snubbr.com

emailing high quality pictures
I just got back into the photography business. Previously worked strictly with film. Now I have a Nikon d300 with a d80 for backup. Been doing documentary pictures for a construction project and burning them to disks hand delivering them to the client. Now, the client wants me to start sending (emailing) some over to the website developer. What would be the best way to do this? Of course the files are huge.

Is there a standard way that these people (web developers and news papers) want to get them? Oh I use Photoshop 6 (I know, I need to upgrade) if that makes a difference.TIA..

Comments (21)

The best thing to do is talk to the website developer and ask them what they need. Of course that goes for sending any kind of file to anyone. Never assume there is a standard way - everybody does things a little different..

5beatles wrote:.

I just got back into the photography business. Previously workedstrictly with film. Now I have a Nikon d300 with a d80 for backup.Been doing documentary pictures for a construction project andburning them to disks hand delivering them to the client. Now, theclient wants me to start sending (emailing) some over to the websitedeveloper. What would be the best way to do this? Of course the filesare huge. If I have to resize, am I going to lose quality? Do I zipthem? And how about for print? I also have to send some tonewspapers.



Some cool cats that can use your helphttp://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org.

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word...

Comment #1

A possible alternative would be to upload the images to a site such as Pbase and supply the link in an email. That way, there's no need to resize/zip or perform any other function that may degrade the images.......

Comment #2

Have you tried using http://www.mediafire.com/.

It is a free ftp site that you upload your file to and a link to the person you want to receive it. They use the link to retrieve the file you sent..

Stevehttp://vette74.smugmug.com..

Comment #3

5beatles wrote:.

I just got back into the photography business. Previously workedstrictly with film. Now I have a Nikon d300 with a d80 for backup.Been doing documentary pictures for a construction project andburning them to disks hand delivering them to the client. Now, theclient wants me to start sending (emailing) some over to the websitedeveloper..

If they are to be used on the website, a large high resolution file is not necessary. Just ask him for the specs that he needs for the website..

What would be the best way to do this? Of course the filesare huge. If I have to resize, am I going to lose quality? Do I zipthem? And how about for print?.

Ask the printer what they require?.

I also have to send some tonewspapers. Is there a standard way that these people (web developersand news papers) want to get them?.

No, I would ask them based on what they intend to do. Then you can figure out how to crop, resize, export, etc..

Oh I use Photoshop 6 (I know, Ineed to upgrade) if that makes a difference.TIA..

Comment #4

Yes, zip them together, use NO zip compression if you can, and use mediafire, or try Sharpcast:.

Http://www.sharpcast.com/products/photos/.

Sharpcast will make an album and will keep the full res photo for 30 days free before resizing it down, in their free plan..

(Untested by me)..

Comment #5

Try Pandohttp://pando.com/.

There's a free consumer version and then a pro version. Files up to 1 gig. Basically, you upload to Pando, they store the file for 7 days, and send a message to whoever you sent it to, and they download it from Pando..

I've used it and it works great. You do have to download the uploader but it's no problem. Mac and Win...

Comment #6

The layout of a JPEG file is already pretty compressed (lossy compression)..

When you try and compress via ZIP, etc (lossless), you will usually INCREASE the file size due to the overhead of the compression information..

As another poster said, if you do ZIP, do it w/o compression..

Comment #7

Frank perry wrote:.

Http://www.yousendit.com/Password protected,they advise the recipientgood service..

Yes. I like the YouSendIt service. Across a period of 3 years it has been a lot more reliable for me than than trying to squirt files into my clients' -own- FTP servers.Regards,Baz..

Comment #8

Since it sounds like you're getting back into professional photography, instead of the half-solutions of email or web-storage, I would say pay for a large ftp site of your own from one of the various storage providers. You can get quite a lot of space for a low price, and you can use it how you want and don't have to worry about limited space or time-limits. Once you have that, you can subdivide your storage into various client directories, username and password them, and then provide that info to your client so they can only get access to the files and folders you want..

