Wedding Photo Sizes

danieljamesphoto

danieljamesphoto

Messages
403
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys,

Having not long got my 7D i've just done my first wedding with it and well being 18mp the JPEGs exported are HUGE to say the least, 827 images created 9GB of images (+ black & white and sepia versions so around 27gb in total), now the couple have bought the DVD so do you think I should put the full versions over 4 DVDs or reduce them in size slightly?

thanks,

Dan
 
I think you should send them a downsized set.
Easily automated in Photoshop and there are alot of programs that do it for you too.
I believe one of them is FastStone

You should be shooting RAW anyway.
 
AdamPearcey said:
I think you should send them a downsized set.
Easily automated in Photoshop and there are alot of programs that do it for you too.
I believe one of them is FastStone

You should be shooting RAW anyway.
Click to expand...

he hasn't said he's not shooting raw, it's the exported jpegs he's talking about - he's not going to give the couple a set of raw files. they wouldn't be able to view them
 
joescrivens said:
he hasn't said he's not shooting raw, it's the exported jpegs he's talking about - he's not going to give the couple a set of raw files. they wouldn't be able to view them
Click to expand...

True.

By the way, nice to see you support my comment in your sig. :)
Although it would have been nice if you didn't edit it.
 
danieljamesphoto said:
Hi guys,

Having not long got my 7D i've just done my first wedding with it and well being 18mp the JPEGs exported are HUGE to say the least, 827 images created 9GB of images (+ black & white and sepia versions so around 27gb in total), now the couple have bought the DVD so do you think I should put the full versions over 4 DVDs or reduce them in size slightly?

thanks,

Dan
Click to expand...

Firstly do they really need all 847 images?

Thats a hell of a lot to actually sit and look through, if they looked at each photo for just 10 seconds they'd be looking at them for over 2 hours!

Are all 847 of them worth keeping, are their duplicates etc? People usually give 300 ish photos
 
danieljamesphoto said:
Hi guys,

Having not long got my 7D i've just done my first wedding with it and well being 18mp the JPEGs exported are HUGE to say the least, 827 images created 9GB of images (+ black & white and sepia versions so around 27gb in total), now the couple have bought the DVD so do you think I should put the full versions over 4 DVDs or reduce them in size slightly?

thanks,

Dan
Click to expand...

Dan,

I think 827 photos is far to big a set, and then to repeat it in B & W and Sepia (:gag:) is just too much. Downsize your set to around 300 photos, and then present each image only once, in B & W or colour not both and forget sepia (pretty please)
 
AdamPearcey said:
True.

By the way, nice to see you support my comment in your sig. :)
Although it would have been nice if you didn't edit it.
Click to expand...

support, thats one way to put it, I'd say laugh at considering you failed massively and made yourself look a fool by getting it wrong. :lol::lol:

what part was edited?
 
150-350 is a good ball park and yeah kill the duplicates ;)


I remind them that they should copy them to a hdd as soon as, tempted to steal DDs idea of selling images on an external hdd

Also are you only putting in full res files? I generally put a matching set of facebook sized ones on because they will want to share them and they are a lot easier to browse on low end machines
 
Wrong how?

And there was more to there story than what you chose to quote. and it wasn't directed at every Canon user. But you chose to leave that part out.
I see Canon and Nikon both equally. Both have ups, both have downs.
It was directed towards Slimbert. You seemed to have missed his quote out.

However if you wish to be the child of something that never even involved you, be my guest.

Anyway, boyfalldown is right. You don't need to send them so many. Sift through them for an hour or so and pick the best 300 out. Personally I would leave it to the couple which ones they wanted in B&W.
 
Last edited:
AdamPearcey said:
Wrong how?

And there was more to there story than what you chose to quote. and it wasn't directed at every Canon user. But you chose to leave that part out.
I see Canon and Nikon both equally. Both have ups, both have downs.

However if you wish to be the child of something that never even involved you, be my guest.

Anyway, boyfalldown is right. You don't need to send them so many. Sift through them for an hour or so and pick the best 300 out. Personally I would leave it to the couple which ones they wanted in B&W.
Click to expand...

HA, it's even funnier now tht you don't realise what you got wrong. I suggest you revist the thread and see how many people burned you back and then do a little research on google

start here for the revelations

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=263379&page=4

as for leaving the rest out, it's a signature, and this was the fail part, the rest of the post is irrelevant, it's nothing to do with you slamming canon users, it's just to do with you trying to burn and failing for getting it so wrong.
 
Last edited:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=259031&page=1

Second post down.

-.- I realise now, however... I'm sure I put vise versa on the post you quoted. Maybe fabs editted it lol.

Either way, its still pretty sad that you cant use cropped lens on a FF body. Whether Canon tried to save on a few quid or whatever... Or maybe they wanted you to buy the adaptors.
 
Last edited:
AdamPearcey said:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=259031&page=1

Second post down.

-.- I realise now, however... I'm sure I put vise versa on the post you quoted. Maybe fabs editted it lol.

Either way, its still pretty sad that you cant use cropped lens on a FF body. Whether Canon tried to save on a few quid or whatever... Or maybe they wanted you to buy the adaptors.
Click to expand...

Just admit you tried to burn and you got burned back. Nobody wants cropped lenses on full frame sensors - the crop lenses all have full frame equivalents. Not to mention the vignetting that's caused.

Also, I'd advise you perhaps learn the humour of the forum before you go trying to BURN people. Tounge in cheek comments like the one slimbert made didn't need the tone of comment your replied with. Think a little before you post and not only will you not end up looking foolish but you'll fit in perfectly :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
Just admit you tried to burn and you got burned back. Nobody wants cropped lenses on full frame sensors - the crop lenses all have full frame equivalents. Not to mention the vignetting that's caused.

