Reading mode: Light Dark

Digital images for conventional print publication

  • Thread starter Thread starter Espanto
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
E

Espanto

Guest
I'm a Los Angeles based advertising photographer (manymany years) and I'm about to take the plunge into the digital world via a Nikon CoolPix 950. I'm not seeing a whole lot of info on the subject of actually taking an image and going to conventional graphic print design and printing (i.e. catalogs, brochures, etc.).

Will a 2 mb image really be sufficient for a high resolution rendering of up to a 5x7 size at printer's specifications of 1200 LPI? Is it really feasible to take a great headshot of a model or a tabletop product shot and get "Professional" level images that are even close to high-res drum scans we're doing now? I'm leery of putting aside my medium format Mamiya RZ's and Canon EOS 35's to actually try a project for a client.

Any info or links would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
-Espanto
[email protected]
 
Espanto said:
I'm a Los Angeles based advertising photographer (manymany years) and
I'm about to take the plunge into the digital world via a Nikon CoolPix
950. I'm not seeing a whole lot of info on the subject of actually taking
an image and going to conventional graphic print design and printing
(i.e. catalogs, brochures, etc.).

Will a 2 mb image really be sufficient for a high resolution rendering of
up to a 5x7 size at printer's specifications of 1200 LPI? Is it really
feasible to take a great headshot of a model or a tabletop product shot
and get "Professional" level images that are even close to high-res drum
scans we're doing now? I'm leery of putting aside my medium format
Mamiya RZ's and Canon EOS 35's to actually try a project for a client.

Any info or links would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
-Espanto
[email protected]
--
Espanto
Click to expand...
The 1200 x 1600 pixels of a 950 aren't going to make a full page image in Los Angeles Times Magazine the way the Mamiya will. 35mm Ektachrome 100 has a resolution of only 50 line pairs per millimeter no matter what lens you carve it with and that's only 1200 50% contrast details MAX across the short dimension of your 35 lens at f8 using a Nikon Micro Nikkor 55 on a good day with no wind and camera wiggle at 1/250th.

Point is: the 950's 5 x 7's are showing up all over the magazines in front of you and you don't even know it. No, they're not better than 35, just much more convenient, cheaper to shoot and do things like white balance to the Viper Room's patina of local color much better than film can. They print up to 7.5 x 10 on letter paper and pass the mom-can't-tell test. All of this is BS until you lay your own eyes on it.

Speaking of BS: Printers and their 1200 lpi--are they telling you that a 35mm shot is only good for a two inch by three inch print? That's the limit of the film thing. Take it into account when you decide.

-iNova (also in LA)
 
Hi Pete,

Thanks for your reply. It appears I goofed when I stipulated the printers LPI
.I meant 120 NOT 1200!
Sorry about that.

Fact is, I'e got a client right now that is a booger on "color" being right on the nose. I'm about to shoot his ceramic tiles for a catalog with a 35mm EOS...but I'm considering buying/trying the CoolPix 950 instead and perhaps saving/making some money on what it would cost for drum scanning.

Unfortunately, I'm finding a posting here and there regarding "not quite there" color of the color images the Nikon renders. You know as well as I that there3 are a myriad of things that can affect the final color on a printed piece in the final analysis. I just don't want it to be "my shots".

Your comments are invited.

-Espanto
Peter iNova said:
Espanto said:
I'm a Los Angeles based advertising photographer (manymany years) and
I'm about to take the plunge into the digital world via a Nikon CoolPix
950. I'm not seeing a whole lot of info on the subject of actually taking
an image and going to conventional graphic print design and printing
(i.e. catalogs, brochures, etc.).

Will a 2 mb image really be sufficient for a high resolution rendering of
up to a 5x7 size at printer's specifications of 1200 LPI? Is it really
feasible to take a great headshot of a model or a tabletop product shot
and get "Professional" level images that are even close to high-res drum
scans we're doing now? I'm leery of putting aside my medium format
Mamiya RZ's and Canon EOS 35's to actually try a project for a client.

Any info or links would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
-Espanto
[email protected]
--
Espanto
Click to expand...
The 1200 x 1600 pixels of a 950 aren't going to make a full page image in
Los Angeles Times Magazine the way the Mamiya will. 35mm Ektachrome 100
has a resolution of only 50 line pairs per millimeter no matter what lens
you carve it with and that's only 1200 50% contrast details MAX across
the short dimension of your 35 lens at f8 using a Nikon Micro Nikkor 55
on a good day with no wind and camera wiggle at 1/250th.

