My first post here, I'm not sure this is the right board, but if it's not I'm sure someone will point me in the appropriate direction.I have a Nikon digital (Coolpix S1 ~5M). I took a bunch of pictures over Thanksgiving, which Mrs. Goofy wants me to turn into a calendar at Kinko's for distribution to the family (at $20 a pop...) , requiring the shots to be resized to 8 1/2" x 11". The Kinko's website does not support Mac, so I have to do this at home using Photoshop LE and bring them to the store on hard media ;<.Having done about a half dozen "months", complete with a few inserted pictures from previous years, I now realize that I have been "resizing the image" at 72 dpi, the default setting, which will make the pics look like crap when printed large. My question is: does anybody know what "dpi" setting I should use when resizing the pictures; I don't want to overshoot and tell it to interpolate up, nor do I want to lose any detail as much as that's avoidable.FWIW, the Photoshop tells me that the photos at 38 x 22 when I bring them into the program, and showing 8M size (weird for a 5M camera, no?).I'm also importing photos from previous years made with a 1.3M camera (which has died, hence the new one) and I am typically using a shot from the new camera for the full size (8 1/2 x 11) and then dropping in a couple of 2x3s or 3x4s from the older camera. Since I never printed from that camera, I don't know how that resolution is, either, but I suspect at smaller size it won't matter that much.Any tips appreciated, or an answer to the basic question: what dpi setting does anyone suggest I use?Thanks.
The 72 dpi is for screen viewing. The print dpi should be 300. I don't recall how to confirm this, but I know it is viewable somehow.You may also want to look at Lulu.com for the calendar printing, I believe it is cheaper.Keith
Some of our resident experts may have good advice, but the folks here are very knowledgeable when it comes to such problems: http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1701
When you open the photos from your Nikon are the images at 72ppi to start with? What version of photoshop do you have by the way?Simply put, a photo at 72 dots per inch will take up more room physically in inches since there are only 72 dots per inch. When you change it to 300 dots per inch the photo will be physically smaller since your now compacting more dots per inch.Example: An image from a 8mp digital camera that is 3504x2336 pixels total size at 300dpi is 11.68" by 7.787 inches. You take the total size of the photo divided by the resolution ppi, so 3504/300 is 11.68 and 2336/300=7.787 inches.Now the same photo 3504x2336 at 72 ppi would be 48.667x32.444" inches big!! 3504/72=48.667 and 23336/72=32.444So in image resize dialog note your total image size in pixels, lets say 3504x2336, change the resolution or ppi to 300, Photoshop will change the total image size, go back up to the size in pixels and change it back to what you noted. Done.Dave K
When you open the photos from your Nikon are the images at 72ppi to start with? I assume so, since that is what the "change image size" default is when I open it in Photoshop.What version of photoshop do you have by the way?Photoshop LE for Mac. It's an old version. I have Photoshop 3.0 Elements sitting in a box, but it requires OS X which I only have on one computer which is in pretty constant use pulling a video stream for Mrs. Goofy's work; all my other Macs are 9.something. I'd rather not take the time to install and learn a new version if I don't have to.Simply put, a photo at 72 dots per inch will take up more room physically in inches since there are only 72 dots per inch. When you change it to 300 dots per inch the photo will be physically smaller since your now compacting more dots per inch.OK. But I have an old HP printer which printed at 300 dpi, and which was "acceptable." I have another, less old HP printer which (they said) prints at 600 dpi, and which claims to interpolate to 1200 dpi. I don't really know, I never used it to print photo-real.I now have an HP Officejet 4200, for which I can't find a "resolution" indicator in the manual, although it does say it scans (it's an "All In One") at 600 dpi. (And I have an HP Photosmart 470 to quick-print snapshots, which also doesn't mention "resolution" anywhere in the documentation.) But I digress.When you change it to 300 dots per inch the photo will be physically smaller since your now compacting more dots per inch.I think I understand. So I should simply change the "resolution" setting from 72 to 300 and that will automatically "downsize" the photo, and then I should re-size the photo? Many of them need to be cropped, so I guess I should do that first?As you can tell, this is new and different for me, and the technical parts of it for a program which I never use are frustrating.Example: An image from a 8mp digital camera that is 3504x2336 pixels total size at 300dpi is 11.68" by 7.787 inches. You take the total size of the photo divided by the resolution ppi, so 3504/300 is 11.68 and 2336/300=7.787 inches.OK, I think I get it. Sort of. I'll monkey around and see. In the meantime, I can't quite get the "more than 300 dpi for photos" mantra out of my head. Why did HP sell a printer that did higher res if that wasn't necessary?