Also, I'd advise you perhaps learn the humour of the forum before you go trying to BURN people. Tounge in cheek comments like the one slimbert made didn't need the tone of comment your replied with. Think a little before you post and not only will you not end up looking foolish but you'll fit in perfectly :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Your not getting the point. Fair enough, it was the wrong way round. I'll admit it.

Actually I can't be bothered with your ignorance. But fact is, if you went from cropped to FF youd have to buy a whole new line of lenses or the adaptor. Anyway I'll let you take your last word because I know you'll beg the urge to post back to this.
Keep in mind I won't be viewing it so if your ego needs the boost... well doesn't matter you'll do it anyway lol.

By the way, is that lipstick your wearing? O.O

:thumbs:
 
AdamPearcey said:
Your not getting the point. Fair enough, it was the wrong way round. I'll admit it.

Actually I can't be bothered with your ignorance. But fact is, if you went from cropped to FF youd have to buy a whole new line of lenses or the adaptor. Anyway I'll let you take your last word because I know you'll beg the urge to post back to this.
Keep in mind I won't be viewing it so if your ego needs the boost... well doesn't matter you'll do it anyway lol.

By the way, is that lipstick your wearing? O.O

:thumbs:
Click to expand...


:shake: I particularly like the 'I'm wrong, but you're ignorant for pointing it out, and now I'll go and cry in the corner' tones of this post

edit btw the guy in lipstick, Steve Jobs, not Joe
 
Last edited:
Oh dear, I think we should have a little wager on how long Adam will last here if he continues with this spit the dummy attitude. I'm going for 731 posts, anyone else?

also, re. the lipstck comment, is it me or is that another epic fail?

:lol:

Anyway, sorry to hijack this Daniel, lets get back on topic!
 
Last edited:
732

... and a half. With some fatty bacon on the side :gag:
 
joescrivens said:
Oh dear, I think we should have a little wager on how long Adam will last here if he continues with this spit the dummy attitude. I'm going for 731 posts, anyone else?

also, re. the lipstck comment, is it me or is that another epic fail?

:lol:
Click to expand...

lipstick comment.......yes but not as epic as the one in your sig

as high as 731 you think. I reckon more like 169
 
Last edited:
Just to return this thread back to the original question (a shocking way to proceed, I know!)...

I agree with the above sentiments about eight hundred photos being too many (especially as that's before mono and sepia) for most weddings - obviously if it's some kind of epic(!) wedding it might be different.

Also by my maths, you're coming out with about 11GB a file which suggests that you may be exporting the final images from Photoshop/Lightroom using quality 12/100 - you can safely drop this to 10/85 without any noticeable difference in prints at any size the couple are likely to use. Doing this will probably reduce your total file size by at least a third if not more.
 
AdamPearcey said:
Your not getting the point. Fair enough, it was the wrong way round. I'll admit it.

Actually I can't be bothered with your ignorance. But fact is, if you went from cropped to FF youd have to buy a whole new line of lenses or the adaptor. Anyway I'll let you take your last word because I know you'll beg the urge to post back to this.
Keep in mind I won't be viewing it so if your ego needs the boost... well doesn't matter you'll do it anyway lol.

By the way, is that lipstick your wearing? O.O

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Hang on - excuse me for pointing out that you could be wrong again.

Yup theres a few EF-S lenses for cropped cameras, and why not? They are cheaper than L lenses, suit the market they are aimed for. BUT (and this is the big but) you'll find that anyone with aspirations towards full frame or even the 1.3x crop cameras will probably have the better L lenses anyway, because it's the lenses that make the most difference, followed by the features of different bodies.

So it's not an issue, more of an advantage that you have a huge range of lenses over a wide budget available to you.

Don't take the brand rivalry so seriously. It's all about the result, not what you use.
 
markrichardson said:
Just to return this thread back to the original question (a shocking way to proceed, I know!)...

I agree with the above sentiments about eight hundred photos being too many (especially as that's before mono and sepia) for most weddings - obviously if it's some kind of epic(!) wedding it might be different.

Also by my maths, you're coming out with about 11GB a file which suggests that you may be exporting the final images from Photoshop/Lightroom using quality 12/100 - you can safely drop this to 10/85 without any noticeable difference in prints at any size the couple are likely to use. Doing this will probably reduce your total file size by at least a third if not more.
Click to expand...

Worth looking at the pixels per inch resolution as well
 
Byker, he's just grasping at straws. On full frame Nikons when you put a DX lens on it, the camera goes into "cropped mode", whereas Canons don't, so all you get is a big fat vignette. Apparently this means the end of the world to some people.
 
Byker28i said:
Worth looking at the pixels per inch resolution as well
Click to expand...

The pixels per inch resolution won't make any difference to the file size. Pixels per inch is essentially just a software tag. Assuming the image isn't being resized on export, the total file size will be identical regardless of how you specify the pixels per inch.
 
markrichardson said:
The pixels per inch resolution won't make any difference to the file size. Pixels per inch is essentially just a software tag. Assuming the image isn't being resized on export, the total file size will be identical regardless of how you specify the pixels per inch.
Click to expand...

Just tried it - you're right! Always thought it make a difference.
 
trencheel303 said:
Byker, he's just grasping at straws. On full frame Nikons when you put a DX lens on it, the camera goes into "cropped mode", whereas Canons don't, so all you get is a big fat vignette. Apparently this means the end of the world to some people.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said on the other thread I don't comment about other makes ;) :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top