Photography Guide: Best Image Size for Clients | Ask David Bergman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лип 2024
- Today's questions are from Eduardo R., “I’m confused about image resolution when opening a RAW file in Photoshop. What is the purpose of the image resizing menu at the bottom of the screen when the photo opens in Camera RAW?" And Tendai S., “Hi David. Thank you for doing what you do. I’d like to know what size images I should deliver to my clients?”
Go to www.AskDavidBergman.com to submit your own photo question, see David's gear list, and view the episode archive.
Canon Explorer of Light David Bergman is a NYC-based tour photographer and educator with more than 30 years of experience. Currently the official tour photographer for Luke Combs, he has also traveled the world with artists including Bon Jovi, Barenaked Ladies, and Sarah McLachlan. As a sports photographer, he covered numerous Olympics, Super Bowls, and World Series games and has 13 Sports Illustrated covers to his credit. A passionate public speaker and photo educator, Bergman produces the bi-weekly show "Ask David Bergman" on the Adorama UA-cam channel and hosts his unique "Shoot From the Pit" live concert photography workshops.
00:00 Intro
01:16 Two sizes of digital images
01:29 Camera sensor resolution
02:58 JPEG size selection
03:55 Sensor size and resolution
04:28 Are bigger pixels better?
05:04 Pixels per inch PPI
05:48 Photoshop image size
07:33 Why change image size
07:54 Resolution for printing
08:15 Viewing distance
09:01 Photoshop camera RAW image resizing menu
09:50 Image size for client delivery
10:57 Megabytes vs megapixels
11:52 Outro
SUBSCRIBE AND BE PART OF THE ADORAMA FAMILY:
➥ / adoramatv
__________________________________
Be the first to shop our great deals and sales by signing up for emails from Adorama!
www.adorama.com/MyAccount/Login
__________________________________
✘ PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT USED:
Canon R3 Mirrorless Camera Body
www.adorama.com/car3.html?utm...
Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens
www.adorama.com/car7020028f.h...
Manfrotto 2909 Super Clamp w/Reversible Short Stud
www.adorama.com/bg2909.html?u...
Manfrotto 244 Variable Friction Magic Arm with Camera Platform
www.adorama.com/bg2929.html?u...
Prograde Digital 512GB SDXC UHS-II V90 Memory Card
www.adorama.com/pgrsd512gbck....
#imagesize #photosize #adorama
__________________________________
❐ LET'S GET SOCIAL ❏
➥ TikTok / adoramanyc
➥ Facebook / adorama
➥ Instagram / adorama
➥ Twitter / adorama
❐ MORE ADORAMA ❏
➥ Shop www.adorama.com/
➥ Blog www.adorama.com/alc/
➥ Adorama Events / @adoramaevents
__________________________________
Get more information about David's #shootfromthepit live concert photography workshops at
www.ShootFromThePit.com
One-on-one consultations with David:
www.askdavidbergman.com/1on1/
Follow David on Instagram:
/ davidbergman
__________________________________
THANKS SO MUCH FOR WATCHING! - Навчання та стиль
"a small file size of only a few megabytes" - man times have changed. I remember being a kid interning doing web design in the early 2000s and aiming to keep pages under 500kb.
That was a good one.. Only. I think you should physically show people examples what you mean.. I think they would get it better
Great explanation. I travel to many countries & cities. File size is a big issue when backing up your photos. Internet speeds vary so much that I carry SSD drives to backup my photos. And don't like to depend on one SSD, so I use two.
Great video. Thank you so much.
Smart guy and clearly explained topic. 👍
To answer the question about why you would want to shoot at smaller resolutions:
I shoot youth sports tournaments, and sometimes we end a full day of shooting with 30k+ photos across several cameras. It's not feasible to shoot at full resolution if the goal is to cover a four-day tournament and turnover photos as fast as possible. Even when printing on-site, most of that extra resolution would not be used
Makes sense.
Great information... Thank you!
Great info as always. Loving my 4000x6000 Canon R6 Mk ii
Thanks for the info😊
For reference: imagine you have an excellent monitor at 4K resolution. That's 3,840*2,160 (8.3MP) and - Pythagoras - has a diagonal resolution of ~4,406. At a 27" diagonal screen size, this then gives 163.18 PPI resolution. PPI are a linear unit and to see a two times improvement we need to double the linear unit (which works as long as your eyes have enough resolution - 20/20 or better/worse vision). As "MP" are an "area unit" ("squared") in order to see an image twice as sharp, you need to square the linear unit. Double X*Y=MP linearly gives you 2X*2Y=4MP.
So, 100MP is twice as good to the human eye as 25MP - ceteris paribus and assuming the lenses and processing/depiction chain can properly deal with the best in a comparison.
That 163.18 PPI used to be 96 in the 1990s and if you look at that back again, you may not like it any longer. So what you need depends on what you are used to. Factor in the distance at which you (can) look at an image. You may look at your 27" display from 50..60 cm distance (about 20"..24"), but at half the distance you can easily pixel peep and at double that distance resolution is less important.
