Magazine Reproduction/Image-File Size

[David Eichler]

This question is not specific to medium format, but I figure that medium format users will be especially attentive to issues of reproduction quality and delivering large files. With particular regard to full page and double page reproductions in typical magazines, if you deliver a full size AdobeRGB Tiff file, how much of a quality difference will be apparent, compared with, say, an sRGB jpeg? Also, if one delivers an image size moderately smaller than the intended reproduction size, will a small amount of uprezzing really be apparent? This assumes that the images are already otherwise repro-ready and don't need much, if any, additional processing after delivery to the client. Also, are you typically providing hi-res files with output sharpening, or are you leaving that to the printer?

Again, I am talking only about typical magazine reproduction, not display prints or posters. However, could also expand this to good quality, but not top-quality, brochures of comparable size and quality to magazines.

[theguywitha645d]

First, what are the publisher's requirements. That will tell you what you need. Each publisher is different.

Why would you send an sRGB JPEG? I would be sending a minimum of an AdobaRGB TIFF or I would be converting it into a CMYK color space for the printer.

Also, what do you mean by reproduction size? These are digital files. They have no size. If you mean an image being 300dpi at page size, then that would be fine unless the publisher request the image to be 600dpi.

If this is a general question, which after getting this far I think it might be, send the publisher the best file you have--do not resize. The DTP folks will know what to do with it. I hope you are shooting RAW and converting to Adobe RGB tiff though. As far as how big an image needs to be to make a good reproduction, a 6MP file or larger would work. It is not a simple question as there are publication and then there are publications. (And some of those publication don't know what they are talking about if your read their submission guildlines, but that is their problem.)

Hey, merry Christmas.

[Graham Mitchell]

What JPEG compression setting? If the JPEG file has more than enough resolution and is on maximum quality setting, you are unlikely to notice a difference.

[David Eichler]

My editing workflow is for maximum quality: files from a full frame dslr (21mp), RAW, Prophoto (or Lightroom version of) working color space. Reproduction size: the size of the the printed image. When delivering hi-res jpegs, quality would always be at the highest setting.

Thanks, Graham. From your website it seems evident that you are quite experienced with these matters.

[theguywitha645d]

I would not keep your files in JPEG--compression is additive every time you save. The only reason for JPEG is to save file space. Why JPEG? Graham is right that a good JPEG is not a problem, but in a publishing workflow for a designer, it makes no sense.

21MP files should be fine for any application you want, including posters and such. As far as defining an image or reproduction size, I would not waste my time. Unless you are resampling (and you should not be doing that), those numbers are just placeholders and the desktop publishing software will redefine them anyway. You could send me a 21MP file sized to 3"x2" and I can make it any size I want without having to touch your file or the data in your file. Unlike a Photoshop file that have a defined raster size, a page in a magazine can take images of different resolutions and put them together while maintaining the difference. As a designer, I want your best file that has not been resampled.

BTW, sRGB is a web color space and its gamut is smaller than a print space. AdobeRGB is going to preserve your colors better.

[ixania2]

Just to compare: Photoagencies like getty get 2-3 mb files from their photographers,adobergb, jpgs of course, compression 8, 9 or 10.

[David Eichler]

I would not keep your files in JPEG--compression is additive every time you save. The only reason for JPEG is to save file space. Why JPEG? Graham is right that a good JPEG is not a problem, but in a publishing workflow for a designer, it makes no sense.

21MP files should be fine for any application you want, including posters and such. As far as defining an image or reproduction size, I would not waste my time. Unless you are resampling (and you should not be doing that), those numbers are just placeholders and the desktop publishing software will redefine them anyway. You could send me a 21MP file sized to 3"x2" and I can make it any size I want without having to touch your file or the data in your file. Unlike a Photoshop file that have a defined raster size, a page in a magazine can take images of different resolutions and put them together while maintaining the difference. As a designer, I want your best file that has not been resampled.

BTW, sRGB is a web color space and its gamut is smaller than a print space. AdobeRGB is going to preserve your colors better.

