If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Two ways of looking at how large to print
In another thread the question came up as to how large can you make a
print from a give size image, in this case from a 3.2 MP camera. There are two ways to look at how big a print should be made, both are correct under some circumstances. On one hand you might want the print to be just as sharp as you can get it, in this case you would want to print at 300 dpi and some people would say even higher. This would limit a 3.2 MP image to about a 4 x 6 print. But the other way to look at it is that the photo has a certain amount of detail in it and you might want the people looking at the print to be able to see all the detail that is in the photo. The human eye has a hard time seeing low contrast details that are small, so printing the photo large will make more visible to the viewer. To many photographers the sharpness of the print it critical and they are reluctant to make prints that would reduce the resolution below 300 dpi. But for any give photo printing it larger will make a print that almost all people will prefer to look at. I have seen this over and over again, I used to make small prints from my Nikon 995 (3.2 MP camera) that where very sharp and I would also make 8 x 10 prints of these same photos. People overwhelmingly preferred to look at the 8 x 10 prints. So what resolution is right for a print depends on the circumstances, if you know you are going to be making 8 x 10 prints, then you are best off using a camera that has somewhere around 8 MP. But if rather you have a photo form a given camera and you want to make the best looking print from it then you would print larger, printing at a DPI of somewhere between 150 and 200 seems good. Just to be clear I am not saying that for a given size print 150 dpi will look better then 300 dpi, far from it. What I am saying is that for a given digital image printing at it 150 to 200 dpi will produce a print that most people will enjoy looking at more then a smaller print made at a higher dpi. I should also point out that the amount of noise in a photo will greatly effect the optimum size to print it at, more noise smaller print. And of course it always help if the photo is in focus. Scott |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Scott W wrote: In another thread the question came up as to how large can you make a print from a give size image, in this case from a 3.2 MP camera. SNIP Just to be clear I am not saying that for a given size print 150 dpi will look better then 300 dpi, far from it. What I am saying is that for a given digital image printing at it 150 to 200 dpi will produce a print that most people will enjoy looking at more then a smaller made at a higher dpi. SNIP Yes, you're right, of course. But, it also depends on what the photographer is trying to convey in the print.... the print is just a logical continuation of the process of capturing a photographic image, and the detail on the print is as important as the lighting, exposure, and medium it's captured with. I often print my vacation snapshots at 200 dpi after cropping, and it looks great at 4X6 - it's a memory, really, it doesn't matter if it's a bit fuzzy as long as it evokes the right emotions. If I want to hang something on the wall, though, I want that "art photo" detail and crispness, so that a viewer can look at it from 6 feet, 2 feet and even 6 inches and see something new each time. Take a really close look at a good quality Ansel Adams reproduction sometime - you'll see what I'm talking about. Mr. Adams was as much a master in the darkroom as he was behind the camera.... ECM |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I'm interested in this too. When I open a 6 Mb image in PS and click on
"image size", it comes up at 41"x27" and 72 dpi. I usually crop at a 8x10 ratio, resize to 8"x10" and resample to 300 dpi. Originally, it's about 3000x2000 pixels. Why does PS default to such a large dimension (in inches)? My printer only does 8x10, but I'd really like to get one blown up to that 41x27 sometime, just to see what it looked like. I just resampled the original at 300 dpi and it was something like 298 Mb and 12,000 pixels wide. Also, I'm getting from this that the camera will only deliver a certain limited dpi depending on the camera's MP. How does PS resampled dpi relate to what the camera can deliver. Does it fake some pixels or something? mike "Scott W" wrote in message oups.com... Just to be clear I am not saying that for a given size print 150 dpi will look better then 300 dpi, far from it. What I am saying is that for a given digital image printing at it 150 to 200 dpi will produce a print that most people will enjoy looking at more then a smaller print made at a higher dpi. I should also point out that the amount of noise in a photo will greatly effect the optimum size to print it at, more noise smaller print. And of course it always help if the photo is in focus. Scott |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