Point is: the 950's 5 x 7's are showing up all over the magazines in
front of you and you don't even know it. No, they're not better than 35,
just much more convenient, cheaper to shoot and do things like white
balance to the Viper Room's patina of local color much better than film
can. They print up to 7.5 x 10 on letter paper and pass the
mom-can't-tell test. All of this is BS until you lay your own eyes on it.

Speaking of BS: Printers and their 1200 lpi--are they telling you that a
35mm shot is only good for a two inch by three inch print? That's the
limit of the film thing. Take it into account when you decide.

-iNova (also in LA)
Click to expand...
 
With scanning in film you will come across color shifts too... so in the end it has to be adjusted before printed out to get almost the true color as the real tile will be. At least you are doing this to a hard paper catalog... try teaching that to someone who wanted their tiles on the web... first you get the color correct on your (color calibrated) monitor and then you visit the client's office and know he's screaming and yelling about something about the orange tiles looking like yellow tiles... then you get to their office and his monitor has this magenta cast on it as if it was going bad and he has no clue what you are talking about...

I'd say you'd need to work on the picture anyways but I wouldn't use the Nikon 950's just because it's average in that color area. Some of the newer Kodaks have better colors and possibly the upcoming Sony F505s and Oly SLR... it amazes me how much better they get each time a newer one comes out...

With image size.. are lines per inch (lpi) the same as dots per inch (dpi)? I always figured lines per inch are used in the traditional printing press jargon whereas dpi is a more up to date definition for the current printers and their technology...

So if it is so.. a 1600x1200 pixel image would be 1600/120 by 1200/120 and that's a 13.3x10 print size
Espanto said:
Thanks for your reply. It appears I goofed when I stipulated the printers
LPI
.I meant 120 NOT 1200!
Sorry about that.

Fact is, I'e got a client right now that is a booger on "color" being
right on the nose. I'm about to shoot his ceramic tiles for a catalog
with a 35mm EOS...but I'm considering buying/trying the CoolPix 950
instead and perhaps saving/making some money on what it would cost for
drum scanning.

Unfortunately, I'm finding a posting here and there regarding "not quite
there" color of the color images the Nikon renders. You know as well as I
that there3 are a myriad of things that can affect the final color on a
printed piece in the final analysis. I just don't want it to be "my
shots".

Your comments are invited.

-Espanto
Click to expand...
 
There doesn't seem to be a direct correlation (that I've officially heard of) between the DPI and LPI comparison. Your explanantion seems reasonable. Hopefully, someone will shed further light on this.

I'm reading all the controversy over the Sony lack of an optical viewfinder. I'm perplexed about their propritary type of "stick" memories. I don't want to get stuck with a "beta" fiasco of yesteryear if I'm gonna spend over a grand for a camera.

Right now, I'm inclined to shoot the product with conventional 35mm and have them "gang scanned". The lab has assured me that if I shoot them all lit exactly the same, they can tweak all the scans to an actual physical sample of tile in front of them. (Sigh), the sad part is, that I could easily buy the Nikon with what it is going to cost to drum scan these shots!

Any more comments? I appreciate the input!

-Espanto
Keat Lim said:
I'd say you'd need to work on the picture anyways but I wouldn't use the
Nikon 950's just because it's average in that color area. Some of the
newer Kodaks have better colors and possibly the upcoming Sony F505s and
Oly SLR... it amazes me how much better they get each time a newer one
comes out...

With image size.. are lines per inch (lpi) the same as dots per inch
(dpi)? I always figured lines per inch are used in the traditional
printing press jargon whereas dpi is a more up to date definition for the
current printers and their technology...

So if it is so.. a 1600x1200 pixel image would be 1600/120 by 1200/120
and that's a 13.3x10 print size
Espanto said:
Thanks for your reply. It appears I goofed when I stipulated the printers
LPI
.I meant 120 NOT 1200!
Sorry about that.

Fact is, I'e got a client right now that is a booger on "color" being
right on the nose. I'm about to shoot his ceramic tiles for a catalog
with a 35mm EOS...but I'm considering buying/trying the CoolPix 950
instead and perhaps saving/making some money on what it would cost for
drum scanning.

Unfortunately, I'm finding a posting here and there regarding "not quite
there" color of the color images the Nikon renders. You know as well as I
that there3 are a myriad of things that can affect the final color on a
printed piece in the final analysis. I just don't want it to be "my
shots".

Your comments are invited.

