Sam Voelkel
Leading Member
Information like this makes it worthwhile to lurk on this forum. I did not ask the question, but will certainly make use of the answer someday.
Thanks again
--
Sam Voelkel
Thanks again
--
Sam Voelkel
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
My boss found out...
- Thread starter Lou Gonzalez
- Start date
Jose Noway
Senior Member
Something I didn't see mentioned: You were asked to provide the photograph-- I'd bet dollars to donuts that someone else on campus will be doing the design/layout/typesetting. Try to find out who this person is, then ask them what you need to do. Don't feel dumb about it. Believe me, if you actually take the time to ask questions and then actually follow any advice given, they will likely be more than willing to go the extra mile to help you out.
The same goes for the printer. If you ask questions, make sure you think about what you're asking ahead of time, then only ask the stuff you aren't sure about. It's perfectly fine to list things you are planning to do, to get comfirmation from the printer (more likely his/her prepress person).
All this is to say, save them some time by cutting to the chase. They should be willing to help you out, as long as you do your part of the work (preparation and follow-through). You can't expect them to hold your hand, though you will be really fortunate if you end up with a nice-guy printer person. Printers aren't ogres.... they're just tired of crud. They get a lot of it. It's okay to be a newbie. It really is-- just let them know that you are willing to take the advice they spend valuable time giving you. Sometimes it helps to feed them jelly donuts.
I'm a newbie to the F717, but even with my short experience, I know that this camera will do what you need to do. Like others have said, JPG or TIF format in the camera probably won't matter all that much. My gut says to use the FINE mode over the Standard, though. You most likely will need to provide TIFs or EPS files to the prepress person (or the typesetter/layout person). It's a postscript-thing. They are going to want to place the image into a layout program, so don't send it in a BMP format or a JPG format. And don't use anything Corel (sorry-- a personal prejudice)
The prepress person can provide you with the DPI (or ppi -- pixels per inch) and/or the LPI. Mostly you probably won't have to worry overmuch about that. 300dpi should do you just fine. Prepress people (or your printer) can take care of final tweaks, but I've had images that weren't touched after I turned them over. Most of that had to do with money. I was glad I did the tweaking that I did do, but had been counting on someone going over the final before plates were made.
Basically, you will be fine if you do all your tweaking in RGB mode, then convert it to CMYK. Yup, you can have the prepress person do the conversion... and it might be wise. Maybe the layout person will do it for you. This will be a good question to ask. Someone... either you or someone else, will be "flattening" the image out quite a bit. It looks awful, initially. Much of your contrast will disappear on the monitor and much of your saturation. Don't have heart failure. This needs to be done, because the press will gain all that saturation and contrast back for you. The amount of flattening will depend upon many factors, but the long and short is that with something as porous as newsprint, you'd flattened the heck out of it. With something like you are doing, a medium amount will be needed (I know, this is so specific and helpful! heh.... ). If you want to read about it, look up "dot gain." I wouldn't mess with researching this right now, only because you've already got a lot on your plate. If this is something you will be doing more of in the future, you can study up later.
You could also just take the low road and provide them with a great quality print. They can have it drum-scanned (high quality scan) and that will be that for your part in the project.
Congratulations... and good luck!
The same goes for the printer. If you ask questions, make sure you think about what you're asking ahead of time, then only ask the stuff you aren't sure about. It's perfectly fine to list things you are planning to do, to get comfirmation from the printer (more likely his/her prepress person).
All this is to say, save them some time by cutting to the chase. They should be willing to help you out, as long as you do your part of the work (preparation and follow-through). You can't expect them to hold your hand, though you will be really fortunate if you end up with a nice-guy printer person. Printers aren't ogres.... they're just tired of crud. They get a lot of it. It's okay to be a newbie. It really is-- just let them know that you are willing to take the advice they spend valuable time giving you. Sometimes it helps to feed them jelly donuts.
