Wedding pic resolution

I'm with canvaslove the folks should have more than enough resolution to make 24x18 prints. I own a sign shop and we print canvas as well as prints clean up to vinyl wraps. If the file is full sized all you need is 150 DPI sending anymore resolution to the printer is a waste, and just takes longer to RIP.

The week we printed a 12x18 canvas from a very very old photo that is only 1.5" tall

Good luck

The fact that he agreed to give up the RAWs might have played into him reducing the size OR he just figured anything larger was unnecessary. It did save him a ton of space, especially if he keeps them backed up.

As for giving up the RAWs, that would make me wonder about him. But if he took good photos, then you can't argue with that. I NEVER give up RAWs. If you want to edit your own photos, TAKE your own photos; but NOBODY is editing MY photos. Yes they are photos of you, but I created them. I don't want my name attached to a photo that I took but someone else edited or someone else editing an amazing photo I took and taking credit for it.

How do you know he shot in lower res RAW? Perhaps what he provided to you was mRAW but he kept the full res files?

Can you down res raw files?

gonzogolf wrote in post #17311124
Can you down res raw files?

Good question. Never tried, but I would think it would be possible.

I can't imagine any use for retroactively vonverting raw to mraw or sraw.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17311167
I can't imagine any use for retroactively vonverting raw to mraw or sraw.

Well the use could be exactly what is described above... photographer dumbs down full res RAW images to fulfill customers request for RAW files but maintaining full res images for himself.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #17311226
Well the use could be exactly what is described above... photographer dumbs down full res RAW images to fulfill customers request for RAW files but maintaining full res images for himself.

For what conceivable reason? He's giving up raws, he's surrendered. Resizing them to retain some minor qualitative advantage on files he is unlikely to revisit is illogical.

Dunno. It's a hypothetical question. Your replies sound scientific.
LOL

The shots were excellent, he did a very good job and my son (and more importantly his new wife) are very happy. They are especially happy with the RAWS. His contract had in it to process x number , looked like about 100 prints. He took over 2 day period over 2000 shots (he did a photo day in NYC a few weeks prior to the wedding). The RAWS took up 3 bluray dvd's. Many of them were really nice candid shots that didn't make into the final print set that she is the happiest with. It will probably take them a month to review them all.

and as far as I know there is no way to alter resolution of CR2 RAW photos.

here is a good technical article on sRaw - and then at the end mRaw (this is a newer standard and maybe less well understood from a reverse engineering perspective)

http://dougkerr.net/Pu​mpkin/articles/sRaw.pd​f


in essence, sRaw sub-sambles every 2nd pixel, thus creating a file with data on 1/4 of the pixels (1/2 x 1/2), in a file 1/2 the size but in a lossless way and uses interpolation to 'guess' the information in the omitted pixels

to the human eye, on any reasonable sized PRINT, there would be absolutely no way to see the difference

for the pixel peakers out there, yes there is a loss of data

a pro shooting in this format for PRINTING purposes, for anything less than a very large poster there is NO issue

the issue, like that with the Sony A7s is one of cropping - if you are cropping 1/2 the image, and then creating 24x36 Prints (or bigger), this is only when it 'might' be noticeable on close inspection - and this is the reason why I decided not to go with a Sony A7s as a 3rd body for very low light wedding situations - because at 12 megapixels, if you crop 100% it does NOT scale to a sharp image on a larger print - uncropped it fine

what would be nice is two things:
- if you could down convert (I search a while ago and didn't find anything)
- if an mRaw or an sRaw would allow the camera's buffer to process more files (like Jpegs) before filling (I tried a while ago and there was no difference on my 5D3 - haven't checked my 7D2 yet - that alone would be a huge advantage of M or S Raw)

it sounds like the photographer knew what he was doing which is great news and the client is happy


paul

When I shot weddings with 5DIII is had the camera setup to store full raw files on the CF card and sRAW on the SD card.
I put the files into two folders one marked with the event ID plus an L and the other with same info and and S.
I then took the sRAW into lightroom for processing. It is faster with the smaller files because when building the full sized thumbnails for the develop module it uses the smaller pixel count.

Since the large and small raw files have the same name, if I needed to, I could take the XMP data from the small raw and apply it to the large raw. Or just copy and paste the LR parameters to the large raw in Lightroom develop module.

I guess is the photographer in question, has chosen to use sRAW just to keep file size manageable.

As for selling raw files I have no idea why he did. My clients get the collection I edit in JPG large enough to make whatever reasonably sized print they want. the outtakes they get in a smaller JPG format. No one has asked for raw. Including a photographer friend whose wedding I shot.

My view is that when someone hires me the are doing so based on my edited work so that what I deliver.

when I pay for photos I'm hiring for a specific deliverable that included raw...don't really care what everyone thinks, if i pay that much the photos are mine.... part of the deal.... there are a lot of very good photographers out there that will comply.

I have a horse picture, 20 x 30, hanging on my wall and one I take to my events that is a crop of a yearling out in the pasture. The purchaser of the yearling wanted a 30x40 of it, and it hangs on his wall. The original image has the entire horse, plus some field in it. The crop has only the horses head, a portion of legs and body - probably 10-20 percent of the entire frame. On a 15 megapxl crop camera. File output thru Lightroom. So I think the raw size given is plenty good enough on a well lit, tack sharp photo.

I never give raw files to customers, not even full size jpgs. There is never a copywright-who-owns-the-file issue as I am the only owner of the original raws.
I might make an exception for another photographer that I know well. JMHO

I am curious how DBA1954 would feel if a customer demanded raw files from him.

i'm not a professional photographer but I suspect I would have no problems with, the customer should own them.....