Professional photographers? ;)www.phaseone.com/ Some of these babies throw out files at 180mb, though they tend to be the preserve of pros who shoot for Vogue or hire one to do a billboard
The more detail you can capture the more detail you have to play with. I can get asked seemingly ridiculous image requirements, and ultimately it's a question of if you can, then why not? There is always something quite amusing about saving a 100mb .tif for a publisher
Fun tiems :)
(The more detail you can capture the more detail you have to play with. I can get asked seemingly ridiculous image requirements, and ultimately it's a question of if you can, then why not? There is always something quite amusing about saving a 100mb .tif for a publisher
Fun tiems :)
Jahled Three shades of black,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 19:40,
archived)
What sort of resolution pics do you usually take of your animals?
zoldergoose,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 19:43,
archived)
Resolution?That's a meaningless concept in the digital age!
Note how it doesn't really feature on DSLRs other than random settings (Nikon at 300, Canon at 240, Sony at 180), and doesn't appear anywhere in Photoshop other than resizing images. About twice a year I have the same pointless argument with someone I work with when they insist on a minimum of 300 dpi, and I try and explain it's completely meaningless, because some publisher we're using doesn't understand their job
Such arguments inevitably end with me supplying something completely meaningless like a jpg with a 'resolution' of 24000 or as meaningless as I can get Photoshop to do. They don't seem to understand it's their printer where they set the resolution, not the digital data fed through it
(Note how it doesn't really feature on DSLRs other than random settings (Nikon at 300, Canon at 240, Sony at 180), and doesn't appear anywhere in Photoshop other than resizing images. About twice a year I have the same pointless argument with someone I work with when they insist on a minimum of 300 dpi, and I try and explain it's completely meaningless, because some publisher we're using doesn't understand their job
Such arguments inevitably end with me supplying something completely meaningless like a jpg with a 'resolution' of 24000 or as meaningless as I can get Photoshop to do. They don't seem to understand it's their printer where they set the resolution, not the digital data fed through it
Jahled Three shades of black,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 19:46,
archived)
indeedi really loved the days of film when i would blast through 10 rolls of 220, have it professionally scanned, then sent to a magazine printer who didn't have a clue :/
( elbow,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 20:14,
archived)
HahahaIt actually makes me chuckle just thinking about the head-in-hand moments I've had over the years dealing with clueless people, adjusting something to 25000 in Photoshop just to fucking please them when all words are lost, supplying that, and never hearing any feedback along the lines "of like wow man!"
And seeing something in print exactly how it would of been if I had left it at 72 DPI (my old 40D default)
(And seeing something in print exactly how it would of been if I had left it at 72 DPI (my old 40D default)
Jahled Three shades of black,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 20:23,
archived)
its all bureaucratic wankat the end of the day i get paid the same so i gave up caring about it long ago :D
( elbow,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 20:35,
archived)