I'm a newbie to the F717, but even with my short experience, I know that this camera will do what you need to do. Like others have said, JPG or TIF format in the camera probably won't matter all that much. My gut says to use the FINE mode over the Standard, though. You most likely will need to provide TIFs or EPS files to the prepress person (or the typesetter/layout person). It's a postscript-thing. They are going to want to place the image into a layout program, so don't send it in a BMP format or a JPG format. And don't use anything Corel (sorry-- a personal prejudice)
The prepress person can provide you with the DPI (or ppi -- pixels per inch) and/or the LPI. Mostly you probably won't have to worry overmuch about that. 300dpi should do you just fine. Prepress people (or your printer) can take care of final tweaks, but I've had images that weren't touched after I turned them over. Most of that had to do with money. I was glad I did the tweaking that I did do, but had been counting on someone going over the final before plates were made.
Basically, you will be fine if you do all your tweaking in RGB mode, then convert it to CMYK. Yup, you can have the prepress person do the conversion... and it might be wise. Maybe the layout person will do it for you. This will be a good question to ask. Someone... either you or someone else, will be "flattening" the image out quite a bit. It looks awful, initially. Much of your contrast will disappear on the monitor and much of your saturation. Don't have heart failure. This needs to be done, because the press will gain all that saturation and contrast back for you. The amount of flattening will depend upon many factors, but the long and short is that with something as porous as newsprint, you'd flattened the heck out of it. With something like you are doing, a medium amount will be needed (I know, this is so specific and helpful! heh.... ). If you want to read about it, look up "dot gain." I wouldn't mess with researching this right now, only because you've already got a lot on your plate. If this is something you will be doing more of in the future, you can study up later.
You could also just take the low road and provide them with a great quality print. They can have it drum-scanned (high quality scan) and that will be that for your part in the project.
Congratulations... and good luck!
Lou Gonzalez
Leading Member
Thanks for the feedback! I will definitely touch base with the printing folks and see what their needs are... Great advice.
And folks, I'm not distressed over this... but I'm the kind of guy that needs/likes to know the "why's" and "how's" of things. Thats why I love STF! Lots of folks willing to share their experiences and knowledge.
So at worst I can hand them the image in JPG, but if I can hook up with the printer and get some specifics, that would be good too.
Lou
http://www.pbase.com/loug
Sony F717, MCON 35, TCON14B, WCON08B
Sunpak 383, Cokin / Hoya Filters, Epson Stylus 890
And folks, I'm not distressed over this... but I'm the kind of guy that needs/likes to know the "why's" and "how's" of things. Thats why I love STF! Lots of folks willing to share their experiences and knowledge.
So at worst I can hand them the image in JPG, but if I can hook up with the printer and get some specifics, that would be good too.
Lou
http://www.pbase.com/loug
Sony F717, MCON 35, TCON14B, WCON08B
Sunpak 383, Cokin / Hoya Filters, Epson Stylus 890
Something I didn't see mentioned: You were asked to provide the
photograph-- I'd bet dollars to donuts that someone else on campus
will be doing the design/layout/typesetting. Try to find out who
this person is, then ask them what you need to do. Don't feel dumb
about it. Believe me, if you actually take the time to ask
questions and then actually follow any advice given, they will
likely be more than willing to go the extra mile to help you out.
The same goes for the printer. If you ask questions, make sure you
think about what you're asking ahead of time, then only ask the
stuff you aren't sure about. It's perfectly fine to list things you
are planning to do, to get comfirmation from the printer (more
likely his/her prepress person).
All this is to say, save them some time by cutting to the chase.
They should be willing to help you out, as long as you do your part
of the work (preparation and follow-through). You can't expect them
to hold your hand, though you will be really fortunate if you end
up with a nice-guy printer person. Printers aren't ogres....
they're just tired of crud. They get a lot of it. It's okay to be a
newbie. It really is-- just let them know that you are willing to
take the advice they spend valuable time giving you. Sometimes it
helps to feed them jelly donuts.
I'm a newbie to the F717, but even with my short experience, I know
that this camera will do what you need to do. Like others have
said, JPG or TIF format in the camera probably won't matter all
that much. My gut says to use the FINE mode over the Standard,
though. You most likely will need to provide TIFs or EPS files to
the prepress person (or the typesetter/layout person). It's a
postscript-thing. They are going to want to place the image into a
layout program, so don't send it in a BMP format or a JPG format.