Doing this will save you endless headaches considering most email providers don't let you email files of any large size, and free online storage sites are rife with caveats...

Comment #9

As you are discovering the hard way, being a photography professional in 2008 requires a pretty good knowledge of digital imaging. Anyone who has been out of touch for a few years is going to struggle initially. The answer is simple enough - get yourself some introductory level books on the subject. I can't recommend specific titles because I came into all this by a different route, but I'm sure others can..

As a couple of others have already said, ask people what they want. But you need to be able to ask the right questions and understand the answers, and more importantly *you* will need to take the initiative when the person at the other end doesn't know what they want. You'll be amazed how often people - major publishers even - ask for a "300 dpi JPEG" - a sure sign that they don't have a clue..

You said you are using Photoshop 6 - does that mean you are working on a computer of that vintage? Eeek..

Regarding sending large files - yes this is a problem. Services like yousendit.com are great for occasional use or to get you off to a quick start, but they are not really the answer long term. Your own ftp space is ideal - maybe you don't know what that involves - if so, add it to the list of stuff to research!..

Comment #10

Steve Balcombe wrote:.

As you are discovering the hard way, being a photography professionalin 2008 requires a pretty good knowledge of digital imaging. Anyonewho has been out of touch for a few years is going to struggleinitially. The answer is simple enough - get yourself someintroductory level books on the subject. I can't recommend specifictitles because I came into all this by a different route, but I'msure others can..

As a couple of others have already said, ask people what they want.But you need to be able to ask the right questions and understand theanswers, and more importantly *you* will need to take the initiativewhen the person at the other end doesn't know what they want. You'llbe amazed how often people - major publishers even - ask for a "300dpi JPEG" - a sure sign that they don't have a clue..

Good Point and very good recommendation!.

You said you are using Photoshop 6 - does that mean you are workingon a computer of that vintage? Eeek..

Regarding sending large files - yes this is a problem. Services likeyousendit.com are great for occasional use or to get you off to aquick start, but they are not really the answer long term. Your ownftp space is ideal - maybe you don't know what that involves - if so,add it to the list of stuff to research!..

Comment #11

Go ahead and ask the Web developer. If he's good, he'll let you know that he doesn't need much. I'd send him images in the 150k -200k range..

For a non photographer website, I compress j-pegs to around 30% or more for fast loading images. Also the images are usually no more than 500 pixels on a side, but can be up to 800..

You can send them a 5 times that quality and still email them fast. I'd send the developer the images this way and ask in that email if he wants better or worse quality from what you sent. I'd include in the email the names of the files, the pixel size, and the file size of each image. I also include load times at 28kbs. All that info is supplied by Photoshop..

I'd copy the client on the email. He probably got tired of the huge images you sent him..

I then would follow up with a CD of the full images by snail mail..

I have a little webpage up about web graphics here.http://www.guidenet.net/resources/webgraphics.html..

Comment #12

Steve Balcombe wrote:.

You said you are using Photoshop 6 - does that mean you are workingon a computer of that vintage? Eeek..

Ha ha! No, at least I have a Dell I purchased in 2007. BUT, I may be thinking Apple soon..

Regarding sending large files - yes this is a problem. Services likeyousendit.com are great for occasional use or to get you off to aquick start, but they are not really the answer long term. Your ownftp space is ideal - maybe you don't know what that involves - if so,add it to the list of stuff to research!.

This is kind of a unique situation. I actually got back into photography because of a great opportunity with a particular large, important client. I may even end up on their payroll. This is also new to me, as I've always freelanced. In any case, whether I'm their employee or if I'm only servicing this one client, would it still be recommended I look into my own ftp space?..

Comment #13

When I had to email to a newspaper last week, I saved the raw files as highest quality jpeg, resized by just changing the dimensions of the images on PS, zipped them (not sure if I used compression or not, as I used the zip wizard) and sent them. Did I make any mistakes along the way there? Would any of those things have compromised the images? The paper just told me the larger the better...

