What IS classified as Hi Res

[Rikki-Lee]

Yep Basic question I know and I am sorry. But, if we do sell the client a "Hi Res" Digital Photo File, is there a minimum w x h and dpi we should be providing. Some sort of a fail Safe. I KNOW its vague - we dont know where and how they are printing them. Sometimes the files do only end up 2mb if they are a photo with lots of white space and dont have "much" in them etc. Is there a basic px width by height and dpi that we can use as a guide and KNOW we are giving clients a "hi res" file. So many times they come back and say, "I dont think this is a hi res file". And it could be 2500px x 5000px but 200dpi (off the top of my head made up numbers) and when they are ordering an enlargement (8x10 as example) )the system they order though  gives them an alarm that it is not hi res enough.  What is a response to that? 

Thanks Damien.

[Damien Symonds]

Oh yeah, this is so murky.

Basically, the bare minimum you can give them is six megapixels - roughly 2000x3000 pixels in size.  As long as the focus is excellent, that's big enough to print at any size.

However, by modern standards, 6MP is very small.  So most clients, if you gave them 6MP files, would wonder why they are so small.  In this modern age, you should usually be giving files of at least 10 megapixels.

19 minutes ago, Rikki-Lee said:

 Sometimes the files do only end up 2mb if they are a photo with lots of white space and dont have "much" in them etc.

Yes, this makes things even more confusing.  You know, and I know, that megabytes are meaningless.  As you say, if a photo has lots of white space or plain colour, its jpeg compression will be very effective, and the resultant file will be quite small.  Is a 2MB file necessarily a bad thing?  Of course not.  But it's damned hard to convince a client of that, isn't it?  Clients, especially male clients with small penises, expect much bigger file sizes.

21 minutes ago, Rikki-Lee said:

the system they order though  gives them an alarm that it is not hi res enough.  What is a response to that?

I don't know, honestly.  All you can tell them is the truth - that the file you've given them is suitable to be printed as big as a house if they wish, and that whatever dumb printer they've tried to use does not understand photographs.

I've talked about these issues a bit more in this article, and at length in the recent update to The Print Sharpening Class.

[Rikki-Lee]

Thank you you have confirmed everything I thought. It is murky and my logic was all in tact. And its the men with small penises who expect the biggest for file sizes and the control freak women who need to think they know better.

Thanks for just reassuring me I am not a bloody idiot and do know what I am doing :-)

[Rikki-Lee]

One last question for clarification... the DPI. If we are going for 6000 minimum mega pixels. the dpi part gets murkier. Are we aiming to have 6000 at 300dpi? Again I know it depends on what you are printing eg canvases are usually 150.  But bugger me I am over the technicalities of this side of things. If we have 6000 mp and 300 dpi or 72 dpi. is there are a massive change? (I think for screen purposes there is no difference, but for printing there is?)

[Damien Symonds]

The ppi is completely irrelevant.  Generally we leave it at 300, but it honestly could be 10000, or 72, or 13.  It's meaningless.  Only the pixel dimensions matter.

PPI only matters when you're doing the printing yourself.

[Rikki-Lee]

Fabulous! Awesome THHAAANK YOU!!!!!!!!

[Damien Symonds]

Again, though, ppi is one of the things that the poorly-endowed men and control-freak women will wig out about.  So stick to 300.

[Rikki-Lee]

Just now, Damien Symonds said:

Again, though, ppi is one of the things that the poorly-endowed men and control-freak women will wig out about.  So stick to 300.

BAHAHAHHAHA LOVE IT!