And don't use anything Corel (sorry-- a personal prejudice)
The prepress person can provide you with the DPI (or ppi -- pixels
per inch) and/or the LPI. Mostly you probably won't have to worry
overmuch about that. 300dpi should do you just fine. Prepress
people (or your printer) can take care of final tweaks, but I've
had images that weren't touched after I turned them over. Most of
that had to do with money. I was glad I did the tweaking that I did
do, but had been counting on someone going over the final before
plates were made.
Basically, you will be fine if you do all your tweaking in RGB
mode, then convert it to CMYK. Yup, you can have the prepress
person do the conversion... and it might be wise. Maybe the layout
person will do it for you. This will be a good question to ask.
Someone... either you or someone else, will be "flattening" the
image out quite a bit. It looks awful, initially. Much of your
contrast will disappear on the monitor and much of your saturation.
Don't have heart failure. This needs to be done, because the press
will gain all that saturation and contrast back for you. The amount
of flattening will depend upon many factors, but the long and short
is that with something as porous as newsprint, you'd flattened the
heck out of it. With something like you are doing, a medium amount
will be needed (I know, this is so specific and helpful! heh.... ).
If you want to read about it, look up "dot gain." I wouldn't mess
with researching this right now, only because you've already got a
lot on your plate. If this is something you will be doing more of
in the future, you can study up later.
You could also just take the low road and provide them with a great
quality print. They can have it drum-scanned (high quality scan)
and that will be that for your part in the project.
Congratulations... and good luck!
Jose Noway
Senior Member
Heh, it's the Mom-thing. Sorry about that. Good for you, wanting to know all the whys-- it's so cool to know why something works (or doesn't). You're going to have a ball doing this.
Nancy
-------
Nancy
-------
PhilF
Well-known member
Hi Patrick,
In line with all the good people who have commented on your reply, I would also like to say that it was excellent. I wonder whether you would be so good as to comment on:
(1) Photoshop Elements is not the right package to use for RGB / CYMK conversions as this capability is only available in the full version of Photoshop. The only way around this would be to use plug-ins with Photoshop Elements. I say this because a number of people do use Elements. Do you think that the conversion from RGB to CMYK is better done in Photoshop or other image editing packages / methods? Or, do you think that the conversion should be done in Quark or InDesign?
(2) I have tried hard to do screen captures at a reasonable size when using 300dpi, for example, a toolbox in Adobe Photoshop. Would printers refuse the capture at 160dpi? Perhaps I should use layers with different photos, including the toolbox, at various dpi and then level the image.
(3) It was good to get your comments on the 1/8" bleeds. I notice that you said that it would be OK to enlarge the photo - 136% - by going from 1920 to 2625. Can you confirm that acceptable enlargements are judged in pixel terms rather than file sizes, and give some idea about the maximum enlargement recommended. As you rightly point out, saving as a TIFF or PSD does increase file sizes dramatically. Is it wise to provide a photo as a TIFF or PSD format just in case the image is used as part of a Photoshop layer exercise or would you supply the image as a JPEG and leave such work to others?
(4) With regards to your other email, I think that the file will automatically show as being at 300dpi (Image / Resize) after you save the image. So, can you confirm that if people do this then they will not have to worry about providing photos to the print shop at 72 dpi?
Once again, thanks for your earlier response. It covers a lot of ground that people usually find a great mystery.
Best regards,
Phil
In line with all the good people who have commented on your reply, I would also like to say that it was excellent. I wonder whether you would be so good as to comment on:
(1) Photoshop Elements is not the right package to use for RGB / CYMK conversions as this capability is only available in the full version of Photoshop. The only way around this would be to use plug-ins with Photoshop Elements. I say this because a number of people do use Elements. Do you think that the conversion from RGB to CMYK is better done in Photoshop or other image editing packages / methods? Or, do you think that the conversion should be done in Quark or InDesign?
(2) I have tried hard to do screen captures at a reasonable size when using 300dpi, for example, a toolbox in Adobe Photoshop. Would printers refuse the capture at 160dpi? Perhaps I should use layers with different photos, including the toolbox, at various dpi and then level the image.
(3) It was good to get your comments on the 1/8" bleeds. I notice that you said that it would be OK to enlarge the photo - 136% - by going from 1920 to 2625. Can you confirm that acceptable enlargements are judged in pixel terms rather than file sizes, and give some idea about the maximum enlargement recommended. As you rightly point out, saving as a TIFF or PSD does increase file sizes dramatically. Is it wise to provide a photo as a TIFF or PSD format just in case the image is used as part of a Photoshop layer exercise or would you supply the image as a JPEG and leave such work to others?