Note that in "digital" depiction or printing a large pixel at a higher DPI than PPI means that the software layers between your image file and the result, will "invent" dots that not just serve to build a tint, but also serve to blow up detail. How well this works, depends largely on the software layers (assuming the hardware can do it). Printing a 360PPI shot at 1,440DPI means that each pixel is built from at least 16 dots (PPI and DPI are linear and the 16 is "area").
You can leave the upscaling to your display or printer driver, in which case it is unqualified. Or alternatively you can do the up- or down-sampling in, say, Topaz Gigapixel AI, or Photoshop.
Also note that between pixels no void is assumed. In film photography, the assumption is that we have RGB at each coordinate, but the grains this works with are randomly dispersed in the are with empty space between them. Blow up means the grains get larger and the empty space becomes visible. This reduces saturation and of course we start to see grain. Upscaling or upsampling a digital image, however does not have that "empty space" (grain) problem. The noise in high-ISO (at low light) digital images, in most cases, is inadequate or failed raw processing or deBayerisation. With better deBayerisation software you get less Bayer noise (aka colour noise and/or luminance noise).
Noise in high-ISO images is a result of the physics of light, the design of the sensor (including the analogue-to-digital converter), the in-camera image processing and all subsequent steps. It's simplistic (and not correct) to blame it on poor deBayerisation or failed raw processing.
Your sensor detects (counts) the number of photons hitting it during the exposure. The number of photons collected by the site depends on several physical characteristics:
1) The intensity of the ambient light (brighter light = more photons).
2) The larger the lens aperture the more photons.
3) The longer the exposure the more photons.
4) The larger the photo site the more photons.
5) Random electrical noise - the “background” noise if you will.
Note I didn’t list ISO that’s because cameras achieve higher ISOs by amplifying the number of photons counted. Unfortunately, that also amplifies the noise - hence high ISO images are noisier; (but not as noisy as high-ISO films were grainy). To mitigate against high-ISO noise you can only control items 1, 2 & 3 of the above. The other two are dependent on the camera model.
This is where low-light high-ISO noise comes from.
Noise in a low light image is a result of collecting a relatively small number of photons; so low that the background noise becomes significant and is hence visible. The good news is that sensors continue to improve, and noise is becoming less of an issue. Higher ISO settings can be used whilst keeping the noise to acceptable levels.
The reason that cameras with large sensors have both better low light performance and greater dynamic range than cameras with smaller sensors is that larger photo sites collect more photons when all the other factors are constant. Hence a full-frame sensor camera will always be better in low light than a smartphone camera. The better the processing software (camera firmware, raw file converters, etc) the less noise is evident in the final JPEG or print. The phone manufactures might claim otherwise but don’t forget full-frame camera firmware coupled with Lightroom, Capture One or similar starts with better information, will out compute a cell phone and hence produce a technically better image with less noise.
Thanks so much.
Well explained in a short time, with the proper disclaimers. Where I have another opinion is in the use of terms like "pixel". Pixels - picture elements - have complete picture display properties. Therefore I would never call the photosites in the sensor pixels, but just photosites and we have no debate. The data elements in the raw file have incomplete display information and hence also do not qualify as pixels. The data elements in there are monochrome (mono=single, chrome=colour). These monochrome elements must be converted into RGB by inventing the missing colours and correcting the present colour in each data elements.
Only then I feel the use of the word pixel is justified - ready for display on screen or in print.
Is it then justified to talk about MegaPixels in the case of a camera? Yes and no. As I said before, not in the case of the sensor, However when the camera can do SOOC JPEG at the sensor's resolution then in a scholastic way, OK, it's not a plain lie.
Excellent presentation.
Would also be helpful to talk about compression and exporting files
Great explanation 👍
I deliver the photos in 2048x in jpg. It seems to do good on instagram. I often resize vertival pictufes to 4x5 so i came to see this.
Is it possible the second question was more specific to ratio, like 3:2, 4:5 etc? Love the video though. I'm often not sure about what ratio to use for purposes of delivery.
You just need to communicate with the client. Some have specific ratio needs (5X4 vertical for social media?) while others might want images "loose" so they have room to fit it into a print layout, for example. If not, then it's up to you to decide your crop and ratio for maximum impact. I recently did a video about that: ua-cam.com/video/TT8N3-OapBQ/v-deo.htmlsi=W2o2rXYUzrFVyXvP
So what would be the best resolution for Facebook and Instagram, for example. Mine always seem just a tiny bit blurry and not pin sharp after I post them…..
Can I then assume that if the delivery is not for print and “only” for display on-screen that ppi setting is irrelevant and that only vertical and horizontal resolution is relevant? That is, for instance exporting 3840x2160 if wanting to fill a 4K monitor screen?
I seem to remember at one time it was explained that since each sensor pixel has 3 color values in data the file size of the raw image with out any compression would be 3 times the image pixel size. 24 MP = 72 MB Does this seem to be valid ? Thanks for all of your presentations.
Would be useful if you did not confuse definition and definition
2048 on long edge...