Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Funny how photogs care about input resolution :D

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Funny how photogs care about input resolution :D

    I always find it funny how photographers care about input resolution, when the truth is that it all comes down to the resolution of the retouching aka how detail oriented you are when working. It's not going to look perfect when cropped unless it was retouched to look perfect when cropped.

    All in all between a 4mpix and 100mpix file... well there is no much difference for a retoucher or for a client. Unless you go into detiail, it'll still be missing in the final shot.

  • #2
    Re: Funny how photogs care about input resolution

    Could you provide more detail?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Funny how photogs care about input resolution

      Example: "Can we crop just one of the faces, there is enough resoultion (talking about a really high res file with many subjects)"

      No, it can't be done, because that face hasn't been retouched in that resolution, yes there might be detail there in the original, but if retoucher isn't told to go into detail, it'll look bad if cropped that much. You don't go into lashes and lip lines and stray hairs if something is going to be 0.3x0.3 inches in print, but if you want that part blown up to a 12x8, yes that work has to be done.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Funny how photogs care about input resolution

        Depending on the output too, all that extra precision work may be invisible.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Funny how photogs care about input resolution

          Yes, but it isn't done by default. Taking 1000 hours instead of 10 hours is not really something that's a viable option.

          So, beware photographers, resolution is only important as a start, but it doesn't equate more detail in the final image.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Funny how photogs care about input resolution

            Originally posted by skoobey View Post
            ...So, beware photographers, resolution is only important as a start, but it doesn't equate more detail in the final image.
            Err! Well actually resolution is important depending on output destination and does equate to the amount of resolvable detail in the final image.

            Resolution in photographic terms is a measure of the lens, camera, sensors ability to resolve fine detail.

            Now the question is do you need the highest resolution and the answer must be it depends!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Funny how photogs care about input resolution

              Originally posted by Tony W View Post
              Err! Well actually resolution is important depending on output destination and does equate to the amount of resolvable detail in the final image.

              Resolution in photographic terms is a measure of the lens, camera, sensors ability to resolve fine detail.

              Now the question is do you need the highest resolution and the answer must be it depends!
              Well yes and no. Maybe this sums it better:

              "Resolution to spare is a great insurance, but the results will only be as precise as the hours that have been put into the image".

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Funny how photogs care about input resolution

                Originally posted by skoobey View Post
                Well yes and no.
                You really mean it depends?

                "Resolution to spare is a great insurance, but the results will only be as precise as the hours that have been put into the image".
                While I believe I can see where you are coming from I think you are giving far too much emphasis to hours of retouching.

                The thing here (and what I thought your post about why or 'how photographers care about input resolution') is the initial capture should be as good as possible and fit for purpose prior to retouching. This includes sufficient pixels to fulfill the device outputs resolution - ideally without interpolation. So a standard for inkjet printing would be 300-600ppi (Canon and HP) 360-720ppi for Epson.

                If the old advice still holds for magazine printing the requirement for files resolution would be around 2x the declared LPI then as an example assuming a magazine using 150lpi and wanting a finished printed size of 11"x7" requiring image dimensions of 3300x 2100 ppi (just short 7Mp)

                The actual amount of retouching and hours is really irrelevant when discussing a file resolution and how it impacts perceived image quality. Obviously you need to know the final destination size or sizes to enable you to limit edits accordingly.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Funny how photogs care about input resolution

                  Originally posted by Tony W View Post
                  Obviously you need to know the final destination size or sizes to enable you to limit edits accordingly.
                  This is exactly what I mean. Shoot for a purpose and request retouching for a purpose.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Funny how photogs care about input resolution

                    I guess it's partially due to the fact people often associate Photoshop with great powers and an ability to literally morph anything into anything without a flinch. Funny it's all about resolution in media right now, from pack-as-many-megapixels-as-you-can in an average smartphone camera to 4K screens which, according to the advertisers, equal better quality, all of the time.

                    I would rather called it a "quality to spare" rather than just a resolution in pixels since it's a sum of an ability to resolve detail by the lens, actual exposure, focusing precision, noise/grain and so on. Luckily we have an enormously large sensors on the market today and can be more or less safe in that regard, BUT your really don't want to put extra hours just to clean up the face with pixel level precision for no reason - if the shot is printed in a few inches. And I concur there are times people ask for a massive blow up because the shot was retouched meaning you can do all sorts of C.S.I. stuff with the file and always end up with the top notch quality and retouching precision.

                    I'm always amazed how little effort people put into research regarding the final output sizing upfront. That means worst case scenario (biggest crops) and I'd say you might consider setting up the lights in a way it would make it easier to retouch. I know a hi-profile photographer who does a lot of lingerie shots (really heavy workload) and he always chooses the best "out of the box" looking light available should the need to crop out the legs and lower part of the torso arises. Still looks good with less retouching, but you have to think about it before you start shooting. Then again he's in his early 50s so that makes him a bit old school I guess.

                    Also the client might prolong the right for a specific shoot meaning he might use the same comp / photo / spread and modify it to suit his needs in a way you would not be able to foresee first time you've done it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Funny how photogs care about input resolution

                      Oh absolutely.

                      But, then again, at this level we all know what we are doing and are all professionals, so when I get a question like can we put these up as segments for billboards? My answer would be no, because going from a half a page 12x8 horizontal add to a billboard blow-up of just faces would require so much more retouching.

                      Just like any industry, we do what we need to do to make things great for their purpose. Yes, that gasket might fit a Space shuttle, but unless it's space mission usage has been mentioned to the manufacturer, it might burn up on reentry.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Funny how photogs care about input resolution

                        "I'm always amazed how little effort people put into research regarding the final output sizing upfront."

                        Yup, me too. I often have to drag the information out of my clients and then run through the potential pitfalls of not knowing likely applications for the image. The 'whoosh' factor often applies but talk of influencing the price normally gets their attention!

                        BTW, back in the day, most top end retouching was input and output as a 5x4 or 10x8 transparency. You wouldn't know how much of the image would be rescanned and cropped further down the line so had to assume the magnification would be pushed at some stage. These transparencies were always examined with a loupe so there was no hiding place for shoddy work. Concentrates the mind wonderfully!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Funny how photogs care about input resolution

                          Originally posted by Repairman View Post
                          Yup, me too. I often have to drag the information out of my clients and then run through the potential pitfalls of not knowing likely applications for the image. The 'whoosh' factor often applies but talk of influencing the price normally gets their attention!
                          I think there's also the issue that sometimes they won't know or it may be used in more than one place. This isn't atypical when movie studios commission shoots of a particular star in an upcoming film. The images may be used for various editorial placements worldwide, especially due to logistics of the cost and scheduling involved in producing a large number of shoots. It's still somewhat typical to have additions or strikes from that number, but they do aim for reuse wherever possible.

                          Comment

                          Loading...
                          Working...
                          X