72 vs 300 dpi

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Gretchen's Photography, Sep 19, 2006.

  1. Hi, I am traditionally a 35mm photography just now accepting that I hav
    to commit to my 8 megapixel Canon 20D.
    If I take a RAW image, what is the best way process the image and b
    able to print a excellent quality 11x17?
    If a RAW image at 8 megapixels printed at 300dpi ( from originally on
    that is 72 dpi ) is best at 8 x 12 any larger print would make it los
    some quality if I kept it at 300 dpi.
    I can use Photoshop or Apeture, print a JPEG or a TIFF.
    Any suggestions on the best way to get the most out of my camera??
    Any other 20D'ers out there? Thanks


    --
    Gretchen's Photography
    Gretchen's Photography, Sep 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:19:16 +0100, Gretchen's Photography
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Hi, I am traditionally a 35mm photography just now accepting that I have
    >to commit to my 8 megapixel Canon 20D.
    >If I take a RAW image, what is the best way process the image and be
    >able to print a excellent quality 11x17?
    >If a RAW image at 8 megapixels printed at 300dpi ( from originally one
    >that is 72 dpi ) is best at 8 x 12 any larger print would make it lose
    >some quality if I kept it at 300 dpi.
    >I can use Photoshop or Apeture, print a JPEG or a TIFF.
    >Any suggestions on the best way to get the most out of my camera??
    >Any other 20D'ers out there? Thanks!



    I would suggest using Photoshop's image-sizing dialog,
    and possibly not upsampling at all.

    In other words, set the tool to *not* resample, and then
    simply enter the desired output (print) dimensions -- and
    see where the final resolution falls. As long as it's not
    much below (say) 240 dpi, you're good-to-go.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
    Raphael Bustin, Sep 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Raphael Bustin wrote:
    > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:19:16 +0100, Gretchen's Photography
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Hi, I am traditionally a 35mm photography just now accepting that I have
    >> to commit to my 8 megapixel Canon 20D.
    >> If I take a RAW image, what is the best way process the image and be
    >> able to print a excellent quality 11x17?
    >> If a RAW image at 8 megapixels printed at 300dpi ( from originally one
    >> that is 72 dpi ) is best at 8 x 12 any larger print would make it lose
    >> some quality if I kept it at 300 dpi.
    >> I can use Photoshop or Apeture, print a JPEG or a TIFF.
    >> Any suggestions on the best way to get the most out of my camera??
    >> Any other 20D'ers out there? Thanks!

    >
    >
    > I would suggest using Photoshop's image-sizing dialog,
    > and possibly not upsampling at all.
    >
    > In other words, set the tool to *not* resample, and then
    > simply enter the desired output (print) dimensions -- and
    > see where the final resolution falls. As long as it's not
    > much below (say) 240 dpi, you're good-to-go.
    >


    In the RAW conversion dialogue in PS you can upsize there, into 8 or 16
    bit images. That's where I'd upsample if at all.

    Just a small point, but one that'll perhaps help keep things clearer for
    you in the future, all the above should be ppi. DPI comes into play
    either when you print, or when you scan. Sometimes they're
    interchangeable, sometimes decidedly not.

    Good luck!

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Sep 19, 2006
    #3
  4. Gretchen's Photography

    Bob Williams Guest

    Gretchen's Photography wrote:
    > Hi, I am traditionally a 35mm photography just now accepting that I have
    > to commit to my 8 megapixel Canon 20D.
    > If I take a RAW image, what is the best way process the image and be
    > able to print a excellent quality 11x17?
    > If a RAW image at 8 megapixels printed at 300dpi ( from originally one
    > that is 72 dpi ) is best at 8 x 12 any larger print would make it lose
    > some quality if I kept it at 300 dpi.
    > I can use Photoshop or Apeture, print a JPEG or a TIFF.
    > Any suggestions on the best way to get the most out of my camera??
    > Any other 20D'ers out there? Thanks!



    The image is just 3504 x 2336 pixels
    72 ppi (not dpi) is just a default setting that Photoshop uses for
    bookkeeping purposes.
    Since your original 20D's image is 3504 X 2336 pixels, even if you do
    the barest minimum of cropping to get to an 11 x 17 aspect ratio, your
    image will have only 206 ppi (3504/17) resolution.
    It will be less than that if you crop more severely.

    Any good printer will print at about 240-300 ppi (ignore the 1440 dpi
    claims....that is an entirely different beast).
    Now at this point you can send the 206 ppi (or smaller) image to the
    printer and IT will UPsample the image to whatever the native
    resolution of the printer is.....OR.....you can Resample (bicubic) the
    image yourself in Photoshop to 300 ppi and then send it to the printer.
    Probably there would not be much, if any, difference either way.
    Also I doubt that there would be much, if any, difference whether you
    send it in tiff or highest quality jpeg. To be absolutely safe, you
    could choose tiff. (But I never do.)
    Bob Williams
    Bob Williams, Sep 19, 2006
    #4
  5. Gretchen's Photography wrote:
    > Hi, I am traditionally a 35mm photography just now accepting that I have
    > to commit to my 8 megapixel Canon 20D.
    > If I take a RAW image, what is the best way process the image and be
    > able to print a excellent quality 11x17?
    > If a RAW image at 8 megapixels printed at 300dpi ( from originally one
    > that is 72 dpi ) is best at 8 x 12 any larger print would make it lose
    > some quality if I kept it at 300 dpi.
    > I can use Photoshop or Apeture, print a JPEG or a TIFF.
    > Any suggestions on the best way to get the most out of my camera??
    > Any other 20D'ers out there? Thanks!
    >