(4) With regards to your other email, I think that the file will automatically show as being at 300dpi (Image / Resize) after you save the image. So, can you confirm that if people do this then they will not have to worry about providing photos to the print shop at 72 dpi?
Once again, thanks for your earlier response. It covers a lot of ground that people usually find a great mystery.
Best regards,
Phil
U
Ulysses
Guest
My world ain't perfect. Shay's world ain't either. Several others could say the same. 
We'd get paid for that kind of shot and that kind of picture circulation. Photography is fun. But it's also a business for some of us. It doesn't take a perfect world to get a few greenbacks for your know-how.
No offense to Lou AT ALL. He is clearly free to handle it however he wants. But the college is getting away with it on this one. And they plan on doing it every year. When you provide a product/service that is of quality, it's only right to get more than a pat on the back.
Ulysses
We'd get paid for that kind of shot and that kind of picture circulation. Photography is fun. But it's also a business for some of us. It doesn't take a perfect world to get a few greenbacks for your know-how.
No offense to Lou AT ALL. He is clearly free to handle it however he wants. But the college is getting away with it on this one. And they plan on doing it every year. When you provide a product/service that is of quality, it's only right to get more than a pat on the back.
--
Ulysses
U
Ulysses
Guest
Heheheh... Lou, I'm happy for you, man.
I would, however, encourage you to think carefully next time about some other form of compensation besides time away from the desk.
heheheheh... enjoy the shoot.
Ulysses
I would, however, encourage you to think carefully next time about some other form of compensation besides time away from the desk.
heheheheh... enjoy the shoot.
--
Ulysses
Alan Owen
Member
Got to agree, I'm going to print this response off as well.
One of the best on the forums.
Alan
One of the best on the forums.
Alan
pickles
Active member
I work for a state university too....most employment agreements for state universities have some wording that says "and anything else the job requires." That loosely means if you're told/asked to do something during your work day - you do it - no extra pay. State institutions also usually don't let employees bid on jobs. If the university wanted to hire a photographer, the job would be put out on bids, and a university employee would not be eligible to bid on the job. State unis also usually don't have a means of paying overtime or for extra work - their means of compensation is usually comp time. You give up quite a bit when you sign the contract with the devil.
ZipperZ
Senior Member
It will make a difference. Telling people theres absolutely no difference between the lossless TIFF format and any JPG format is hogwash and misleading.
It is best to find out what stock the photo is being printed on but your WORST MISTAKE is to shoot half hazzardly based on print stock OR print process. No one knows if this pic will be used for other purposes down the road. If your hired for a shoot. Shoot your best shot. Period!!!
exactly! and with the many changes its far better to work from a lossless original than a JPG thats already been compressed.
Printers are printers. Thats what and all they do. Printers in general dont want to be responsible for your conversion in case theres a mistake. Ignoring a printers request for a TIFF mode file will not only stall your rush job (cause every print job is rush) but cause confrontation before anything is discussed. No need to go in with your heads already banging. sheesh!
Again. Im the photographer and i am the one who should be in control of how my final image looks like. Printers couldnt care less what it looks like. Do the conversion yourself. Know what to expect.
crop both originals tightly then print them. And then tell me again theres absolutely no difference.
no no NO!!!!!...do NOT let the printer do your conversion. Again, cause they dont care what your photo looks like. They wernt there when you TOOK the shot. They have no idea what color is right and what is wrong. They couldnt care less. Your the photographer, you do it yourself. You take control of your final image.
(above) RGB COLORS - what you see on your screen
(above) CMYK COLORS - what printing inks will do
of course they make YOU do it. And for good reason.
The customer is ALWAYS right. Printers are not gonna sit there and argue with you if the grass is the right shade of green not.
As a photographer you all must take control of your final image. Its your work. And if its commercial work then all the more reason. Your client is not going to pay you for something that comes out printed red when it should be fushia. Gonna blame it on the printer???
enough ranting
--
Posting these days requires either dedication or medication...
cheers
Zip
Ben Bentfeld
Member
--
ben2u I think it's great that you are doing it for nothing. Photography is not always about money.
