Understanding file sizes?

[Dieselrider]

Dear Abby I need help!
I am using a canon digital rebel xti shooting highest quality jpeg shots. The file size will be about 4 megabyte in size with a resolution of 3,888 by 2592 pixels. If I shoot in raw only I would get less than half as many photos on my memory card so I am assuming the file size is twice as big but, I see some stock photo and magazine submission requiring file sizes at 40- 50 megabytes in size for high resolution submissions. I am confused as to what it takes to get that kind of file size and resolution in a photo to submit it? Are the photos being blown up to incredible size?

Sign me a dumbfounded Dieselrider:hail:

 

[Mav]

The magazine and stock photo stuff are probably looking for ultra high resolution scans from medium or large format film, like 4x5". A 35mm film is good for about 24 megapixels. I guess the $5000 Canon 1Ds MkIII is about up at that level now. 35mm and smaller formats (like most DSLRs) are for amateurs.

 

[Big Mike]

A RAW file is the data from the sensor...not actually the image (well, it is and it isn't). A JPEG from the camera, has already been compressed to save file size.

When you open/convert a RAW file and turn/save it into an uncompressed image file (TIFF for example), you will find that the file size is probably quite large.

I really don't know why they want a specific file size, what they should be asking for is a specific image size (in pixels). Maybe it's their way of weeding out people who would try to send JPEG that they get from their 9 MP digi cams....I don't know.

 

[Big Mike]

The magazine and stock photo stuff are probably looking for ultra high resolution scans from medium or large format film

I would think that a lot of shooters who actually work for magazines and such...are using DSLR cameras...so I doubt that medium or large format film would be a requirement.

 

[Socrates]

I would think that a lot of shooters who actually work for magazines and such...are using DSLR cameras...so I doubt that medium or large format film would be a requirement.

Hasselblad's H3D series with 39 MP!

 

[Big Mike]

That's more resolution than any magazine needs...but would certainly be nice to have.

 

[nicfargo]

you can use different plugins in CS3 to achieve a larger file for submission. There really is no reason for these magazines wanting ridiculous sizes like these. Even if they were putting these images on a billboard, with certain algorithms you'd be able to make a decent print of that size...plus billboard quality usually isn't that great up close.

 

[djrichie28]

I would assume they are looking for photos that have never been compressed to jpg ever. All I can think of is shoot Raw and save as Tiff after post production.

Maybe make some contact and ask what the file format should be. I doubt they would want a jpg that size.

Good luck though

 

[totalmajor]

something like the leaf aptus 75?
lol

 

[usayit]

Each publication has different requirements depending on the final print.

Since the 1D markII was a very popular professional camera, I think it is safe to say that many will accept high quality 8mp images for many magazines.

I would imagine newspapers are even less requirements.

Hassy's with high megapixel count would probably be more along the lines of advertisement companies that are looking for a variety of final prints... from magazine spreads to newspapers all the way up to poster size ads (to billboards).

 

[Mav]

I would think that a lot of shooters who actually work for magazines and such...are using DSLR cameras...so I doubt that medium or large format film would be a requirement.

Arizona Highways magazine is now finally accepting digital submissions from people, but I think you need a 1DsMkIII. They print giant spreads in their magazine at 600 dpi, and lower resolution Bayer interpolated DSLRs just don't cut it. For fashion/clothing type magazines or the cover of Cosmo or InStyle, a lot of them use medium or large format digital. For news type stuff where you need portability and need to "be there" more than anything else, yeah I'm sure most use DSLRs. You don't need ultra high resolution for newspapers, news websites, or most journalistic type work.

 

[Dieselrider]

I got this from over on Photosource and it explains alot about what I have been having questions with. I thought maybe it could help someone on here too if anyone has similar questions.

Re: File sizes
Posted by: jimwest (IP Logged)
Date: February 20, 2008 04:59PM
The 3-4MB file size is the size after the JPG compression. If you open the picture in PhotoShop and go to "Image Size," you'll see that the (uncompressed) document size is actually close to 30MB.
If you have a good original file, you should be able to easily enlarge a file this size to 50MB using the "Image Size" box in PhotoShop.
Shooting in RAW is a separate issue. Most professional photographers (except for news photographers for whom time is critical) shoot in RAW because it gives greater latitude in processing the image. If you do choose to shoot in JPG, be sure to convert the file to a TIFF before working on it, because every time you save a JPG file you lose quality that cannot be recovered. After making whatever adjustments you want on a TIFF file, you can convert it back to a (smaller) JPG file for easier transmission.
Jim West

It makes sense to me now all I have to do is learn the hows and practice it. Thanks guys.



:lmao:

 

[domromer]

Arizona Highways magazine is now finally accepting digital submissions from people, but I think you need a 1DsMkIII. They print giant spreads in their magazine at 600 dpi, and lower resolution Bayer interpolated DSLRs just don't cut it. For fashion/clothing type magazines or the cover of Cosmo or InStyle, a lot of them use medium or large format digital. For news type stuff where you need portability and need to "be there" more than anything else, yeah I'm sure most use DSLRs. You don't need ultra high resolution for newspapers, news websites, or most journalistic type work.

I actually I know a few guys who shoot for AZ highways, most are still shooting with RB67 or field cameras. I'd love to get a pic in there. It would be like a dream come true.