). I don't think I've encountered one who understood the difference between dpi and ppi (which is kind of important for half screen printing). Often they will say "it must be 300 dpi" OK - what size? "300 dpi...". However, they may have very good reasons for asking for unreasonably big files. They may also not be able to explain them.

2. The more times you save a file as a jpeg the more "damage" you are doing. Even if you can't see it you are sending it to people who may have been trained to look for it (even though it's not relevant....)

3. If you compress a file at jpeg "level 7" then the final file size depends on (1) pixel dimensions and (2) image content. If you are regularly breaching guidelines then it could be the image content. For example a lot if close black and white diagonal lines (like a rocky mountain scene) compress very badly. It's your choice - a trained monkey (or an automated script) could spot a file that was 220K when it should be 200. I'm not sure anybody could tell the difference between level 6 and level 7 compression. Your call.

4. In a small file the metadata and other junk can become a significant proportion of the file size. Like half. Save for web is good at stripping all the junk. Since it's a fixed amount of data it's not so important in big files.

5. If they want to print your picture, they will print your picture. However if they have a stack of pictures and any of them will do (the Ikea principle) then you'd better be following the letter of the law.

---

Kidography. It's like photography. But more fun.