PhilF
Well-known member
Hi,
Zipper does raise some good points here. It certainly gets interesting when you start to think about who is responsible for getting the job done correctly. In this case, Lou should ensure that he doesn't have responsibility for the print. Hopefully, his colleagues will have the relationship with the printer under control.
Lou, have you spoken to the people who are doing the layout?
Patrick, Any thoughts on Zipper's comments?
Regards,
Phil
Zipper does raise some good points here. It certainly gets interesting when you start to think about who is responsible for getting the job done correctly. In this case, Lou should ensure that he doesn't have responsibility for the print. Hopefully, his colleagues will have the relationship with the printer under control.
Lou, have you spoken to the people who are doing the layout?
Patrick, Any thoughts on Zipper's comments?
Regards,
Phil
It will make a difference. Telling people theres absolutely no
difference between the lossless TIFF format and any JPG format is
hogwash and misleading.
It is best to find out what stock the photo is being printed on but
your WORST MISTAKE is to shoot half hazzardly based on print stock
OR print process. No one knows if this pic will be used for other
purposes down the road. If your hired for a shoot. Shoot your best
shot. Period!!!
exactly! and with the many changes its far better to work from a
lossless original than a JPG thats already been compressed.
Printers are printers. Thats what and all they do. Printers in
general dont want to be responsible for your conversion in case
theres a mistake. Ignoring a printers request for a TIFF mode file
will not only stall your rush job (cause every print job is rush)
but cause confrontation before anything is discussed. No need to go
in with your heads already banging. sheesh!
Again. Im the photographer and i am the one who should be in
control of how my final image looks like. Printers couldnt care
less what it looks like. Do the conversion yourself. Know what to
expect.
crop both originals tightly then print them. And then tell me again
theres absolutely no difference.
no no NO!!!!!...do NOT let the printer do your conversion. Again,
cause they dont care what your photo looks like. They wernt there
when you TOOK the shot. They have no idea what color is right and
what is wrong. They couldnt care less. Your the photographer, you
do it yourself. You take control of your final image.
(above) RGB COLORS - what you see on your screen
(above) CMYK COLORS - what printing inks will do
of course they make YOU do it. And for good reason.
The customer is ALWAYS right. Printers are not gonna sit there and
argue with you if the grass is the right shade of green not.
As a photographer you all must take control of your final image.
Its your work. And if its commercial work then all the more reason.
Your client is not going to pay you for something that comes out
printed red when it should be fushia. Gonna blame it on the
printer???
enough ranting
--
Posting these days requires either dedication or medication...
cheers
Zip
Patrick Murphy
Leading Member
I think the RGB-to-CMYK conversion is best done by the printer, at least for people not experienced in pre-press issues.
Regarding what plug-in or program is best, I can't answer that. I just use Photoshop when a printer wants me to do the RGB-to-CMYK conversion. I don't know the relative merits of other software.
I am sure Zipper or someone else who does a lot of RGB-to-CMYK could provide more information.
There are a couple of confusing concepts in here. I hope I am answering the question you asked (grin!). I also hope you are not asking about scanning (flatbed scanners) which is a different kettle of DPI measurements. I will assume you are asking about capturing part or all of the computer screen.
Let me start at the very beginning.
A digital picture has no absolute size, like "8-inches-by-10-inches". Instead, it just has so many horizontal and vertical pixels. When you go to print the picture, THAT'S when you start calculating Pixels Per Inch.
The printer should tell you how many PPI he wants. (This will be based on the number of Lines Per Inch in his halftone dot screen: PPI=LPI*1.5 or to be conservative PPI=LPI*2.) A screen of 150 LPI is common for magazine work, so printers often ask for 300 PPI.
When you capture a computer screen, it will have a fixed number of pixels -- let's say 800 x 600. At 300 PPI, the screencapture will print at exactly 2-2/3" x 2" (800/300 x 600/300).
But what if you want the image to print bigger or smaller? Then resample it in Photoshop. There is no need to do layers or complex stuff. Just resample and use enough unsharp masking to make the screen pleasing and readable. When you save the file, remember to set the Image Size dialog's "Resolution" settings to 300 pixels/inch, so as to make the printer happy.
