Supplied image resolution?

RastaManBob · 11 Nov 2015 at 09:17

Hello!

I've selected a wedding photographer (thanks to those that advised on some questions to ask on here!) and the images are to be supplied on a USB flash drive (option to purchase albums later). I've asked the photographer whether the images provided will be high enough resolution to print and was told the supplied images would be 15 x 20 inches @ 300dpi (4500 x 6000 px). There is an option however to have the images supplied at 20 x 30 inches @ 300dpi (6000 x 9000 px) if we need to print larger images.

I cannot imagine I'll need to print anything larger than 15 x 20 however I cannot see the disadvantage in going for the highest resolution available, knowing that with information lost going for the smaller size I'll never be able to scale up if necessary and that I can always scale down from the higher resolution option should I want to (something I'll have to do, anyway, if I want to upload images).

Would you advise I'm correct in going for the highest resolution images available? Is there any disadvantage I've not considered? I don't want to select something thinking I know better than the photographer (and when it comes to photography I most certainly don't!) so I'd love some advice before I proceed one way or the other. After all, if it were so simple why wouldn't the photographer always supply the highest resolution available as standard?

Thanks!

Greebo · 11 Nov 2015 at 09:24

Two reasons. You need a bigger usb drive for one as the first lot the pics are 27Mb each and the second set is 54Mb. So twice the size.

And second reason is that he can presumably charge slightly more for the higher res ones as an "option"? No extra time of cost for the photographer but he gets a bit extra.

Personally I'd always take the highest res as like you say, you can never go back.

a1ex2001 · 11 Nov 2015 at 13:26

I'd take the higher res and I wouldn't been keen on paying him a bean extra as he is essentially charging you for not doing anything so in my book it is more than a little cheeky.

Steeps · 11 Nov 2015 at 14:54

a1ex2001 said:
I'd take the higher res and I wouldn't been keen on paying him a bean extra as he is essentially charging you for not doing anything so in my book it is more than a little cheeky.

I don't think it's cheeky at all. The photographer has had to pay a LOT more to get a 50+mp camera over a 25mp camera and possibly PC upgrades to enable them to process larger files in their workflow without taking extra time. Without upping the price of the base packages it seems like a fair way of recovering upgrade costs while being more affordable to those who might not want to use such large prints.

Greebo · 11 Nov 2015 at 15:01

Steeps said:
I don't think it's cheeky at all. The photographer has had to pay a LOT more to get a 50+mp camera over a 25mp camera and possibly PC upgrades to enable them to process larger files in their workflow without taking extra time. Without upping the price of the base packages it seems like a fair way of recovering upgrade costs while being more affordable to those who might not want to use such large prints.

This. Seems fine to charge a reasonable extra charge for the highest res photos.

An Exception · 11 Nov 2015 at 18:10

"There is an option however to have the images supplied at 20 x 30 inches @ 300dpi (6000 x 9000 px) if we need to print larger images."

9000x6000 isn't going to be the native resolution. I'm not sure if artificially increasing the image dimensions will result in better quality. Interpolation can actually degrade the fidelity of the picture. Have you viewed a standard res web image on a retina display?

If I was you, I wouldn't be too concerned about it. What I would be concerned with, is the quality of the photographer. Hopefully you have booked one you really like, else what's the point in all those pixels if you don't actually like the image? Pixels are not heart melters..

Kei · 11 Nov 2015 at 19:44

Depends on what the photographer is using as to whether it is being interpolated. If they are using a medium format back with 60mpx or more then 9000x6000 @ 300dpi is technically possible without upscaling, same would go for film scans. Anything else, even a 5Ds would have to be upscaled to meet those pixel dimensions at 300dpi.

Vertigo · 11 Nov 2015 at 21:01

Steeps said:
I don't think it's cheeky at all. The photographer has had to pay a LOT more to get a 50+mp camera over a 25mp camera

He won't have a 54mp camera.

An Exception said:
9000x6000 isn't going to be the native resolution. I'm not sure if artificially increasing the image dimensions will result in better quality. Interpolation can actually degrade the fidelity of the picture.

This. He'll be scaling them up which, IMHO, is pointless.

I just supply images at native resolution for printing purposes. These can vary in actual size due to cropping but I maintain aspect ratio.

mrk · 11 Nov 2015 at 23:33

It sounds like he's upscaling and then applying processing to reduce the artefacts that come with this. You could just as easily print the non upscaled shots and still get excellent results and would otherwise look identical on print.

RastaManBob · 13 Nov 2015 at 13:27

Thanks for all of the feedback, it's been really useful. To clear up; the photographer has not asked for any extra money (or at least not yet!) for the high resolution shots and this was mainly the reason I wanted to question it here... After all if more pixels is always better and they're happy to supply more (at no cost) then why would they not just always do this? After all, I'll have to resize for internet use so I may as well start with the best image size and resize as necessary for the intended application.

You have, however, answered my question - It may be that the higher resolution is simply interpolated... And if I'm only going to end up scaling back down then I might well end up worse off overall. From the feedback given I'll just ask (as well as the photographers advice!) for the native resolution and I can always up/down scale as necessary for the intended image size.

Thanks again!

D.P. · 13 Nov 2015 at 13:42

IF he used something like Genuine Fractals to upscale the result should be OK but things ill become extremely dependent on noise, dynamic range, lens artifacts, the slightest camera blur or subject blur such that it would eb really pointless for wedding photography.

Fractal enlargements work well for things like landscape photography where the camera is bolted down to a heavy tripod and heady, mirror luck-up, exposure delay, optimal aperture, base ISO etc.

hand held photographing people, not a chance.

Greebo · 13 Nov 2015 at 14:54

Yeah getting the pics in as close to native resolution is probably the best bet (he may have cropped some so they won't be exact native resolution).