Okay, one more bit of info which I see is important and which I left out. I am outputting the files from Lightroom and specifying an image size and resolution, so there is resampling going on. So, let's take a particular case. I outputted some images from Lightroom at 3000 pixels wide and 300ppi, as sRGB jpegs, at maximum jpeg quality, expecting the images to be printed at less than full page (although I had previously seen such a file printed as a full-bleed 8.5 x 11, and it looked fine with average printing in a brochure), with no more than pretty good printing quality. One of these images got printed as a full-bleed, double page spread in a magazine. The result came out very nicely, but I am wondering if the quality of the reproduction could have been even higher. I was not working directly with a printer but with a designer.

By the way, the purpose of the sizing mentioned above is indeed to save file space with less demanding usage, that is: reproductions that will not be full page or greater, print quality that is good but not great, and images that will receive little or no additional processing after I deliver them.

[theguywitha645d]

David, this seems to be a very broad question and the answer can get a little murky. When I said you should ask the publisher, I was not being flippant, but rather each have different criteria and will use your images differently.

If you are sending this using e-mail, then JPEGs are OK. But if you are uploading them to a server or handing them over, I would have them as TIFF--publishing is a complex workflow and the fewer steps the less chance for a error--I am really think of getting the best out of your work, which is very nice BTW.

There are so many factors in the final results, it is hard to know if it could have been better. But having done this for a long time and speaking as a designer myself, the better the data, the better the outcome. My ideal data from a photographer is a tiff file in AdobeRGB color space that has not been resampled as that will be the sharpest file. AdobeRGB will give me the best chance at getting the color--it will be converted one more time to a CMYK color space and AdobeRGB should fit the printers gamut better than sRGB.

So what happens to an image in a magazine. Layout in a magazine will mostly likely be done in Quark or Adobe InDesign. An image is brought into a layout and is scaled to fit--the designer does not even care about the pixel resolution. When outputting the design to a pdf or native Quark/InDesign file, the application itself fits the image to the layout (Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop are not layout software, although it is possible to make nice single-page documents with them). If the image is about 450dpi or less at a particular size in the layout, the image is printed that way (or at least sent to the RIP that way). If the image is larger than that, the application automatically resamples it.

So, you think if you resize it to the printed page, what is the big deal? First is this is a bleed, I need to make it a little bit larger because of tolerances in the binding process. If the aspect ratio is not quite right for my page, I might have to make it a bit bigger. And finally, if I have an element that is being cut in half by the page edge, I may want to make it a little bit bigger to eliminate that. By the time I have finished, your image can be under 300dpi in the layout. If you give me all your pixels, then I have a good magian for error--we won't even talk about and editor that does not like the left half of your image and wants to crop it out. Or if you plan that the image is for a single page and then the editor wants to change and make it a spread, then I don't have the pixels. Since the application takes care of the resampling automatically, you really don't have to worry about it and the designer is a little freer in using your image. Also the RIP (the software that interpretes the data for the printer) may do the best job of resampling because it understands the printer it is going to.

But printing is only as good as the folks working in the system. A bad designer or printer can screw things up really well. But even the best folks can be limited by the process--the inks, paper, press, costs, etc. Having been on the design side, all I can say is if you give me your best file, I have the best chance at making that look the best.

[theguywitha645d]

David, also some editors set guideline for submissions. There are a bunch that don't understand the process and you get something like "we want color images at 300dpi." Well, a 350x600 pixel file or a 10,000x15,000 pixel file can both be 300dpi--you laugh, but I have had 600x800 pixels files submitted at 300dpi and people not understand why they are not good enough. The editors are not the designers. If you send your best, the designers won't mind (and if they do, run, don't walk, away from that designer).

BTW, web publishing is entirely different from print and resized image may be better--but that is not my area of expertise.

[Graham Mitchell]

I would add that I only ever send an image as a JPEG if the client specifically asks for it. Otherwise I always use 16-bit RGB TIFFs.

[ixania2]

I would add that I only ever send an image as a JPEG if the client specifically asks for it. Otherwise I always use 16-bit RGB TIFFs.