Comment #14

Well, quality should be good, but obviously image size will be compromised. If they're not big enough for the paper, they can't just size them up and still have them look decent, even when saved at the highest quality...

Comment #15

5beatles wrote:.

... In any case, whether I'm theiremployee or if I'm only servicing this one client, would it still berecommended I look into my own ftp space?.

Hard to say without knowing a lot more about how it will all work out - and I guess you don't know that yourself yet. But on balance probably yes, and it won't cost much to see how it works out...

Comment #16

5beatles wrote:.

When I had to email to a newspaper last week, I saved the raw filesas highest quality jpeg, resized by just changing the dimensions ofthe images on PS,.

Have you worked out the difference between changing the image size in Photoshop with the 'Resample Image' box checked and unchecked?..

Comment #17

5beatles wrote:.

No....

{grin}.

Ok then here's the answer..

Imagine an image which is 900 x 600 pixels and 100 ppi (pixels per inch, sometimes called dpi/dots per inch). Hopefully it will be obvious that the image is 9 inches by 6 inches..

If you change the image size without resampling, the only thing that Photoshop does is to change the information in the image header - it makes *no* change to the image itself. So you could change it to 3 inches by 2 inches at 300 dpi. Can you see that is still 900 x 600 pixels? - so the image data is unchanged. Perhaps you can also see that the header information is no more than a recommendation - you could easily take the 300 dpi 3x2 inch file and stretch it to - well, any size you wish, but at correspondingly lower resolution. Finally, perhaps you can see that it will make zero difference to file size since the data is exactly as before..

Resampling is the process of taking an image of a certain pixel size and making a new image with a different number of pixels. If it is smaller, data has to be discarded and obviously it can never be recovered. Take the same example again - reduce the 9 x 6 inch 100 dpi image to 3 x 2 inches but this time with resampling checked. The resulting image will be 300 x 200 pixels. Fine if that is what you wanted, but completely hopeless as a way of reducing file size for emailng because of the loss of total resolution..

Just for the record, it is also possible to resample to make a bigger image (also known as upsampling). This requires interpolation - basically guessing at new pixel values based on the surrounding pixels. It sounds like a pretty poor idea but it does actually have some value when making very large prints because it can disguise the lack of real data..

Hope that helps a bit. The newspaper which simply said the larger the better was spot on. That means don't downsample, especially if your only motivation is to reduce file size. It also suggests there is little point in resizing without resampling because it doesn't gain anything, but there is a lot to be said for supplying 300 dpi files because they will automatically appear at the correct size for printing in many publishing applicatons. It is a mystery to me why most modern DSLRs don't set the image headers to 300 dpi for in-camera JPEGs...

Comment #18

There's no need to send huge files to a website developer, although many people slack of noggin might think so..

Perhaps there's another person who wants big files, such as a poster designer..

But for a web site, the final image isn't going to be bigger than 1200 x 1500 pixels anyway..

BAK..

Comment #19

For explaining that. So, it's better to leave things large and upload them somewhere, whether to my own site or to a site such as yousendit or mediafile. Safe to say?..

Comment #20

5beatles wrote:.

For explaining that. So, it's better to leave things large andupload them somewhere, whether to my own site or to a site such asyousendit or mediafile. Safe to say?.

Generally yes, but:.

- If you *can* send it as an email attachment, then do so. The recipient will find it more convenient. In practice that means a limit of 5-10MB, depending on your ISP's attachment size limits and also theirs..

- As others have said, web site developers don't necessarily need huge files. But as an occasional web site developer myself I can tell you that I have more problems with files that are too small and/or poor quality, than I ever do with files that are too big. I *never* object to receiving a very big file - I'm happy to downsample them to my own preferences. One reason is that downsizing by just a few percent (say from a 200 px wide file sent by a well-meaning photographer to the 180 px that I happen to need for a particular application) often produces very poor results. It is much better (*MUCH* better) to downsample from the full size image. Another issue is that sharpening for web site use is not the same as sharpening for print.

Of course, you can always ask!..

Comment #21

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.