When you change the 72ppi to 300ppi change the total size of the photo back to what it was at 72 ppi. Do this in one step. Do not change the resolution from 72 to 300, hit ok and go back to change the total size in pixels. If you do it in two steps instead of all at once your photo will be HUGE file size wise after step 1!!!Actually even easier, set the PPI from 72 to 300 and uncheck the resample image check box. This will do the same thing. Why didnt I think of that earlier!! By doing this the image will remain the same overall size for example 1024x768 size at 72 ppi will remain 1024x768 300ppiThe printers print resolution is not the same as the photos resolution. You do however want the photo resolution to be an even multiple of the print resolution. For instance some inkjet printers have a resolution of 2400dpi (Canon) so 2400/300=8.0 and works great but for Epson they are at 1440dpi so 1440/300=4.8 and is not ideal. For Epson you could go with 288ppi or 360ppi because 1440/288=5 or 1440/360=4. But for most people unless they have a very trained eye 300ppi will work fine on most any modern inkjet or printer.Dave K
Oh I forgot to say you can get the photo at 300ppi during cropping. When you select the crop tool you get to enter the PPI, set it to 300 and crop the photo. You now have a cropped photo at 300ppi ready for printing. During your crop you may end up with an odd sized photo overall maybe 7x6.5 or something strange when you really wanted a 8"x10". If your crop tool allows you to enter a size as well as ppi. So enter 8"x10" 300ppi. Dont crop to small an area because blowing up a small area of the photo to 8x10 would produce a poor quality image.Dave K
Yo Goofyhoofy,the Photoshop tells me that the photos at 38 x 22 when I bring them into the program, and showing 8M size (weird for a 5M camera, no?) I think Dave gave a wonderful explanation of sizing...it's nomenclature (to a great part) that's confusing...at least I stay confused with it...You have a 5M (megapixel) camera producing an 8M (megabyte) file....For the sizing.....open the native file in PS, do whatever adjustments to the picture that you want, then crop it at 8.5x11 @ 300dpi. Then use the 'save as' command and name it something different from your original file (so you don't overwrite the original in case you want to do something different with it in the future...or I guess you can just copy the ones you want to work with in a different file). Most/many of the commercial printers for digital files like things at about 300dpi....Mick
Well it takes an extra post, but I just wanted to roll a big "thank you" into the thread for the explanations and advice.I get it, at least I think I get it, and I'll probably know better tomorrow when I attack the project again. Today was spent wrestling with some Christmas shopping and other mundane chores, but I do appreciate the time and patience it took to explain it all to me.Before I left for chores for the day I did take the advice to go to the other photography forum, where the answers which came in thoughout the day were about the same ;)Thanks again!Did I mention this love/hate thing I have with digital cameras?I can tell exactly when I got the first one, because the shoeboxes full of photographs of my life absolutely stop in the Spring of 2001. There's almost nothing for the next 4 years, which is why I bought one of those "quickie 4x6/5x7 printers" because I'm tired of not having prints around.When Mrs. Goofy and I took our extended RV trip in 2001 we got to Oregon (from Tennessee) before she finally demanded we buy a "real" camera and take some "real" pictures, and thank goodness for that, but it's still too easy to snap away with the digital and then bury them somewhere in the bowels of a 100 gig hard drive, rarely to be found again.Well. That was an uncalled for rant. Sorry.Thanks again, with your help tomorrow I will be one monster digital cowboy.
Goofy,another great site....experience/exertise is great and are extremely willing to help.....http://www.fredmiranda.com/Mick
Oh! FM, I can't say enough about that place. Sometimes I read to much on there and it prevents me from having time to take photos. :)Dave K.Stop reading this and take a photo.
Do you have a user id on FM?? Just curious if we have crossed paths on FM and not realized it.Dave K
Wow, A chance to actually help the Bard himself... :)Looking over the posts here all I can say is 'Welcome to the confusing world of digital photography'.Simple way to think about all this:Take a picture. Think of a see-saw. Once your capture is made there's no adding or changing the INFORMATION in the capture. On one side of the see-saw is dots-per inch (dpi), on the other is dimension (inches). One goes up, the other has to go down, the file size (8MB) remains the same.Computers...Computers displaying images need 72dpi resolution because that's all there is on the screen, so a 5"x7" image at 72 dpi will be almost exactly that. A 5"x7" at 150 dpi will appear twice as large, etc...Printers.... Practical experience tells me that I can't really distinguish the difference between a 5"x7" print at 240 dpi from one at 300dpi or 500 dpi for that matter. The simple reason is that the ink 'spreads' slighly on contact with the paper, so that extra detail gets lost. Good rules of thumb:>Edit- be ruthless.>Keep your camera images as TIFF files. They're lossless, unlike JPEG. They're bigger but there is LZW compression as an option and besides, hard drive space is cheap.>When making a print use the image size dialog box to control the size and dpi. With your 8MB files there is plenty of headroom for prints up to 11x14 or even 16x20. Remember, prints that size are often viewed at greater distances, so what appears as lack of resolution when your nose is up against the print will be perfectly fine on your wall next to the moose.I've used 11MB files for billboards, for example.>Keep it simple. The best enjoyment of anything computer is when the interface disappears an you're in the present.have a great holiday season,Davids/sf