The op speaks of magazine printing. Magazine repro depts Know what to do, believe me. The 1st step theyre gonna do if you send a 16-tiff is: converting it to 8-jpg. Then there is complex editing anyhow in the process of converting to cmyk - dont do it yourself! - and getting it print-ready...

[julienlanoo]

Just send JPEGs at 300 dpi ( full size, ) en 8 bitt in Adobe RGB, ..  -> as there's more than enough quality, an they are not supposed to work on them...
- I do it all the time..

If you send them in sRGB, that can be fine to, but it depents on the magazine and quality of their photogravure... ( or post prod office )

High quality mag's know what they do, so they like sRGB's,
But loads of magazine's have an automized Profile to picture to print system and they are use to get ridiculous quality from bad photographers, so the whole system is calibrated to sRGB, ... 

So it depends, i put the two versions on my server, so they download what they like...


greets

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

There will be very no perceivable difference between a high quality JPEG and an 8-bit TIFF. The difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB is also small, and will probably matter little, as long as color profile is properly handled. Probably, sRGB will be just fine. In addition, sRGB works like a "least common denominator" solution. So if you are not sure that your customer knows what they are doing, send sRGB.

An improperly handled image wil result in color shifts.

Regarding output sharpening it is handled best by the customer. You cannot now the exact parameters the customer will use. Also output sharpening can only be done once exact size of image has been decided. So sharpen you image so it looks good at 1:1 (actual pixels) than zoom out to (1:2) to check if it is oversharpened. Avoid visible haloes at 1:1!

Best regards
Erik

This question is not specific to medium format, but I figure that medium format users will be especially attentive to issues of reproduction quality and delivering large files. With particular regard to full page and double page reproductions in typical magazines, if you deliver a full size AdobeRGB Tiff file, how much of a quality difference will be apparent, compared with, say, an sRGB jpeg? Also, if one delivers an image size moderately smaller than the intended reproduction size, will a small amount of uprezzing really be apparent? This assumes that the images are already otherwise repro-ready and don't need much, if any, additional processing after delivery to the client. Also, are you typically providing hi-res files with output sharpening, or are you leaving that to the printer?

Again, I am talking only about typical magazine reproduction, not display prints or posters. However, could also expand this to good quality, but not top-quality, brochures of comparable size and quality to magazines.

[PdF]

For my part, I never compromise: I sent Tiff files, Adobe RGB, with the maximum size available. When the recipient asks me specifically, I reduce the file size over the final size print. I NEVER send jpeg to be printed, and I NEVER operates conversion RGB->CMYK. These depend on the types of printing and paper, and remains the responsibility of the printer.

Where possible, I try to go to the printer to check the conversion on a calibrated monitor, and I eventually makes printing to check the "print order".

PdF

[Guy Mancuso]

It's always 16bit , Profoto, Tifs at full resolution. I paid for MF files and that's what they get Period. LOL

I do always send two folders to clients one for the printer specs above than a folder called viewing only with very small jpegs. Those I run a action from the Tifs convert to srgb and make small jpegs. Reason is almost no one has full wide gamut monitors like I have and usually some srgb based monitor for viewing. So my color output will at least look normal for viewing but the printer gets the Profoto specs.

BTW Merry Christmas to the folks here at LuLu from your GetDPI friends.

[David Eichler]

Thanks for all the comments. From the above I conclude that sRGB jpegs can be perfectly suitable for the vast majority of cmyk offset printing. Of course, when I deliver files for more varied and more demanding applications, I supply full-size Tiffs without output sharpening, with either the Adobe RGB or Prophoto color space. Not sure why deliver 16-bit rather than 8-bit if there will be no significant additional processing of the images after delivery.

I now understand Russell's comment that a good printer can print just about anything well. In the example I cited above, I was rather surprised that a 3000 pixel wide, 300 ppi, file came out as well as it did for a double page reproduction at typical magazine size, with pretty good paper/printing.

[Craig Lamson]

There is no single spec for every magazine, never has been.  In fact very few magazines have identical bleed, trim, live area, same with screen dpi, same with how they ask for delivery.