    While some people hold out for 300 ppi, many of us find acceptable
    results as low as 200 ppi. Of course it depends somewhat on the
    subject, but many of us just recommend 200 - 300 ppi. Yeah, 300 may be
    a bit sharper, but most printers do an acceptable job with 200.
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Sep 19, 2006
    #5
  6. wrote:

    > Hi, I am traditionally a 35mm photography just now accepting that I
    > have to commit to my 8 megapixel Canon 20D.
    > If I take a RAW image, what is the best way process the image and
    > be able to print a excellent quality 11x17?


    That depends on the printer. The procedure for really excellent
    quality is different for different printers. In particular halftone
    devices such as ink-jets require a different procedure from contone
    devices such as silver-halvide photoprinters. But in general, you
    need to resize the pixel count to match the optimum ppi figure (not
    dpi figure) for the printer.

    Example: Let's say you print a 20D file at an top quality Epson inkjet
    halftone device. These perform best if your source is resized to 720
    ppi (NB: again ppi, /not/ dpi). If the source is not 720 ppi, the
    printer will do the interpolation for you, usually with a worse result
    than if you do it yourself. So to print at 17x11 on an Epson inkjet,
    you should convert fra RAW to 16-bit TIFF, make tone and curves
    adjustment, trim your original file to a 1.55 aspect ratio, use
    special printing preparation software such as Qimage to up the
    resolution to 12240x3300 pixels, and finally sharpen with a value
    suited for the print resolution.

    > If a RAW image at 8 megapixels printed at 300 dpi (from originally
    > one that is 72 dpi) is best at 8 x 12 any larger print would make it
    > lose some quality if I kept it at 300 dpi.


    I am not sure what you mean here. The embedded ppi figure in the file
    (72, 300, whatever) is in this context meaningless. The "real"
    ppi-figure is what you get when you divide the number of pixels along
    one of the sides with the number of inches that side is in the print
    (ppi = pixels per inch).

    The "native" image file from the EOS 20D is 3504 pixels on its long
    side, so printed at 12 inches, that is 3504/12 = 292 ppi, and printed
    at 17 inches, that becomes 3504/17 = 206 ppi.

    > I can use Photoshop or Apeture, print a JPEG or a TIFF.
    > Any suggestions on the best way to get the most out of my camera??


    The key to excellent print quality is to make sure pixel count of the
    file matches the optimum ppi figure for the printer, and to use
    suitable software to prepare the file by changing the pixels
    dimensions. Specialized software for this task is usually better than
    the Photoshop's bicubic method.

    For some background, take a look at this page:
    http://hannemyr.com/photo/pixels.html
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gisle Hannemyr, Sep 24, 2006
    #6
  7. Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
    >
    > The key to excellent print quality is to make sure pixel count of the
    > file matches the optimum ppi figure for the printer, and to use
    > suitable software to prepare the file by changing the pixels
    > dimensions. Specialized software for this task is usually better than
    > the Photoshop's bicubic method.


    G- Have you done comparison tests as to how upsizing at the RAW
    conversion does vs. upsizing with, say, Qimage?

    To the OP: what GH says will get you the absolute best, but in many
    cases most of us wouldn't know the difference unless we were examining
    two prints side by side and very closely.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Sep 24, 2006
    #7
  8. John McWilliams <> writes:
    > Gisle Hannemyr wrote:


    >> The key to excellent print quality is to make sure pixel count of
    >> the file matches the optimum ppi figure for the printer, and to use
    >> suitable software to prepare the file by changing the pixels
    >> dimensions. Specialized software for this task is usually better
    >> than the Photoshop's bicubic method.


    > G- Have you done comparison tests as to how upsizing at the RAW
    > conversion does vs. upsizing with, say, Qimage?


    Not until now.

    I did, however, a quick test (visual ispection of 100% crops side by
    side on the screen) just now.

    It looks as if 2x in SPP is visibly sharper and less pixelated than
    Qimage, while 1.81x in ACR (PS CS) is about par with Qimage. (Both
    compared to same ratio interpolation).

    But the RAW converters I have available (SPP and ACR) only to let me
    interpolate to a limited number of preset ratios (2x for SPP and 1.81x
    and 1.35x for ACR), so I can't see how I can use this to optimize the
    PPI for an arbritary size?

    > To the OP: what GH says will get you the absolute best, but in many
    > cases most of us wouldn't know the difference unless we were
    > examining two prints side by side and very closely.