To answer your specific question, "Would printers refuse the capture at 160dpi[PPI]?", the answer is "They shouldn't". Because the 160 PPI is just a convenience for the printer. Your image still has 800 x 600 pixels. The printer should know enough Photoshop to deal with this.
But let's assume the printer really wants 300 PPI. You have two choices to be nice to the printer:
A) If they want 300 PPI and don't care about the final size (for example, they will size it themselves when doing page layout in PageMaker or Quark Express), then go into Photoshop's Image Size dialog, change the "Resolution" settings to 300 pixels/inch, be sure the Pixel Dimensions width and height are still 800 x 600, and re-save the file. The printer will see "oh, this is a 2-2/3" x 2" photo at 300 PPI" and they will be happy.
B) If they want 300 PPI, PLUS they want a specific final size, this also is easy. Let's say they want the image to be 5 inches wide. Go into the Image Size dialog and fill in the Print Size settings of "Width" "Height" and "Resolution". The latter should of course be "300". Be sure "Resample Image" is checked, and then click OK. The image will be resized in Photoshop to a different number of pixels. (Note how the file size has also increased to 4.83MB.) You then save the file and once again give it to the happy printer.
(Questions 3 and 4 are answered in the next message of this thread...)
Patrick Murphy
Leading Member
(...continued from previous message)
Regarding acceptable enlargements, "acceptable" is what is accepted as OK by the client! At Target the other night, I saw a package with an obviously pixelated photo. I guess enlarging a small photo by 500% or 1000% was fine with that client.
I am not sure what you mean by judging enlargements by file sizes. If the photo has to fit a certain size in inches (full-page, double-spread, billboard) and you have only so many pixels, then you have to resize the picture to increase the number of pixels based on the PPI. For example, if the 800 x 600 screencapture has to fit 8.5" wide at 300 PPI, you need to enlarge it to 2550 x 1913 pixels (300*8.5=2550; 2550/800=3.1875; 3.1875*600=1912.5).
For enlarging in Photoshop you generally use Bicubic Interpolation. There are other techniques such as Genuine Fractals for really big enlargements.
It continually surprises me, however, that printers don't want to load in common file formats. I am not sure if they don't want to do the work themselves (clicking on "Open As TIFF" takes longer than "Open As JPEG"???) or if they truly think JPEG is visually worse than TIFF.
A photo saved in JPEG high-quality (low compression) format, for all practical purposes will print indistinguishably from a TIFF. In fact, even on a computer monitor at magnified resolution, you'd look hard to see differences.
As for providing Photoshop PSD files with layers, I would not provide this unless the printer is doing very artistic layouts and has asked for your layer files. If they want PSD for some reason, flatten the image into a single layer and save it under a different name in PSD format. There is less for them to screw up (such as not turning on the same layers you did!).
If for some reason the printer does want two versions, check with them to see if the two versions are to be the same PIXEL size or PRINT size. For example, an 800 x 600 screencapture at 300 PPI stores the exact same 480,000 pixels as 800 x 600 at 72 PPI. But an 800 x 600 screencapture at 300 PPI will print 2-2/3" x 2", the same 2-2/3" x 2" area printed at 72 PPI will have only 192 x 144 pixels.
-- Patrick Murphy
First of all, check with your printer regarding how much they want for bleeds. I used 1/8" as an example but they may need a different amount.
Regarding acceptable enlargements, "acceptable" is what is accepted as OK by the client! At Target the other night, I saw a package with an obviously pixelated photo. I guess enlarging a small photo by 500% or 1000% was fine with that client.
I am not sure what you mean by judging enlargements by file sizes. If the photo has to fit a certain size in inches (full-page, double-spread, billboard) and you have only so many pixels, then you have to resize the picture to increase the number of pixels based on the PPI. For example, if the 800 x 600 screencapture has to fit 8.5" wide at 300 PPI, you need to enlarge it to 2550 x 1913 pixels (300*8.5=2550; 2550/800=3.1875; 3.1875*600=1912.5).
For enlarging in Photoshop you generally use Bicubic Interpolation. There are other techniques such as Genuine Fractals for really big enlargements.
It is wisest to make the printer happy, by providing whatever file format(s) they request.
It continually surprises me, however, that printers don't want to load in common file formats. I am not sure if they don't want to do the work themselves (clicking on "Open As TIFF" takes longer than "Open As JPEG"???) or if they truly think JPEG is visually worse than TIFF.