Honestly, 99.9999999% of this doesn't matter if the image is professional to begin with because a good printer can print from almost anything, a bad printer can't print no matter what you send.

A lot of magazines and clients have moved to jpegs for the obvious reasons of file size and server space . . . oh an also because more of their attention is going to on line and pad distribution than print.

Sending 16 bit for cmyk reproduction is a waste of bandwidth and your client's time.   There is no such thing as 16 bit cmyk and computer/pad viewing doesn't work on the web with 16 bit.

We usually send a variety of images, sized, over sized, tiff with the profile stripped out in rgb (which is usually a generic rgb profile or srgb), rarely adobe 98 as it doesn't covert to cmyk that well and a stand swop cmyk version.

We usually start in colormatch as it bands less under hard imaging and then convert at the end.

But in the end jpegs print just as well as tiffs or psds as no human I've met can look at a jpeg 10 compression and a full tiff and see any difference in final reproduction.

IMO

BC

To show you how the world has changed about 6 years ago we sent guide prints or proofs on every image delivered and our hard printing costs were about $45,000 per year.

Now we rarely turn on a printer, to the point this year a client asked for some prints for the holidays and it took us two days to clean a printer.

Everything we do is delivered ftp and we put an ftp link up ever day.

+1 on colormatch, 8bit deliverables for repro. I've been using it for years and it is bulletproof for cmyk conversions.  I also work at d50 on my NEC.  Pre -press is always quite happy with the files and they require very little intervention.

[Dustbak]

I virtually only deliver JPG nowadays. Put them on my FTP and the publisher takes them of the ftp server. Since they use their own studio they prefer getting it in Adobe RGB in other cases I take no chances and deliver in sRGB. Printers prefer doing their own conversion to CMYK I have no desire to meddle with that.

I have no printers, I think I can count the number of prints I have done myself this year on 1 hand.

BTW, since PS version 6 saving in compressed JPG does not mean loosing detail more than once (I think it was version 6). Saving over and over does not mean losing quality over and over again (unless you lower the quality when saving).

[fredjeang]

there are basically 3 sort of output depending on the support.

Adverts displayed on big billboard can have 72 or 150 resolution scaled or not (depends on the size) in 8 bits.
Those are for the pictures that will be inserted in a vector output.
But you don't have to worry about that, it's not your business, you send the file at 300 in RGB or CMYK (only if you know what you're doing and
want to control the output. If not, let the pros optimize the files with more suitable softwares than PS. Just provide a "graded" sample).

Or also 300 in 8 bits  CMYK at generally 1/10 of the final size in big prints. Those are for the non-vector files. It depends on printing techniques,
this one being different than the described in previous paragraph.
If your billboard is 8 meters, the file will be 80cm-300-CMYK in a jpeg or flatten tiff format or PDF, the jpegs have to be prefered for storage-transfer reasons.
Magazines are 300 at 1:1 size in CMYK but RGB are sent all the time specially in newspapers advertizings.

Tiff are used for "in-house" or alpha but not in more than 8bits, it depends on the transfer etc...Prefer the PDF or the JPEG

Designers would prefer to get the max possible file whatever the support is for obvious reasons, but a jpeg is perfectly fine and never in more than 8bits.
So the important is to keep a 300 - 8 bit file except for the web-only in a suitable output.

You may need to send an alpha and depending on the output, a PNG is also an option.

And yeah, a good printer can do wonders with almost anything. But sometimes there aren't always good printers involved and it's not under your control.
Safely and to cover you, it's important to have a good communication, do not hesitate to ask and keep the mails in a folder.
A basic and safe rule is to send a 300 - jpeg or PDF - 8 bits - rgb if no alpha is needed.

Regards.

[Peter Devos]

For images on a billboard, let's say 20 square meter, 35DPi for the image is more than one ever needs. (that is the 1/10 of the real size) Text need to be in vector but the image is printed 35Dpi at max, ( most often way less). 150Dpi is great for an A0 poster in a shop display or a very small bill board.