Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SS, Nov 18, 2006.

  1. SS

    SS Guest

    I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
    done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e. quite
    large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
    large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever the
    ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
    want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
    visible on such a small print
     
    SS, Nov 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SS

    Roy G Guest

    "SS" <> wrote in message
    news:rSC7h.17827$...
    > I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
    > done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e.
    > quite
    > large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
    > large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever
    > the
    > ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
    > want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
    > visible on such a small print
    >
    >


    Strange as it may seem, the number of pixels required to give a 6 x 4 print
    proportion, have to be proportional to 6 x 4.

    1280 x 960 does not acheive this.

    The only difficult maths involved is to multiply the number of inches on the
    long side by the required Ppi figure (300) and then to multiply the number
    of inches on the short side by that same number.

    The answer comes out at 1800 x 1200 pixels.

    Roy G
     
    Roy G, Nov 18, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ï "SS" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    news:rSC7h.17827$...
    > I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
    > done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e.

    quite
    > large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
    > large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever

    the
    > ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
    > want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
    > visible on such a small print


    Why not go to a local lab in your town and have them printed there?Where I
    live you can take your memory card (any type) or a cd to a machine and
    choose via touch screen size, picture, number of reprints etc.by yourself
    and even know how much it costs before printing out the receipt and handing
    it to a clerk.



    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Nov 18, 2006
    #3
  4. SS

    Guest

    SS wrote:
    > I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
    > done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e. quite
    > large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
    > large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever the
    > ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
    > want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
    > visible on such a small print
     
    , Nov 18, 2006
    #4
  5. SS

    Guest

    SS wrote:
    > I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
    > done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e. quite
    > large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
    > large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever the
    > ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
    > want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
    > visible on such a small print
     
    , Nov 18, 2006
    #5
  6. SS

    Ron Hunter Guest

    SS wrote:
    > I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
    > done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e. quite
    > large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
    > large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever the
    > ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
    > want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
    > visible on such a small print
    >
    >

    Send the file as is and let the printer do the resizing. Or, you can
    figure out how to resize them to 200 dpi for 4x6 prints as that is about
    the best most photo machines print. Unless the time to upload is a real
    problem, I would just send the file without resizing.
     
    Ron Hunter, Nov 18, 2006
    #6
  7. SS

    SS Guest

    "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    news:HmD7h.33493$...
    >
    > "SS" <> wrote in message
    > news:rSC7h.17827$...
    > > I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
    > > done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e.
    > > quite
    > > large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding

    these
    > > large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever
    > > the
    > > ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I

    don't
    > > want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
    > > visible on such a small print
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Strange as it may seem, the number of pixels required to give a 6 x 4

    print
    > proportion, have to be proportional to 6 x 4.
    >
    > 1280 x 960 does not acheive this.
    >
    > The only difficult maths involved is to multiply the number of inches on

    the
    > long side by the required Ppi figure (300) and then to multiply the

    number
    > of inches on the short side by that same number.
    >
    > The answer comes out at 1800 x 1200 pixels.
    >
    > Roy G
    >
    >
    >


    Yes as I said "or whatever the ratio is" I just didn't have my calculator
    handy. I would have to crop to the appropriate ratio.
     
    SS, Nov 19, 2006
    #7
  8. SS

    SS Guest

    "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <> wrote in message
    news:ejn6cd$dsh$...
    >
    > Ï "SS" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    > news:rSC7h.17827$...
    > > I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
    > > done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e.

    > quite
    > > large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding

    these
    > > large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever

    > the
    > > ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I

    don't
    > > want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
    > > visible on such a small print

    >
    > Why not go to a local lab in your town and have them printed there?Where I
    > live you can take your memory card (any type) or a cd to a machine and
    > choose via touch screen size, picture, number of reprints etc.by yourself
    > and even know how much it costs before printing out the receipt and

    handing
    > it to a clerk.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    > major in electrical engineering
    > mechanized infantry reservist
    > dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
    >
    >


    Cos it won't be 5p per print for sure!
     
    SS, Nov 19, 2006
    #8
  9. SS

    Scott W Guest

    SS wrote:
    > I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
    > done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e. quite
    > large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
    > large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever the
    > ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
    > want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
    > visible on such a small print


    You will want to resize to about 300 ppi, which would work out of 1800
    x 1200.

    Whereas 1280 x 960 would make an ok print it would not be as sharp as
    1800 x 1200. Going past 1800 x 1200 will show little if any
    improvment.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 19, 2006
    #9
  10. SS

    Bryan Olson Guest

    SS wrote:
    > I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
    > done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e. quite
    > large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
    > large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever the
    > ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
    > want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
    > visible on such a small print


    The most common native resolution for digital photo lab printers
    is 300 pixels per inch, followed by 400ppi. If you can find what
    machine they use, you can Google up its native resolution. In a
    theoretical sense, the native resolution is the ideal for your
    files, and some adjustments, sharpening in particular, are best
    done at the final display resolution.

    Alas, life seldom conforms to the ideal.

    The lab will re-rasterize your photo automatically, and even if
    you deliver a file in its native resolution, the resizing is
    probably not a no-op. The cheap photo labs are set up to serve a
    mass market. Most will automatically apply transforms such as
    sharpening and contrast enhancement to give direct-from-the-camera
    files more "pop". For adventures in getting exact results from
    low-cost services, browse www.drycreekphoto.com.


    At 5p per print, I suggest experimentation. One tip from my own
    trials: tracking what parameters applied to each trial takes
    significant diligence. Not that it's hard to get right; it's
    just easy to get wrong.


    --
    --Bryan
     
    Bryan Olson, Nov 19, 2006
    #10
    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. Stickems

    What's the optimum resolution for a web page?

    Stickems, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    713
  2. Ian Roberts

    optimum resolution for repairing old B&W photos?

    Ian Roberts, Aug 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    861
    Kennedy McEwen
    Sep 3, 2004
  3. SS
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    974
    Michael J. Astrauskas
    Mar 23, 2006
  4. Photo Dave

    Pixma ip5200 optimum resolution

    Photo Dave, Mar 1, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    594
    Bart van der Wolf
    Mar 8, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,148
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page