Hey Dave, good reply.I actually read and confirmed the other day the 72dpi for screen display it total BS. You can keep an image at 100, 200, 300 dpi and size it to your display 640x480 800x600 or whatever and the display quality is just fine.Thinking all this time I always changed my web photos to 72dpi!!!Also confirmed after reading that converting images for large print that putting in a value of 360dpi "<- recalling from memory" makes a big difference in quality. I tried it at home and sure enough it was true. I have to consult my latest PS CS2 book on the 360 number, but I think thats what it was. In any event it was slightly higher than 300.Havent see you post in a while, where ya been!!Dave K
I actually read and confirmed the other day the 72dpi for screen display it total BS. You can keep an image at 100, 200, 300 dpi and size it to your display 640x480 800x600 or whatever and the display quality is just fine.I think you are misreading the intent of resizing to 72 dpi.Most of todays display monitors have an output of 72 dpi. The reason to downsize he file is't for better display, it's for saving space on the server and time for the end user/viewer. Larger files naturally take longer to download. If you upload a visual file @ 300dpi, it isn't going to look any better than one at 72 dpi, but will take up a lot more space on the server and take more time for the viewer to download.~cold
Hi Dave, Thanks for the comments and the followup, always good to read informed writing. ~cold is partially correct about my intent for resizing; I simply wanted a good way for people to visualize how their images display without assuming the underlying knowledge about monitors/screen res, etc. A file at 72 dpi will pretty much display at the intended dimensions on an 'average' 17" laptop (the default for a majority of my clients) at an average resolution of 1024 x768. That's all I meant, and all I wanted Mr. GH to be able to understand and utilize until his experience grew to a point where more in-depth questions became apparent.My 84 year old in-laws come to mind. My wife and I got them a 20" iMac, and once, when teaching them about sending images via Mail, I accidentally sent them a full res JPEG of an illustration I was working on. Their descriptions of what they were seeing were totally cryptic until I recognized that they were looking at a very tiny part of the entire image. An eyeball, literally.We forget how much we've got invested in the OS and it's GUI. Believe me, working with corporates reminds me of how much wheat needs sorting from the chaff before explaining ANYTHING about digital imaging. Double that when teaching older people who are new to the computing experience. Some literally don't see differences between separate windows and the desktop, or understand that applications are different from the one another; that writing letters is different from browsing, for example. Or where files are, or what a hard drive is even. I think there was a recent 'Bloom County' cartoon on Sunday that illustrated this quite nicely...In the meantime the bottom line is that GH will forge ahead, damn the torpedoes, and start printing to his hearts content.cheers,David/sfKeep up the good posts here on this forum.
cold,I think we are both off track, but here it is again.A file 1024x768 @ 72dpi is the exact same size in bytes, megs, kbytes etc as a 1024x768 file at 300dpi. Both will display nicely on the web and take the same time to load.Dave K
Some good write ups on the difference between pixels and printer dots:http://www.scantips.com/basics3b.htmlhttp://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/printer-resolution.htmlhttp://www.fotofinish.com/resources/centers/photo/resolution.htmBest quote from all three sources: 'In the digital world, "inches" don't exist, only pixels do.'The biggest thing to worry about is ratios. Haven't seen this covered yet. Best way to express this is width-to-height or width/height. Setting up images that I will use for backgrounds I setup using monitor ratios which all tend to be 1024/768 or 1.3333 width-to-height (you can thank the NTSC guys for this funny ratio). If you are going to print this image as a 4"x6" print (prints like to use height-x-width), you are going to have to crop it. The 4"x6" print has a width-to-height ratio of 6/4 or 1.5. So you are going to lose some of the width of the image. 4x6 = 1.5 5x7 = 1.4 6x8 = 1.3338x10 = 1.25My camera (Sony DSC-V3) shoots native 7.2MP at 3072x2304 or a ratio of 1.3333. So, to do 4x6 prints for my MIL showoff pictures of her grandsons I always have to crop them to get them to come out right.And, I always play with a copy. The original is never touched.
I wish they made 8.5x11 picture frames! Funny how the ratios of picture frame sizes do not match the ratio/image size that comes out of the camera.Some cameras have marks in the view finder that denote where a 8x10 would fall.Dave K
I wish they made 8.5x11 picture frames! Funny how the ratios of picture frame sizes do not match the ratio/image size that comes out of the camera.They have some. They are noted as certificate frames.Keith
"I wish they made 8.5x11 picture frames!"Sounds like a money-maker. You might want to get on that before someone else does. :-)Ken
Dave, you are correct and I realized later...had a brain freeze when I read your post about changing the dimensions. Either way works as you have already stated and the file size will be approximately the same.When uploading for web viewing, I also compress the file a bit just so it will not print worth a damn. <G>~cold*clearing the rocks from his head and the clouds from his vision
I wish they made 8.5x11 picture frames! Funny how the ratios of picture frame sizes do not match the ratio/image size that comes out of the camera.I just use bigger frames and cut my own mats.~cold
I have a Nikon digital (Coolpix S1 ~5M). I took a bunch of pictures over Thanksgiving, which Mrs. Goofy wants me to turn into a calendar at Kinko's for distribution to the family (at $20 a pop...) , requiring the shots to be resized to 8 1/2" x 11". The Kinko's website does not support Mac, so I have to do this at home using Photoshop LE and bring them to the store on hard media ;<.Costco.com offers similar products, and their software does support Mac. If you are a Costco member, you may want to check it out.Cromely
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<