-Espanto
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Member said:
Right now, I'm inclined to shoot the product with conventional 35mm and
have them "gang scanned". The lab has assured me that if I shoot them all
lit exactly the same, they can tweak all the scans to an actual physical
sample of tile in front of them. (Sigh), the sad part is, that I could
easily buy the Nikon with what it is going to cost to drum scan these
shots!

Any more comments? I appreciate the input!

-Espanto
Click to expand...
If the lab is going to scan and then "tweak" the image after that with a physical sample. You could easily use a digital camera take the shots and tweak the images yourself. Seems it would be easier.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Douglas
 
Douglas Miyamoto said:
Member said:
Right now, I'm inclined to shoot the product with conventional 35mm and
have them "gang scanned". The lab has assured me that if I shoot them all
lit exactly the same, they can tweak all the scans to an actual physical
sample of tile in front of them. (Sigh), the sad part is, that I could
easily buy the Nikon with what it is going to cost to drum scan these
shots!

Any more comments? I appreciate the input!

-Espanto
Click to expand...
If the lab is going to scan and then "tweak" the image after that with a
physical sample. You could easily use a digital camera take the shots
and tweak the images yourself. Seems it would be easier.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Douglas
Click to expand...
Unless you are doing exact and we mean EXACT colorimetry of items to reproduced pages with EXACT inks and colorimetric tweaks off of the printed proofs at the press, the idea of EXACT has to have some tolerance.

Remember all that stuff in color class with the buff rectangle seen against black, white and blue surrounds and how it changed in brightness and hue?

To get the best electronic version, you simply can't start with anything other than a series of mid course corrections. Film isn't it. Film doesn't capture colorimetric perfection, not by a long shot.

When scanned it can be electronically adjusted so that particular tones meet zones of tolerance but that's as good as it gets, zones.

With an electronic camera that has a manual "white balance" you can at least get an image in which neutral gray is neutral and other colors fall into relativity. The Nikon has this feature and I don't know the other cameras that have it, too. Results are real good if you prepare this way and lots of folks don't, hence many "too blue" shadow shots under blue skies with the Auto white balance on. You may have seen the posts.

Shoot, then do what Douglas and the others said.

When I remember to use it, results are good.

Still, ya gotta lay your eyes on some prints to know what it really looks like. You can't look a fussy client in the eye and say, "Absolutely! I, er, think..."

-iNova
 
Peter iNova wrote:

I won't try to replicate the depth of knowledge and expertise expressed by Peter iNova and Ms Leat expressed here, however if you're terribly fazed

about price perhaps you might want to consider the 950 baby brother the 700 which has many/much of the latter's features @ nearly half the price you

also lose the zoom - maybe that's important? I use the 950 to jazz up my church website: http://homepage.virgin.net/irstchurch.rosemarystbelfast/ -
you may care to browse it.

Regards anyway Michael
Member said:
Douglas Miyamoto said:
Member said:
Right now, I'm inclined to shoot the product with conventional 35mm and
have them "gang scanned". The lab has assured me that if I shoot them all
lit exactly the same, they can tweak all the scans to an actual physical
sample of tile in front of them. (Sigh), the sad part is, that I could
easily buy the Nikon with what it is going to cost to drum scan these
shots!

Any more comments? I appreciate the input!

-Espanto
Click to expand...
If the lab is going to scan and then "tweak" the image after that with a
physical sample. You could easily use a digital camera take the shots
and tweak the images yourself. Seems it would be easier.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Douglas
Click to expand...
Unless you are doing exact and we mean EXACT colorimetry of items to
reproduced pages with EXACT inks and colorimetric tweaks off of the
printed proofs at the press, the idea of EXACT has to have some tolerance.

Remember all that stuff in color class with the buff rectangle seen
against black, white and blue surrounds and how it changed in brightness
and hue?

To get the best electronic version, you simply can't start with anything
other than a series of mid course corrections. Film isn't it. Film
doesn't capture colorimetric perfection, not by a long shot.

When scanned it can be electronically adjusted so that particular tones
meet zones of tolerance but that's as good as it gets, zones.

With an electronic camera that has a manual "white balance" you can at
least get an image in which neutral gray is neutral and other colors fall
into relativity. The Nikon has this feature and I don't know the other
cameras that have it, too. Results are real good if you prepare this way
and lots of folks don't, hence many "too blue" shadow shots under blue
skies with the Auto white balance on. You may have seen the posts.

Shoot, then do what Douglas and the others said.

When I remember to use it, results are good.

Still, ya gotta lay your eyes on some prints to know what it really looks
like. You can't look a fussy client in the eye and say, "Absolutely! I,
er, think..."