A photo saved in JPEG high-quality (low compression) format, for all practical purposes will print indistinguishably from a TIFF. In fact, even on a computer monitor at magnified resolution, you'd look hard to see differences.
As for providing Photoshop PSD files with layers, I would not provide this unless the printer is doing very artistic layouts and has asked for your layer files. If they want PSD for some reason, flatten the image into a single layer and save it under a different name in PSD format. There is less for them to screw up (such as not turning on the same layers you did!).
Again, if the printer wants both 300 PPI and 72 PPI versions of the file, make them happy by using Photoshop's Image Size dialog to make two copies. I have no idea why they might want this. In PageMaker & Quark the 300 PPI version will appear on the screen even if there is not a 72 PPI version.
If for some reason the printer does want two versions, check with them to see if the two versions are to be the same PIXEL size or PRINT size. For example, an 800 x 600 screencapture at 300 PPI stores the exact same 480,000 pixels as 800 x 600 at 72 PPI. But an 800 x 600 screencapture at 300 PPI will print 2-2/3" x 2", the same 2-2/3" x 2" area printed at 72 PPI will have only 192 x 144 pixels.
You are very welcome. I am not sure if I answered your questions but hopefully there is some useful information in there somewhere. You may note that I believe the printer should help out and be flexible in what you have to provide (grin!).
-- Patrick Murphy
U
Ulysses
Guest
Heheh... guy, I'm far from money-hungry. That's not what it's about either. This is a typical job that would net quite a bit of cash were put to bid. They know that they're getting away with it for free, too.
This is pretty simple. It's not like the college (it's a COLLEGE, folks) is just a little old lady who wants to send a couple of wallet-sized pics to her grandkids, and who just needs a free handout.
Not to make a huge, huge beef about this. But an opportunity is here. It's kind of funny to think about how easy this one would be.
Anyway, at least everyone will be happy. Some are going to be happier than others. :-]
Ulysses
This is pretty simple. It's not like the college (it's a COLLEGE, folks) is just a little old lady who wants to send a couple of wallet-sized pics to her grandkids, and who just needs a free handout.
Not to make a huge, huge beef about this. But an opportunity is here. It's kind of funny to think about how easy this one would be.
Anyway, at least everyone will be happy. Some are going to be happier than others. :-]
--
Ulysses
U
Ulysses
Guest
It would be interesting to find out whether that kind of contract is in force here. From the rather freestyle sound of the way the job was handed, I'd bet that it's not the case here.
"anything else the job requires". Heheheheh... that's not a contract I'd sign.
Ulysses
"anything else the job requires". Heheheheh... that's not a contract I'd sign.
--
Ulysses
Patrick Murphy
Leading Member
Yes. ZipperZ and I are actually saying similar things. I agree with many points he makes, such as keeping in mind potential future uses.
Also, he brought up an excellent point I forgot to mention, that the photographer should ideally provide a sample to the printer. Whether done by photo-quality ink-jet, photofinishing or some other method, the sample should look as close as possible to how the the photographer wants the image to print. If time and money permit, the printer should also provide a Matchprint-type proof for the photographer to approve. For a brief look at pre-press proofing options, see
http://www.printrga.com/services/prepress/proof.htm
TIFF VS. JPEG
I agree that if you look closely you can detect differences between TIFF and JPEG. No doubt about it. And if you have Memory Stick space (14 extra MB per TIFF) and time (30 seconds to write each TIFF to the Memory Stick), you should feel free to shoot everything in TIFF.
But the real question is whether any detectable TIFF/JPEG differences are significant or objectionable to the end viewer. This factor, plus the factors of memory size and writing time and potential end use, will be weighted differently by different people.
For example, Phil Askey feels the F717's TIFF mode would not normally be necessary assuming you turn down in-camera sharpening: "there's little reason to use TIFF (unless you like the idea of using 14 MB a shot), JPEG Fine provides all the detail with little in the way of artifacts."
Every person deciding whether to use TIFF or JPEG will arrive at a slightly different decision based on how they weigh factors and on their value system. The result is like religion or politics -- any words I write here will not change peoples' opinion.
