exporting different sizes & resolutions

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nomad

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
28
Please don't throw stones at me for reviving the age old it-never-can-be-answered "what is hi-res?" question, but somehow it's ended up in front of me again and i need to deal with it. Here goes: i need to create a private ftp "library" to hold a subset of my company's photos. I need to upload different "sizes" of photos to the library in order to accommodate the needs of different types of users. Minimally this might be one folder of "high-res" photos for print use, and another of "low-res" photos for web use:

(1) The "High-res" folder will contain options for use in high-end print magazines, etc., including large images for potential 'cover' shots, plus various sizes of "supporting" images for use in magazine articles. I'm thinking 3'' dpi+ (or could it be lower?) Probably mostly TIFs, but could include high res JPGs if that's what I have.

(2) The "Low-res" folder will contain images for use on partner & publisher websites, e-zines, web promotions, etc. I'm thinking only 72 dpi JPGs go here. Seems easy right?

Practical Use: Many people contact our main office and request specific images for whatever they are doing. I almost always have to send the request back for further clarification. The reason is always the same. Somebody wants us to send them "high-res photos of such-and-such", and I have to respond with some polite version of "please define what you mean by high-res?" Sometimes people say they want a high-res image, when what they really need is a bigger than usual low-res image (e.g. 1'24 pixels wide instead of 4'' pixels wide, but it's for the web, so they only need 72dpi). Ot they really do want a high-res photo, but it's only being used for a thumbnail type image, so it can be a small print size. Conversely, it's not uncommon for some of our vendors to tell us that they are "sending us some hi-res images for use in the upcoming magazine article", but they end up sending us 1'24 px wide images @72 dpi ("we thought we sent you the hi-res ones -- the other were a lot smaller"). Or they may send us 3'' dpi images thinking that 3'' dpi= hi-res -- but then I open them in Photoshop and find that the print size is 1.5" x 2". One "really high-res" image came to us @1326dpi, but it ended up that the print size was .6 inch x .4 inch.

Given the two kinds of user profiles (hi res/low-res) we need to serve, as well as the inconsistent sizes & resolutions that we sometimes receive our photos, is there any sort of logical system that I could use to determine (in LR) whether an image belongs in the "high-res" folder, or the "low-res" folder? My goal is to pre-stock a high-res folder and a low-res folder with ample appropriately sized images for each 'group' and then send users an ftp link to the appropriate library so they can help themselves to whatever we have that suits their needs.

In practical terms, the types of questions I'm facing are: if several photos are 1'5' px wide, but only 15' dpi -- do these go to the high-res folder or the low-res folder? How about the 3'' dpi TIFs that are only 45' px wide? Are they hi-res because they are 3'' dpi, even though they are pretty small images? I hope this is making sense to you all who are reading this. I'm admittedly tired, so I'll stop here, and clarify further if asked. Of course, I'm also wondering if there's a good way to use LR to help me 'process' this more quickly. I know I can use LR to output different sizes, but I'm wondering if there's a way to use LR to help me flag quickly/select which sizes go to which group or something like that. I have already managed to embed the width, height & resolution of each image in the filename using the format "filename_8''w_6''h_72dpi.suffix (either .tif or .jpg)", but reading each name and trying to mentally calculate whether width x height x dpi for each image = hi-res or low-res is a tedious and not very fun process.

Thank you for your help, anyone! If I could send you a slice of pizza over email I would :)
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Why not just catalog what you have at its native resolution? Unless you "up-res" the file in some PP action, its not going to get any higher resolution that its native format. If people need a lower resolution file, you can handle that on exporting the image. In conjunction wiht that, perhaps you should offer a clear, but limted set of choices to yoru users. One would be the file at its native resolution. Alternately, you could have an export for web sized images or for e-mail. Then state what the resolution would be for this second export. Now people have two clear choices. They can determine if the native resolution is high enough for their purposes. If neither of them works for your "customer", I am assuming they will be able to specifically articulate what they need.

--Ken
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nomad,

It seems to me as if you have set yourself up for an impossible task. You are wanting to sort images by their resolution, when resolution is not a primary attribute of an image. You could, for example, set all images to an arbitrary 3'' dpi (or 72 dpi) and it would not change the images at all. What's actually important, in my view, is the actual pixel dimensions of each image. Why not select an arbitrary cutoff of image size (say 8'' pixels in the long dimension) and sort your images by that value? Those that have more than 8'' pixels go in one bin (call it hi-res if you need to) and those that have fewer than 8'' go in the other.