-iNova
Click to expand...
 
Michael wrote:

Website wrongly described is http://homepage.virgin.net/firstchurch.rosemarystbelfast/
Member said:
Peter iNova wrote:
I won't try to replicate the depth of knowledge and expertise expressed
by Peter iNova and Ms Leat expressed here, however if you're terribly
fazed
about price perhaps you might want to consider the 950 baby brother the
700 which has many/much of the latter's features @ nearly half the price
you
also lose the zoom - maybe that's important? I use the 950 to jazz up my
church website: http://homepage.virgin.net/irstchurch.rosemarystbelfast/ -
you may care to browse it.

Regards anyway Michael
Member said:
Douglas Miyamoto said:
Member said:
Right now, I'm inclined to shoot the product with conventional 35mm and
have them "gang scanned". The lab has assured me that if I shoot them all
lit exactly the same, they can tweak all the scans to an actual physical
sample of tile in front of them. (Sigh), the sad part is, that I could
easily buy the Nikon with what it is going to cost to drum scan these
shots!

Any more comments? I appreciate the input!

-Espanto
Click to expand...
If the lab is going to scan and then "tweak" the image after that with a
physical sample. You could easily use a digital camera take the shots
and tweak the images yourself. Seems it would be easier.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Douglas
Click to expand...
Unless you are doing exact and we mean EXACT colorimetry of items to
reproduced pages with EXACT inks and colorimetric tweaks off of the
printed proofs at the press, the idea of EXACT has to have some tolerance.

Remember all that stuff in color class with the buff rectangle seen
against black, white and blue surrounds and how it changed in brightness
and hue?

To get the best electronic version, you simply can't start with anything
other than a series of mid course corrections. Film isn't it. Film
doesn't capture colorimetric perfection, not by a long shot.

When scanned it can be electronically adjusted so that particular tones
meet zones of tolerance but that's as good as it gets, zones.

With an electronic camera that has a manual "white balance" you can at
least get an image in which neutral gray is neutral and other colors fall
into relativity. The Nikon has this feature and I don't know the other
cameras that have it, too. Results are real good if you prepare this way
and lots of folks don't, hence many "too blue" shadow shots under blue
skies with the Auto white balance on. You may have seen the posts.

Shoot, then do what Douglas and the others said.

When I remember to use it, results are good.

Still, ya gotta lay your eyes on some prints to know what it really looks
like. You can't look a fussy client in the eye and say, "Absolutely! I,
er, think..."

-iNova
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Good points from all!

In my studio, we often (not always) reference everything at 5,000 degrees Kelvin (sunlight) unless the client specifies they want something else. We use a Minolta Fash Color Computer. It literally reads the color temperature of the light source and you can dial in where you want to be....say, 3,600 degrees Kelvin (setting sun, orange/yellow). The computer then tells you what corrective gels get you there. How do you do this with the Nikon digital? What is the "reference" when you set the white balance? As you know, there is much deviation in brightness scales of white paper in the graphics industry. So what is "white"?

If my questions sound a bit offbeat, remember that I have yet to actually play with a Nikon 950 other than hold it at my local camera shop.

Thanks for your patience!

-Espanto
Peter iNova said:
Douglas Miyamoto said:
Member said:
Right now, I'm inclined to shoot the product with conventional 35mm and
have them "gang scanned". The lab has assured me that if I shoot them all
lit exactly the same, they can tweak all the scans to an actual physical
sample of tile in front of them. (Sigh), the sad part is, that I could
easily buy the Nikon with what it is going to cost to drum scan these
shots!

Any more comments? I appreciate the input!

-Espanto
Click to expand...
If the lab is going to scan and then "tweak" the image after that with a
physical sample. You could easily use a digital camera take the shots
and tweak the images yourself. Seems it would be easier.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Douglas
Click to expand...
Unless you are doing exact and we mean EXACT colorimetry of items to
reproduced pages with EXACT inks and colorimetric tweaks off of the
printed proofs at the press, the idea of EXACT has to have some tolerance.

Remember all that stuff in color class with the buff rectangle seen
against black, white and blue surrounds and how it changed in brightness
and hue?

To get the best electronic version, you simply can't start with anything
other than a series of mid course corrections. Film isn't it. Film
doesn't capture colorimetric perfection, not by a long shot.

When scanned it can be electronically adjusted so that particular tones
meet zones of tolerance but that's as good as it gets, zones.