For Lou Gonzalez, my goal was to reassure him that, in the context of the cardstock-printing project he asked about, any possible differences between the F707/717's TIFF, JPEG Fine and JPEG Standard quality will be insignificant compared with other challenges in going from the viewfinder to printed copies.
WHO SHOULD CONTROL PRINTING: PHOTOGRAPHER OR PRINTER?
On who does what in pre-press, ZipperZ and I come at this from slightly different angles.
ZipperZ's view is to have the photographer be in control of how the final image looks. I completely agree with him -- but only if the photographer knows about bleeds and colorspaces and CMYK and dot gain and screen angles and other printer-related factors.
For Lou Gonzalez, my advice was aimed at a non-professional photographer getting a photograph offset-printed for the first time. My view is that the printer has the ultimate responsibility for pre-press issues.
Ideally, the photographer's main concern is to create his desired high-quality image in the right size and proportion, and to provide a sample (or approve a proof). Then, the printer should know best to turn that image into thousands of high-quality offset-printed copies.
WHO SEES RED WHEN RED = FUSCHIA
ZipperZ writes:
An excellent question. To decide this, consider Lou Gonzalez and his particular situation.
If Lou provided the printer with a file that had red, and with a sample that had red, and the printer agreed to do the CMYK conversion ... then I would blame the printer if red came out as fuschia.
Even if Lou was forced by the printer to do the CMYK and it came out fuschia, I would STILL blame the printer. That's because Lou does not have print experience and should not be expected to know what tweaks are necessary to get RGB red to print as CMYK red on paper.
I would only blame Lou if he provided a CMYK file against the printer's recommendation that he (the printer) do the RGB-to-CMYK conversion.
I could go into more detail on what ZipperZ wrote. However, I think the above will give a general idea of the similarities and differences between ZipperZ and me. My guess is he has done a lot of pre-press and thus prefers close control of the image -- which as an expert he should have. I hope Lou gets to do many more print jobs and can eventually learn more about pre-press production.
-- Patrick Murphy
Jose Noway
Senior Member
But did you get paid in the beginning? Did you turn down opportunity on principle? Maybe you did, but the truth is, if Lou didn't do this, there would be a ton of people lining up to offer their services for free.
I do understand where you are coming from and agree to an extent, but it's going to be a fun job and a great learning experience, so why not chalk it up to education and end up with something for his portfolio into the mix?
Nancy
---------
I do understand where you are coming from and agree to an extent, but it's going to be a fun job and a great learning experience, so why not chalk it up to education and end up with something for his portfolio into the mix?
Nancy
---------
We'd get paid for that kind of shot and that kind of picture
circulation. Photography is fun. But it's also a business for some
of us. It doesn't take a perfect world to get a few greenbacks for
your know-how.
No offense to Lou AT ALL. He is clearly free to handle it however
he wants. But the college is getting away with it on this one. And
they plan on doing it every year. When you provide a
product/service that is of quality, it's only right to get more
than a pat on the back.
--
Ulysses
Jose Noway
Senior Member
Phil, printing is a very expensive proposition. There are a whole lot of people involved in getting a job done. You've got your client, who many times is actually a committee (oy!), you've got yourself, you may be outsourcing other parts of the job (layout, typesetting, etc.) or you may be the outsourced, you might have a prepress person, you have the printer, you have paper that might have to be ordered....
All of these people (and the paper!) have deadlines tied to them. If any one person holds up the process, or if there are mistakes made, it costs money and time. Money, time, and/or mistakes can lead to blame. The person at fault has to eat the money. Lou is going to do some fanny-covering, though, by having his client sign off on his part of the job. Right Lou? ;-)
Nancy
------
All of these people (and the paper!) have deadlines tied to them. If any one person holds up the process, or if there are mistakes made, it costs money and time. Money, time, and/or mistakes can lead to blame. The person at fault has to eat the money. Lou is going to do some fanny-covering, though, by having his client sign off on his part of the job. Right Lou? ;-)
Nancy
------
Another thing you should be aware of when manipulating photos is that everytime you save your file as a jpg and come back to it later you lose detail. Jpg is a lossy format, meaning that everytime you save it compresses the file again. So when working with your files use lossless file formats like tiff and psd. Most publishers ask for tiff files 300dpi.
Good luck,
Good luck,
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum