clicker
Well-known
I have been asked to submit several high resolution images for reproduction in a magazine. Currently the only camera I own is a Fuji 100s
that I enjoy very much, however I am concerned that the images may not work for half page layouts. I would prefer not purchasing another camera for this shoot Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
that I enjoy very much, however I am concerned that the images may not work for half page layouts. I would prefer not purchasing another camera for this shoot Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
If you're doing professional work, you need professional equipment. I don't mean to be harsh, but the competition in that world if fierce. Half page reproduction in most magazines will need a file that prints around 6x9 inches at 300dpi. That's about 6mp, so most digital cameras made in the last 8 yrs or so should be ok. I don't know anything about the Fuji 100s. Do you mean the X100s? That's a 16mp camera, so it should be perfectly good, even if they want to crop the image.
What is the photo shoot of? A fixed lens camera like the X100s may not be adequate for a commercial shoot just because of the limitations the fixed lens imposes, though image quality with the camera is fully professional in quality.
What is the photo shoot of? A fixed lens camera like the X100s may not be adequate for a commercial shoot just because of the limitations the fixed lens imposes, though image quality with the camera is fully professional in quality.
CliveC
Well-known
You'll be fine with that camera. The quality of the pixels is more important than the sheer quantity. As Christopher says above, six megapixels should be enough, but provide the full size file. No magazine layout person will complain about too much resolution.
You may want to ask if you are to provide files in RGB or CMYK. If you provide in CMYK, you may have some more control of the conversion.
Here's a guide I use for the magazine I work with:
CMYK
300dpi
Uncompressed TIFF
You may want to ask if you are to provide files in RGB or CMYK. If you provide in CMYK, you may have some more control of the conversion.
Here's a guide I use for the magazine I work with:
CMYK
300dpi
Uncompressed TIFF
tempest68
Established
It's hard to answer if the single focal length of the X100S is adequate or not without knowing anything about the intended subject and your ability to get closer/further away as needed. If for any reason you feel you need different equipment then consider renting something if you can, or find a friend you can borrow equipment from if possible.
May I ask you why you think this camera cannot handle such a small layout?
Dwig
Well-known
Simply stating "300dpi" isn't saying much, if anything...
It is important that the images be high enough resolution. They should be 300ppi at the final reproduction size. Simply spec'ing the file as being 300ppi will not necessarily accomplish this. You'll find that any 6mp digital camera with a very good lens will do a good job producing magazine image up to roughly 7x10" and a 16mp will do most magazine's full page size provided the lens is good enough
BTW, it's Pixels Per Inch when discussing digital images, Dots Per Inch should only be used when discussing a printer's marking engine's resolution despite Photoshop's long standing error in labeling their UI.
Additionally, it may be best to submit the images as RGB rather than CMYK, letting the magazine do the conversion. The magazine will likely want the CMYK images to use a specific color profile. It is best that this profile be used during the RGB to CMYK conversion. If they want you to do the conversion you need to do it with their preferred profile.
For a coffee table photo book (144 pages and over 150 images) that I recently produced, I did the RGB to CMYK conversion as I was doing all of the page layout and submitting a finished set of files to the printer for the complete book. I worked with the printer's specified color profile. This meant that I had to reconfigure my Color Settings in Photoshop when I built images for the brochure since it was to be done at a different printer which needed a different CMYK profile. I then had to switch PS back when the artist had me put a new image in the book project.
The Nikon D800 images in the book (most images were 35mm slides scanned on an Imagon 848) were massively downsized to get proper resolution images on the book's 12x11" pages. The D800's resolution is only needed because the artist commonly sells his images at sizes around 29x44" to 38x57" with larger yet prints not being uncommon.
Fraser
Well-known
I always resize to a wee bit more than AP standards which I was always told was 11inches 200dpi at the long side, so all my pictures are 11inches 250dpi long side.
CliveC
Well-known
You are correct. 300dpi is always accompanied by the size, in inches, we require to reproduce the file. Don't forget to add 1/8th inch per side for bleed, if that's how it's being used.
