A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Printing photos question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 7th 07, 09:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
jmc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default Printing photos question

I'm being asked to sell the pics I've been taken at our Western Riding
Club shows, apparently they're good enough people are actually *asking*
to pay money for 'em (cool!)

I show the pics on the club website (cawri.com), at 640x480, which
provides a decent 4x6 print, and encourage folks to print those images
for free.

Now, I've been printing my own photos for years. I just take the
biggest copy I have, and print that at whatever resolution I need,
ignoring ppi, which appears to be at 72ppi on my current images
according to ThumbsPlus. I got decent photos at 8x10, even with my older
cameras, back to 1.5MP. I've been getting excellent photos with 5MP
cameras and above, at 8x10.

Now, I'm looking at something that's explaining resolution vs print
size, and saying for my 6MP camera the max I can print is 10x6 @300ppi.
Hmmm.

My concern is, I'm thinking of providing the digital files rather than
printing them (that was a big pain last time I did it). I was thinking
of providing and charging for the files based on the biggest image it
would print...

So for example, at 72ppi, I could provide a 1024x768 image intended to
print an 8x10.

At 300ppi, I'd have to provide a full-sized 10MP image (3888x2592).

I don't quite understand the difference, since it appears I've been
happily printing at the lower ppi for years without loss of quality -
pictures I've printed have won photo contests, even!

Can someone help explain this discrepancy? I could use some advice as
to the best way to provide digital images to my prospective customers,
that gives them the resolution to print to the size they want, and no
bigger.

Or is there a better way I should be doing this?

Appreciate any advice!

jmc
  #2  
Old October 7th 07, 09:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Pete D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,613
Default Printing photos question


"jmc" wrote in message
...
I'm being asked to sell the pics I've been taken at our Western Riding
Club shows, apparently they're good enough people are actually *asking* to
pay money for 'em (cool!)

I show the pics on the club website (cawri.com), at 640x480, which
provides a decent 4x6 print, and encourage folks to print those images for
free.

Now, I've been printing my own photos for years. I just take the biggest
copy I have, and print that at whatever resolution I need, ignoring ppi,
which appears to be at 72ppi on my current images according to ThumbsPlus.
I got decent photos at 8x10, even with my older cameras, back to 1.5MP.
I've been getting excellent photos with 5MP cameras and above, at 8x10.

Now, I'm looking at something that's explaining resolution vs print size,
and saying for my 6MP camera the max I can print is 10x6 @300ppi. Hmmm.

My concern is, I'm thinking of providing the digital files rather than
printing them (that was a big pain last time I did it). I was thinking of
providing and charging for the files based on the biggest image it would
print...

So for example, at 72ppi, I could provide a 1024x768 image intended to
print an 8x10.

At 300ppi, I'd have to provide a full-sized 10MP image (3888x2592).

I don't quite understand the difference, since it appears I've been
happily printing at the lower ppi for years without loss of quality -
pictures I've printed have won photo contests, even!

Can someone help explain this discrepancy? I could use some advice as to
the best way to provide digital images to my prospective customers, that
gives them the resolution to print to the size they want, and no bigger.

Or is there a better way I should be doing this?

Appreciate any advice!

jmc


Sorry but I do not see any problem with what you are already doing, if it
works then keep using the same method.

If it ain't broken then there is nothing to fix.

Cheers.

Pete


  #3  
Old October 7th 07, 01:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
/\\BratMan/\\
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Printing photos question


"jmc" wrote in message
...
I'm being asked to sell the pics I've been taken at our Western Riding
Club shows, apparently they're good enough people are actually *asking* to
pay money for 'em (cool!)

snip
Can someone help explain this discrepancy? I could use some advice as to
the best way to provide digital images to my prospective customers, that
gives them the resolution to print to the size they want, and no bigger.

Or is there a better way I should be doing this?

Appreciate any advice!

Have a look here.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...stquality.mspx

http://www.digicamguides.com/print/ppi-print-size.html


  #4  
Old October 7th 07, 03:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Toke Eskildsen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default Printing photos question

jmc wrote:
Now, I've been printing my own photos for years. I just take the
biggest copy I have, and print that at whatever resolution I need,
ignoring ppi, which appears to be at 72ppi on my current images
according to ThumbsPlus. [...]


I don't quite understand the difference, since it appears I've
been happily printing at the lower ppi for years without loss of
quality - pictures I've printed have won photo contests, even!


No you haven't. You have taken pictures with a certain amount of pixels
and printing them at a certain physical size. That gives an effective
ppi that has absolutely nothing to do with whatever ppi is stated in
the meta-data for the image.