With an electronic camera that has a manual "white balance" you can at
least get an image in which neutral gray is neutral and other colors fall
into relativity. The Nikon has this feature and I don't know the other
cameras that have it, too. Results are real good if you prepare this way
and lots of folks don't, hence many "too blue" shadow shots under blue
skies with the Auto white balance on. You may have seen the posts.

Shoot, then do what Douglas and the others said.

When I remember to use it, results are good.

Still, ya gotta lay your eyes on some prints to know what it really looks
like. You can't look a fussy client in the eye and say, "Absolutely! I,
er, think..."

-iNova
Click to expand...
 
Member said:
Member said:
Member said:
Any more comments? I appreciate the input!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Member said:
Member said:
If the lab is going to scan and then "tweak" the image after that with a
physical sample. You could easily use a digital camera take the shots
and tweak the images yourself. Seems it would be easier.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Douglas
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Guess I happened by a bit late... just have a few thoughts on the matters being discussed here.

First you may find this web site helpfull in utilizing photoshop to do colorcorection. They also have many other helpful digital tips and considerations!

http://www.mega-vision.com/

As for the questions concerning LPI and DPI. We had quite a bit of discussion on it at college. It became more clear during some projects I've been involved with. Lets see if I recall how it was presented... LPI being the way the printer works ie its capability and DPI being the pixels in an image. What we found in our experiments is that each printer has an optimum DPI resolution which was 110 on a 1200 LPI printer (B&W) Now on the Photo quality color ink jet it seemed like we kept the DPI around 200 but it seems like it was a 600 LPI printer. Basicly, as with anything, you have to know what the final use will be and make sure your covered!

The museum I am doing digital photography for (Kodak DCS460... talk about color cast!) has an exhibit currently with some large images, including one that is huge. The photographer couldn't believe they were his images because he'd used 35mm film and never had reason to order prints of that size on his own.

Guess what I'm saying is that you may limit your market if you don't find out what the optimum image size in digital is for the potential uses of your client...

Just a thought.
Darin
 
Isn't it true that Kodak is known for capturing true to life color with their digital cameras.......

just a thought
Espanto said:
Thanks for your reply. It appears I goofed when I stipulated the printers
LPI
.I meant 120 NOT 1200!
Sorry about that.

Fact is, I'e got a client right now that is a booger on "color" being
right on the nose. I'm about to shoot his ceramic tiles for a catalog
with a 35mm EOS...but I'm considering buying/trying the CoolPix 950
instead and perhaps saving/making some money on what it would cost for
drum scanning.

Unfortunately, I'm finding a posting here and there regarding "not quite
there" color of the color images the Nikon renders. You know as well as I
that there3 are a myriad of things that can affect the final color on a
printed piece in the final analysis. I just don't want it to be "my
shots".

Your comments are invited.

-Espanto
Peter iNova said:
Espanto said:
I'm a Los Angeles based advertising photographer (manymany years) and
I'm about to take the plunge into the digital world via a Nikon CoolPix
950. I'm not seeing a whole lot of info on the subject of actually taking
an image and going to conventional graphic print design and printing
(i.e. catalogs, brochures, etc.).

Will a 2 mb image really be sufficient for a high resolution rendering of
up to a 5x7 size at printer's specifications of 1200 LPI? Is it really
feasible to take a great headshot of a model or a tabletop product shot
and get "Professional" level images that are even close to high-res drum
scans we're doing now? I'm leery of putting aside my medium format
Mamiya RZ's and Canon EOS 35's to actually try a project for a client.

Any info or links would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
-Espanto
[email protected]
--
Espanto
Click to expand...
The 1200 x 1600 pixels of a 950 aren't going to make a full page image in
Los Angeles Times Magazine the way the Mamiya will. 35mm Ektachrome 100
has a resolution of only 50 line pairs per millimeter no matter what lens
you carve it with and that's only 1200 50% contrast details MAX across
the short dimension of your 35 lens at f8 using a Nikon Micro Nikkor 55
on a good day with no wind and camera wiggle at 1/250th.

Point is: the 950's 5 x 7's are showing up all over the magazines in
front of you and you don't even know it. No, they're not better than 35,
just much more convenient, cheaper to shoot and do things like white
balance to the Viper Room's patina of local color much better than film
can. They print up to 7.5 x 10 on letter paper and pass the
mom-can't-tell test. All of this is BS until you lay your own eyes on it.

Speaking of BS: Printers and their 1200 lpi--are they telling you that a
35mm shot is only good for a two inch by three inch print? That's the
limit of the film thing. Take it into account when you decide.

-iNova (also in LA)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top