Dunn
Well-known
They've put an iPhone photo on the cover of Time magazine so i think you're good.
thereabouts
Established
My experience is generally to ask the printer, or the production manager, how they would like to receive the images. Seriously, it's what has worked best for me.
However, just to follow on from what some other people have said upthread.
It all depends on what is meant by 'high resolution'. Without being pedantic (well, only a little bit
), resolution is all relative. For print publication, it is true that the size that the image will be reproduced at, is a key part. But, just as important, is the line screen which the magazine is being printed at. Nearly all commercially printed publications are printed using halftone 'screens', on offset-litho printing presses (some very large print runs might use photogravure, but that's generally talking about multi-million copies). The line screen, or lines per inch (LPI) is what makes those halftone dots, which give the illusion of continous tone in commercially printed publications.
The generally accepted rule is that the pixels per inch (PPI) resolution of a photographic image should be between 1.5 and 2.5 times the line screen used for a printed publication. Under 1.5 times the LPI and you can begin to get the 'jaggies' (a 'pixilated' look). Over 2.5 times the LPI and it is generally agreed that there is no perceptable increase in quality.
So, if a magazine is printed using a 150 line screen, then 300dpi, at the intended print size, is a good resolution. Most magazines I've worked on have been printed using 150 line screens - often with the cover at 175 LPI. But, as I said above, checking with the production manager at the magazine would be my first port of call.
This is a really good resource, in my opinion, for things abouts pixels and resolution. http://www.designtalkboard.com/tips/dtp/dpi.php
Oh, and in relation to cameras and megapixles http://www.designtalkboard.com/tips/dtp/megapixels-camera.php and I find the magapixel calculator really useful http://web.forret.com/tools/megapixel.asp
Dwig
Well-known
Actually, when the printer uses a traditional elliptical dot halftone screen, PPIs over ~2.5 the LPI of the screen actually will result in lower image quality. At 3x there is a distinct loss of sharpness.
thereabouts
Established
Thanks, that's interesting. Would you happen to have more information about this? I'm not doubting you, it's just that I've never come across this before.
And when you say "traditional elliptical dot halftone screen", do you mean as opposed to round dots, for example, or do you mean as oppposed to stochastic screening?
The only issues I've had with images which are over 2.5 times the line screen, are complaints from the repro house about the time taken to rasterise the images.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I did some management data processing work for a large London printer, back when the Nikon D1 was brand new. My workstation was next to that of the graphics guy, who was developing their workflow to manage the UberDigi's "massive" 2.7Mp files. He showed me several dummy pages, which he put together for testing and they looked pretty good to me. More importantly, he told me that several of their customers liked the dummies well enough to start accepting the new camera's files, even for full page images.
Dwig
Well-known
I primarily mean "as opposed to stochastic screening".
It's been over 15 years since I saw the demonstration images that showed the IQ loss that occurs with overly hi res images. It was in a print orientated technical periodical. Of course, you have to view actual printed images to see the effect. You can't show it faithfully on a monitor. If memory serves, and it sometimes does, it was one of a series of articles by Dan Margulis. I don't remember the publication, though it might have been Electronic Publishing.
thereabouts
Established
Thanks Dwig.
I vaguely remember Electronic Publishing (didn't it change its name at some point?).
I vaguely remember Electronic Publishing (didn't it change its name at some point?).
thereabouts
Established
Just did some Google searching and I have indeed found a post, apparently from Dan Margulis, where he talks about this exact subject.
It's about two thirds down this page:
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/2010HTM/ACT09-Resolution_175ls.htm
And I think the article you mentioned is on this page, maybe? http://www.ledet.com/margulis/Makeready/ACT_Makeready_descriptions.htm "The Resolution issue, Resolved".
Interesting. I've learned something.
(Of course, someone will be along later with another theory, but that's the fun of it).
It's about two thirds down this page:
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/2010HTM/ACT09-Resolution_175ls.htm
And I think the article you mentioned is on this page, maybe? http://www.ledet.com/margulis/Makeready/ACT_Makeready_descriptions.htm "The Resolution issue, Resolved".
Interesting. I've learned something.
(Of course, someone will be along later with another theory, but that's the fun of it).