mike regish wrote: I'm interested in this too. When I open a 6 Mb image in PS and click on "image size", it comes up at 41"x27" and 72 dpi. I usually crop at a 8x10 ratio, resize to 8"x10" and resample to 300 dpi. Originally, it's about 3000x2000 pixels. Why does PS default to such a large dimension (in inches)? My printer only does 8x10, but I'd really like to get one blown up to that 41x27 sometime, just to see what it looked like. I just resampled the original at 300 dpi and it was something like 298 Mb and 12,000 pixels wide. Also, I'm getting from this that the camera will only deliver a certain limited dpi depending on the camera's MP. How does PS resampled dpi relate to what the camera can deliver. Does it fake some pixels or something? 72 dpi is there for historical reasons, the screen resolution of the very early Mac was at 72 dpi. This is still a number that is commonly used as a good average screen resolution. So if you are looking at your photo on the screen at full size it will in fact be huge. It is easy to set the dpi to anything you want without effecting the photo, under resize uncheck the resample checkbox and then simply type in the new dpi that you want. Most of the time when you get a photo printed the dpi that is imbedded in the photos is not used to make the print, the program that is doing the printing will scale the photo to fit the page. Some programs allow you to either print at the given dpi or to scale the photo to fit the page. When you get your photo printed outside at someplace like Wal Mart or Costco they are always scale to fit the size of the paper being printed on. So I can take the exact same photo to Costco and get two print from it, one a 4 x 6 and the other a 12 x 18 and both of these will print fine because the photo printer that they use will scale the photo for me. Scott |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
Scott W wrote: It is easy to set the dpi to anything you want without effecting the photo, Indeed. I have yet to have the "Image Size" dialogue trip the shutter release. You can also rescale the dpi without affecting the image, which is very handy. ;-) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
mike regish wrote:
I'm interested in this too. When I open a 6 Mb image in PS and click on "image size", it comes up at 41"x27" and 72 dpi. I usually crop at a 8x10 ratio, resize to 8"x10" and resample to 300 dpi. Originally, it's about 3000x2000 pixels. Why does PS default to such a large dimension (in inches)? My printer only does 8x10, but I'd really like to get one blown up to that 41x27 sometime, just to see what it looked like. I just resampled the original at 300 dpi and it was something like 298 Mb and 12,000 pixels wide. Also, I'm getting from this that the camera will only deliver a certain limited dpi depending on the camera's MP. How does PS resampled dpi relate to what the camera can deliver. Does it fake some pixels or something? mike "Scott W" wrote in message oups.com... Just to be clear I am not saying that for a given size print 150 dpi will look better then 300 dpi, far from it. What I am saying is that for a given digital image printing at it 150 to 200 dpi will produce a print that most people will enjoy looking at more then a smaller print made at a higher dpi. I should also point out that the amount of noise in a photo will greatly effect the optimum size to print it at, more noise smaller print. And of course it always help if the photo is in focus. Scott Because you have your display set at 72dpi. Most monitors can be set to 96dpi (or higher), and the rendering will make a smaller picture. It is just spreading the pixels out at the setting for dots/inch for your display device. To print, you need to specify a higher DPI so that the size will be what you need. Most programs do this math FOR you, which is why I rarely print from Photoshop Elements. -- Ron Hunter |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"mike regish" wrote in message ... I'm interested in this too. When I open a 6 Mb image in PS and click on "image size", it comes up at 41"x27" and 72 dpi. I usually crop at a 8x10 ratio, resize to 8"x10" and resample to 300 dpi. Originally, it's about 3000x2000 pixels. Why does PS default to such a large dimension (in inches)? My printer only does 8x10, but I'd really like to get one blown up to that 41x27 sometime, just to see what it looked like. I just resampled the original at 300 dpi and it was something like 298 Mb and 12,000 pixels wide. Also, I'm getting from this that the camera will only deliver a certain limited dpi depending on the camera's MP. How does PS resampled dpi relate to what the camera can deliver. Does it fake some pixels or something? Ahh, the old dpi confusion issue. A digital photo does not have a dpi resolution, it has pixels. A 6MP digicam has roughly 3000x2000 pixels. DPI settings are irrelevant, 3000x2000 pixels is how much detail is in there. DPI only comes into play when the image is viewed - whether that be on a computer monitor or on a print. Computer monitors are considered to have on average 72dpi, so when photoshop says an image is 72dpi, it only says that because it is displaying it on a computer screen. If the image is 41"x27" @ 72dpi, what photoshop is really saying is "if you want to view this image so that 1 pixel in the original matches 1 pixel on your monitor, and assuming your monitor is at the average 72 dpi then the image will measure 41inches x 27inches". There is no need, and no point, to resize the image just to resave it again. Ignore the size in inches and dpi, and work only in pixels at this level. Then, if and when you want to print the image, resize to the target size and resolution. mike |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks. That makes it much more understandable to me. I have been resizing
