Recommended resolution for digital pics?
 

Hi there,

Can anyone tell me the minimum quality or resolution i need to use on my digital camera if i hope in future that i might get some published? I remember Grant mentioning something about this at the last HUBB rally in England, but have lost the piece of paper with details. Thanks, Jenny.

The max your camera will do.... always

You can always reduce resolution later for the web for instance, but you can't increase it!

Memory cards are cheap cheap compared to film - buy lots of big ones, burn to multiple cd copies (in 2 different internet cafes) and send home separately. Don't empty the card till confirmed safe arrival at home of the cd.

For printing out photos 300 dpi (dots per inch) is recommended, i.e. a 4x6" photo would require 1200x1800 resolution, etc.

For publication it very much depends on the mag, some for whom photos are important prefer slides. Best bet would be to check with the kind of mag you would like to write for.

Pieter

Hi,
As said, it depends on where you want to get published. If you are planning to get published in a newspaper then a 'Large/Fine' Jpeg will be fine, even a 'Large/Normal' will be OK. For a magazine the max your camera will manage, RAW preferably. Some magazines still only accept wet formats.
matt

Depends how they publish your pic and what kind of pic it is.
In a story, landscapes can be the pics interesting on 1 or 2 pages, they will want to reshape or zoom a detail.
A pic is not often perfect as on the slides\memory.
Anyway, always maximum resolution for everything.
For publishing, keep in mind the perfection normally required;
saturation neutral
white balance neutral
Auto sharpening..neutral
No filters allowed except polarizer, uv and warmers.
In short..no cheating and only natural lights.

Good luck,

Matt

I'd have to disagree with Matt595's comment - "only natural lights" - often fill flash makes a huge difference - in fact it should be used more.

Filters a little iffy too - it all comes down to the result. Having said that, I carry and use polarizer, uv and warmers, PLUS nd grads.

Otherwise, yep, agreed!

------------------
Grant Johnson

Seek, and ye shall find.
------------------------

One world, Two wheels.
www.HorizonsUnlimited.com

Hi Grant,

You´re right about the fill flash, it can make great differences.
When saying "natural lights" I describe badly what I intended.
I was thinking of using saturation/contrast etc controls instead of using natural lights to create exposed colors.
I think publishers often wants authentic lights, colors etc.
When photo wasn´t digital, they could quickly tell, that is one of the reasons they now require RAW or TIFF, to have what they call a digital negative, the true result from cameras sensor.
But fill flash is no crime, so I agree also!

Matt


[This message has been edited by Matt595 (edited 07 September 2005).]

Mmmmm, fill in flash. Great stuff, agreed.
I'd also suggest an off camera flash sync. cord. I use mine ALL THE TIME! It can get you out of all sorts of tricky lighting situations.
matt

Hi Matt and others, Thanks for all the tips. Matt could you explain a bit more about this off camera flash sync cord?
Thanks, Jenny

Thanks Grant,... Excuse my ignorance, but what are nd grads? Jenny

Hi Beddhist,
An off camera sync. cord is basically a lentgh of cable that allows you to use the flash off the camera. Normally coiled and about 2 feet long they make bounce flash and angled flash much easier. Many flash pictures look strange due to the flash being fired from the direction of the camera, an unatural direction, and it shows. Lifting the flash, for example, up and to the left, gives much more natural lighting.
Also, should you have bright sunlight coming in from the upper right on a subject ( and causing heavy shadow) then by popping a little bit of fill in flash, using the cord, from the left you can soften the contrast enormously.
There are a multitude of applications for an off camera sync. I rarely use my flash 'on camera' but nearly always off.
In the UK a shop brand (e.g. Jessops) cord costs about £30, whereas the brand version (Nikon etc.) will cost twice as much and do the job no better. Be aware you have to get a cord suitable for use with your brand of camera (Nikon, Canon etc)
Matt

Just throwing in a few more lines about publishing of digital pictures.
From what I heard, a resolution of 5-6Mp RAW/TIFF can be considered a digital negative, they remain editable after picture is taken.
Above 8Mp is close in details to a diapositive(slides).
Photographers use diapositives cause this kind of film contains much more grain than negatives.
A digital picture contain no grain but pixels, they are good when you want sharpness.
If I had to work for a publisher, I would consider honoring the slides!


Matt

ND grads

sorry! http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/ubb/redface.gif

nd = neutral density graduated filter

nd = grey = no colour change
graduated = clear at one end, and dark (ish) at the other, with varying gradations in between.

Think of a very bright sky and a dark mountain - the camera can't possibly record it all (especially film) so you set the nd grad to darken the sky and not affect the mountain, putting the gradation on the skyline, and expose for the mountain. voila!

There are nd grads that are very abrupt transition, and some that are very gradual. Also available in one two and three stop differences. Generally available in square plastic form, which you either mount on a filter holder attached to the lens, or do as I do - just hold it in front of the lens. Always stop the camera down to the f-stop you will use for the shot to see th REAL effect you will be getting. With digital you see the final result of course so can tweak as needed.