Alternatively, make two copies of each image, one with the resolution set to 3'' ppi to go into the hi-res folder and one with the ppi set to 72 ppi to go into the low-res folder. Then, change your image naming scheme to include the display image size, in inches at that resolution, of each image. That way, the customers would really know what they are getting. Random thoughts; good luck,
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'll ratify what Bruce and Ken say.

1) First, the power of Lr is to avoid doing exactly what you're talking about. Lr is much more suited to ad hoc, on-demand production of such derivative files. But on re-reading your post, I see you're trying provide your end-users a smorgasbord as opposed to an ala carte menu.

2) DPI/PPI has no real bearing in this circumstance. Resolution is effectively measured in pixels, period. How many mega-pixels is the image composed of? That's the practical definition, (x pixels wide) times (y pixels tall).

DPI comes into play only for matching output software to a specific output device.
You've alluded to this in your original post. A 1''' dpi image with a rez of 6''x48' pixels is not hi-rez. A 192'x12'' image at 1 dpi, (envision an HD Jumbotron down at the stadium) is going to seem pretty hi-rez.

[Delete a bunch of pedantic DPI stuff]

I expect most of your requests look something like this:
Some people are going to want something for the video display, such as web page, or slide show. Size this at about a mega pixel or so.

Some people are going to want to print something. Size this at the native camera resolution.

Leave the DPI/PPI in the hands of the end-user. If they understand it, fine, you're done. If they don't, it doesn't really matter what you've sent them, you're right back in la-la land trying to hand-hold and produce custom one-offs, and all your carefully laid plans .........
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nomad said:
...for use in high-end print magazines, etc
Click to expand...
I too support the answers you received so far and particularly Brad's mention of dropping any DPI related things.

Resolution is the number of pixels you can get; Final. You talk about high end magazines. In my opinion, if they really are, they will never bother about the DPI setting you set in the files you give them! Their only real interest is in the total number of pixels! From there they can make a decision if they have enough to print at a given size...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A huge "ditto" from me too, it's all sound advice. I come across this problem too often - i.e. clients not knowing what they need or what they are really asking for - and it can drive me demented; so it's up to you to make it as simple for them as possible (only last week I was submitting for a cover - 'a high resolution file that must be more than 1Mb' - that's all I got!).

I would suggest perhaps having a readme file or an about or info page to refer to, that has technical info put simply so they can be a bit more informed about their demands.

And because hi-res/lo-res is confusing and means different things to different people, name your folders by the function your clients are most familiar with, i.e. (for) Online (use), Print, Media, etc. Images in each would be at the appropriate ppi value (ppi on screen translates to dpi in print) and the file name would contain the dimensions appropriate for that medium at that resolution - and you're partly there with your naming standard, plus some of the advice above.

Good luck!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
thanks to the responders. i appreciate all of your comments and will try to learn from them. i am coming to this from a web design background as opposed to a photography background, so it's helpful to learn from people who I'm guessing must use this software pretty regularly & know a lot more about the photography angle than I do.

also, stasber, you helped me out a while back on another topic (i'm still working on that one, so far so good), and i appreciate your feedback again here. each time you respond your comments suggest that you have an understanding of people who may be coming to LR from a background more like my own. i'm grateful for all of the comments from everyone, but your take on things always helps me to bridge the gap between the realities of my world and how things may work differently in the professional photo world. many thanks to all.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nomad;284'' said:
also, stasber, you helped me out a while back on another topic (i'm still working on that one, so far so good), and i appreciate your feedback again here. each time you respond your comments suggest that you have an understanding of people who may be coming to LR from a background more like my own. i'm grateful for all of the comments from everyone, but your take on things always helps me to bridge the gap between the realities of my world and how things may work differently in the professional photo world. many thanks to all.
Click to expand...
You're very welcome, glad I could help. Though I sometimes shoot for profit it's not my profession; I just have a hard time trying to crunch through stuff to get a grip on it! Whilst the world is not flat, it's not square either and has many nooks and crannies that make it all more interesting! ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top