and resampling to 300 dpi for prints, but couldn't understand how that related to what was on the monitor. Thanks again. mike "Justin Thyme" wrote in message news:9U_5e.559 Ahh, the old dpi confusion issue. A digital photo does not have a dpi resolution, it has pixels. A 6MP digicam has roughly 3000x2000 pixels. DPI settings are irrelevant, 3000x2000 pixels is how much detail is in there. DPI only comes into play when the image is viewed - whether that be on a computer monitor or on a print. Computer monitors are considered to have on average 72dpi, so when photoshop says an image is 72dpi, it only says that because it is displaying it on a computer screen. If the image is 41"x27" @ 72dpi, what photoshop is really saying is "if you want to view this image so that 1 pixel in the original matches 1 pixel on your monitor, and assuming your monitor is at the average 72 dpi then the image will measure 41inches x 27inches". There is no need, and no point, to resize the image just to resave it again. Ignore the size in inches and dpi, and work only in pixels at this level. Then, if and when you want to print the image, resize to the target size and resolution. mike |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
mike regish wrote: I'm interested in this too. When I open a 6 Mb image in PS and click on "image size", it comes up at 41"x27" and 72 dpi. I usually crop at a 8x10 ratio, resize to 8"x10" and resample to 300 dpi. Originally, it's about 3000x2000 pixels. Why does PS default to such a large dimension (in inches)? My printer only does 8x10, but I'd really like to get one blown up to that 41x27 sometime, just to see what it looked like. I just resampled the original at 300 dpi and it was something like 298 Mb and 12,000 pixels wide. Also, I'm getting from this that the camera will only deliver a certain limited dpi depending on the camera's MP. How does PS resampled dpi relate to what the camera can deliver. Does it fake some pixels or something? 72 dpi is there for historical reasons, the screen resolution of the very early Mac was at 72 dpi. This is still a number that is commonly used as a good average screen resolution. So if you are looking at your photo on the screen at full size it will in fact be huge. It is easy to set the dpi to anything you want without effecting the photo, under resize uncheck the resample checkbox and then simply type in the new dpi that you want. Most of the time when you get a photo printed the dpi that is imbedded in the photos is not used to make the print, the program that is doing the printing will scale the photo to fit the page. Some programs allow you to either print at the given dpi or to scale the photo to fit the page. When you get your photo printed outside at someplace like Wal Mart or Costco they are always scale to fit the size of the paper being printed on. So I can take the exact same photo to Costco and get two print from it, one a 4 x 6 and the other a 12 x 18 and both of these will print fine because the photo printer that they use will scale the photo for me. Scott |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
mike regish wrote:
I'm interested in this too. When I open a 6 Mb image in PS and click on "image size", it comes up at 41"x27" and 72 dpi. I usually crop at a 8x10 ratio, resize to 8"x10" and resample to 300 dpi. Originally, it's about 3000x2000 pixels. Why does PS default to such a large dimension (in inches)? My printer only does 8x10, but I'd really like to get one blown up to that 41x27 sometime, just to see what it looked like. I just resampled the original at 300 dpi and it was something like 298 Mb and 12,000 pixels wide. Also, I'm getting from this that the camera will only deliver a certain limited dpi depending on the camera's MP. How does PS resampled dpi relate to what the camera can deliver. Does it fake some pixels or something? mike "Scott W" wrote in message oups.com... Just to be clear I am not saying that for a given size print 150 dpi will look better then 300 dpi, far from it. What I am saying is that for a given digital image printing at it 150 to 200 dpi will produce a print that most people will enjoy looking at more then a smaller print made at a higher dpi. I should also point out that the amount of noise in a photo will greatly effect the optimum size to print it at, more noise smaller print. And of course it always help if the photo is in focus. Scott Because you have your display set at 72dpi. Most monitors can be set to 96dpi (or higher), and the rendering will make a smaller picture. It is just spreading the pixels out at the setting for dots/inch for your display device. To print, you need to specify a higher DPI so that the size will be what you need. Most programs do this math FOR you, which is why I rarely print from Photoshop Elements. -- Ron Hunter |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ping: Ryadia --Large Digital Prints | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 22 | February 22nd 05 03:54 PM |
roll-film back: DOF question | RSD99 | Large Format Photography Equipment | 41 | July 30th 04 03:12 AM |
Print more photos on one paper and save printing papers! | Steve Chambers | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | February 26th 04 07:07 PM |
WTB: Large Print Roller | Gordon Chapple | Darkroom Equipment For Sale | 0 | February 6th 04 10:56 PM |
Help needed to identify an old print. (Platinum??) | Graeme | Fine Art, Framing and Display | 3 | January 17th 04 07:20 AM |