    That is true. The differences are in most cases not noticable.
    But sometimes - for instance when trying to render thin hairlines
    like a telegraph wire, without it breaking up in places, it does
    matter.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gisle Hannemyr, Sep 25, 2006
    #8
  9. Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
    > John McWilliams <> writes:
    >> Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

    >
    >>> The key to excellent print quality is to make sure pixel count of
    >>> the file matches the optimum ppi figure for the printer, and to use
    >>> suitable software to prepare the file by changing the pixels
    >>> dimensions. Specialized software for this task is usually better
    >>> than the Photoshop's bicubic method.

    >
    >> G- Have you done comparison tests as to how upsizing at the RAW
    >> conversion does vs. upsizing with, say, Qimage?

    >
    > Not until now.
    >
    > I did, however, a quick test (visual ispection of 100% crops side by
    > side on the screen) just now.
    >
    > It looks as if 2x in SPP is visibly sharper and less pixelated than
    > Qimage, while 1.81x in ACR (PS CS) is about par with Qimage. (Both
    > compared to same ratio interpolation).
    >
    > But the RAW converters I have available (SPP and ACR) only to let me
    > interpolate to a limited number of preset ratios (2x for SPP and 1.81x
    > and 1.35x for ACR), so I can't see how I can use this to optimize the
    > PPI for an arbritary size?


    Nor do I know, but I've always been a bit suspect of the benefits of
    upsizing to the exact ratio of the printer's alleged optimum ppi.
    >
    >> To the OP: what GH says will get you the absolute best, but in many
    >> cases most of us wouldn't know the difference unless we were
    >> examining two prints side by side and very closely.

    >
    > That is true. The differences are in most cases not noticable.
    > But sometimes - for instance when trying to render thin hairlines
    > like a telegraph wire, without it breaking up in places, it does
    > matter.


    Amen. I just didn't want any chance of someone being discouraged
    thinking he'd have to follow a precise and laborious path to get very
    good prints.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Sep 25, 2006
    #9
  10. Gretchen's Photography

    measekite Guest

    A simple answer is to keep the PPI not less than 150 nor more than 300.
    Most people at reasonable viewing distances will not be able to tell the
    difference in most cases. It is more important to use the ink that the
    printer mfg recommends for the printer to get the best results and
    reduce fading.

    John McWilliams wrote:

    > Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
    >
    >> John McWilliams <> writes:
    >>
    >>> Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

    >>
    >>
    >>>> The key to excellent print quality is to make sure pixel count of
    >>>> the file matches the optimum ppi figure for the printer, and to use
    >>>> suitable software to prepare the file by changing the pixels
    >>>> dimensions. Specialized software for this task is usually better
    >>>> than the Photoshop's bicubic method.
    >>>

    >>
    >>> G- Have you done comparison tests as to how upsizing at the RAW
    >>> conversion does vs. upsizing with, say, Qimage?

    >>
    >>
    >> Not until now.
    >>
    >> I did, however, a quick test (visual ispection of 100% crops side by
    >> side on the screen) just now.
    >>
    >> It looks as if 2x in SPP is visibly sharper and less pixelated than
    >> Qimage, while 1.81x in ACR (PS CS) is about par with Qimage. (Both
    >> compared to same ratio interpolation).
    >>
    >> But the RAW converters I have available (SPP and ACR) only to let me
    >> interpolate to a limited number of preset ratios (2x for SPP and 1.81x
    >> and 1.35x for ACR), so I can't see how I can use this to optimize the
    >> PPI for an arbritary size?

    >
    >
    > Nor do I know, but I've always been a bit suspect of the benefits of
    > upsizing to the exact ratio of the printer's alleged optimum ppi.
    >
    >>
    >>> To the OP: what GH says will get you the absolute best, but in many
    >>> cases most of us wouldn't know the difference unless we were
    >>> examining two prints side by side and very closely.

    >>
    >>
    >> That is true. The differences are in most cases not noticable.
    >> But sometimes - for instance when trying to render thin hairlines
    >> like a telegraph wire, without it breaking up in places, it does
    >> matter.

    >
    >
    > Amen. I just didn't want any chance of someone being discouraged
    > thinking he'd have to follow a precise and laborious path to get very
    > good prints.
    >
    measekite, Sep 27, 2006
    #10
  11. measekite wrote:
    > A simple answer is to keep the PPI not less than 150 nor more than 300.
    > Most people at reasonable viewing distances will not be able to tell the
    > difference in most cases. It is more important to use the ink that the
    > printer mfg recommends for the printer to get the best results and
    > reduce fading.


    Yes, that is a simple answer.

    Kindly bottom post and trim your replies. This is not the
    comp.periphs.printers NG!

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Sep 27, 2006
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ubiquitous
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,451
    Jim Townsend
    Dec 24, 2003
  2. Steve

    fuji printers at Walmart - why only 300 dpi?

    Steve, Apr 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    3,996
    zbzbzb
    Apr 22, 2004
  3. DS

    Should File DPI Match Printer DPI?

    DS, Jul 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    577
  4. germano

    "300 dpi" speech's : the greatest bluff

    germano, Nov 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    344
    Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
    Nov 29, 2004
  5. Boooger

    96 dpi x 96 dpi?

    Boooger, Nov 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,265
    Bill Hilton
    Nov 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page