It's a common mistake: The ppi stated in the image is just a suggestion
for the print-resolution (and size, when we combine it with the amount
of pixels). Suggestion being the important word here. You have
overruled it when you have been printing. Continue doing that and all
will continue to be fine.
--
Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/
  #5  
Old October 7th 07, 04:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Marvin[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default Printing photos question

jmc wrote:
I'm being asked to sell the pics I've been taken at our Western Riding
Club shows, apparently they're good enough people are actually *asking*
to pay money for 'em (cool!)

I show the pics on the club website (cawri.com), at 640x480, which
provides a decent 4x6 print, and encourage folks to print those images
for free.

Now, I've been printing my own photos for years. I just take the
biggest copy I have, and print that at whatever resolution I need,
ignoring ppi, which appears to be at 72ppi on my current images
according to ThumbsPlus. I got decent photos at 8x10, even with my older
cameras, back to 1.5MP. I've been getting excellent photos with 5MP
cameras and above, at 8x10.

Now, I'm looking at something that's explaining resolution vs print
size, and saying for my 6MP camera the max I can print is 10x6 @300ppi.
Hmmm.

My concern is, I'm thinking of providing the digital files rather than
printing them (that was a big pain last time I did it). I was thinking
of providing and charging for the files based on the biggest image it
would print...

So for example, at 72ppi, I could provide a 1024x768 image intended to
print an 8x10.

At 300ppi, I'd have to provide a full-sized 10MP image (3888x2592).

I don't quite understand the difference, since it appears I've been
happily printing at the lower ppi for years without loss of quality -
pictures I've printed have won photo contests, even!

Can someone help explain this discrepancy? I could use some advice as
to the best way to provide digital images to my prospective customers,
that gives them the resolution to print to the size they want, and no
bigger.

Or is there a better way I should be doing this?

Appreciate any advice!

jmc


Most folks find a print at less than 150 ppi too soft. When
they buy a print they have already seen, they can't
complain. If you sell the file, you'll get lots of
complaints, not only of the lack of sharpness but also about
other problems, like bad color, when they get prints made at
drug stores and the like.
  #6  
Old October 8th 07, 08:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default Printing photos question

jmc wrote:
I'm being asked to sell the pics I've been taken at our Western Riding
Club shows, apparently they're good enough people are actually *asking*
to pay money for 'em (cool!)

I show the pics on the club website (cawri.com), at 640x480, which
provides a decent 4x6 print, and encourage folks to print those images
for free.

Now, I've been printing my own photos for years. I just take the
biggest copy I have, and print that at whatever resolution I need,
ignoring ppi, which appears to be at 72ppi on my current images
according to ThumbsPlus. I got decent photos at 8x10, even with my older
cameras, back to 1.5MP. I've been getting excellent photos with 5MP
cameras and above, at 8x10.

Now, I'm looking at something that's explaining resolution vs print
size, and saying for my 6MP camera the max I can print is 10x6 @300ppi.
Hmmm.

My concern is, I'm thinking of providing the digital files rather than
printing them (that was a big pain last time I did it). I was thinking
of providing and charging for the files based on the biggest image it
would print...

So for example, at 72ppi, I could provide a 1024x768 image intended to
print an 8x10.

At 300ppi, I'd have to provide a full-sized 10MP image (3888x2592).

I don't quite understand the difference, since it appears I've been
happily printing at the lower ppi for years without loss of quality -
pictures I've printed have won photo contests, even!

Can someone help explain this discrepancy? I could use some advice as
to the best way to provide digital images to my prospective customers,
that gives them the resolution to print to the size they want, and no
bigger.

Or is there a better way I should be doing this?

Appreciate any advice!

jmc


The 72ppi you see usually refers to the most common video display
setting for resolution, and has NOTHING to do with the printing of an
image. If you have a good monitor, you can change that setting to 96,
or even 100 or more, and watch Thumbsplus display that new number.

As for printing, the 'dream number' is 300 pixels/inch, but this is
often more than is necessary for a good image. Something between 150
and 250 pixels/inch is usually more than adequate for 4x6, and some
pictures printed at 8x10 look just fine as low as 150 pixels/inch. I
would shoot for 200 as a good figure, and just forget about that 72
figure since it has nothing to do with printing.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Printing Photos LuvLatins[_2_] Digital Photography 6 September 10th 07 01:55 PM
Printing photos? ? ? Ray[_3_] Digital Photography 8 July 6th 07 06:26 PM
ppi, dpi, and printing photos Bob Digital Photography 35 July 24th 04 03:37 AM
Printing Photos Tony Cooper Digital Photography 7 July 6th 04 04:36 AM
Printing from local stores (was, Printing from RiteAid, a question) TheMage Digital Photography 0 June 25th 04 08:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.