Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Confuse with image size for printing

  1. #1

    Default Confuse with image size for printing

    Can someone please enlighten me?

    Let said I've a photo with the following size:





    Can I still print a sharp image in a size 72" x 48" by simply changing the resolution to 300. Like this:






    Or I can only print an image of 17.28" (5184/300) x 11.52" (3456/300) with this picture?

    Kind of a little confused....
    Canon 7D|50mm f1.4|100mm f2.8|10-22mm f3.5-4.5|17-55mm f2.8|70-200mm f4L|580EXII|Raynox 250DRC

  2. #2

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    The typical dot per inch for printing is 300 pixels per inch. On how large you can print, it's all up to the resolution of your photo. by simplying switching it to 300pixels/inch in your second screenshot, you have dramatically increased the resolution to 21600x14400 which is not correct.

    and you are right! with 5184x3456, the theratical printing size at 300dpi is 17.28 x 11.52 inches.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    Quote Originally Posted by hugolim View Post
    The typical dot per inch for printing is 300 pixels per inch. On how large you can print, it's all up to the resolution of your photo. by simplying switching it to 300pixels/inch in your second screenshot, you have dramatically increased the resolution to 21600x14400 which is not correct.

    and you are right! with 5184x3456, the theratical printing size at 300dpi is 17.28 x 11.52 inches.
    Got it! Thank you very much...
    Canon 7D|50mm f1.4|100mm f2.8|10-22mm f3.5-4.5|17-55mm f2.8|70-200mm f4L|580EXII|Raynox 250DRC

  4. #4

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    Quote Originally Posted by hugolim View Post
    The typical dot per inch for printing is 300 pixels per inch. On how large you can print, it's all up to the resolution of your photo. by simplying switching it to 300pixels/inch in your second screenshot, you have dramatically increased the resolution to 21600x14400 which is not correct.

    and you are right! with 5184x3456, the theratical printing size at 300dpi is 17.28 x 11.52 inches.
    if you do the increase in pixels then photoshop will have to create those pixels by interpolating the values from pixels around the new pixels.. close up this will give you soft picture but then a 72 inch print is not look at from 10cm but from 2-3m at least... so yes you could
    Never forget rule 5
    My Flickr

  5. #5
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    not entirely true, if you want to be kiasu then stick to the 300 dpi rule

    just fyi bus ads have a minimum resolution spec of 50 dpi

  6. #6

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    I think the bicubic interpolation has been greatly improved by Adobe, so it isn't a problem if you want to increase the size to 100-200% . Do a search in the webs and you will know it can easily be done.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    Quote Originally Posted by ortega View Post
    not entirely true, if you want to be kiasu then stick to the 300 dpi rule

    just fyi bus ads have a minimum resolution spec of 50 dpi
    btw when I used my reading glasses I can count the pixels on the bus ads, amazing resolution.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    sorry to hijack this thread..

    i am using a D90..
    if i want to print a 8R picture or 4R picture..

    do i have to adjust any of the image size?or can i just print?..

  9. #9
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    Quote Originally Posted by vengels View Post
    sorry to hijack this thread..

    i am using a D90..
    if i want to print a 8R picture or 4R picture..

    do i have to adjust any of the image size?or can i just print?..
    the aspect ratio of D90 is 2:3, same as 4R, you can make print direct from the image file, will not have any part of image being crop away.

    the aspect ratio of 8R print is 4:5, some part of the image will be crop off if is "Fill in", or showing two white borders if is "Fit in".

    you can crop it yourself using softcopy,
    or leave it to the lab people to crop it for you, but bear in mind than you can't complain if the cropping is not to your liking.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  10. #10

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    Quote Originally Posted by johnlim View Post
    I think the bicubic interpolation has been greatly improved by Adobe, so it isn't a problem if you want to increase the size to 100-200% . Do a search in the webs and you will know it can easily be done.
    Would you simply up the size immediately to 100-200% or perform incremental increases, i.e. 10% at a time?

  11. #11

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    the aspect ratio of D90 is 2:3, same as 4R, you can make print direct from the image file, will not have any part of image being crop away.

    the aspect ratio of 8R print is 4:5, some part of the image will be crop off if is "Fill in", or showing two white borders if is "Fit in".

    you can crop it yourself using softcopy,
    or leave it to the lab people to crop it for you, but bear in mind than you can't complain if the cropping is not to your liking.
    oic..

    thank you so much..

  12. #12

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    typically for "hands-length" viewing distance "photo-quality" prints, sharp 180ppi images are good enough for print... taking the example above, a sharp 5184x3456 image would probably be ok for a print up to 28.8"x19.2"... although, do people view such a large image so close-up? it's possible I guess...

    but as others have pointed out, pixel density requirements also depend on the viewing distance... for viewing at a couple of meters away, such as large posters and the like, 50-75ppi is perfectly possible as well... just don't expect to see sharpness and resolution standing close...

    as for expanding in Photoshop, conventional wisdom seems to be towards using "Bicubic Smoother" to expand in one shot up to about 400% for sharp images and then using your favourite means to sharpen the resultant image... YMMV...

  13. #13
    Member hotwork77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    119'37.70"N 10347'39.19"E
    Posts
    1,353

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    Quote Originally Posted by ortega View Post
    not entirely true, if you want to be kiasu then stick to the 300 dpi rule

    just fyi bus ads have a minimum resolution spec of 50 dpi
    Bus ads in Singapore is 150dpi minimum.
    Dreamz is the Alternate Realty | Stand Up and Be Counted

  14. #14

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    Quote Originally Posted by 2evans View Post
    Would you simply up the size immediately to 100-200% or perform incremental increases, i.e. 10% at a time?
    That used to be the way in the past, but I have read books which say that it is not necessary now(the software has improved alot since then); Also, using incremental method will result in far greater file size than the 1 time method. , just increase to the amount you want.

    It is said that bicubic smoother is good if it is a portrait for upsizing where there there is less details. Bicubic sharpening is good for landscape where more details need sharpening...., also for downsizing.... The other bicubic option is somewhere in between; A little bit of sharpening is applied by the program during the upsizing.

    NO harm trying on each option to see which one works better.
    Last edited by johnlim; 23rd June 2010 at 03:37 PM.

  15. #15
    Senior Member denniskee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    bukit batok
    Posts
    5,468

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    Quote Originally Posted by jopel View Post
    btw when I used my reading glasses I can count the pixels on the bus ads, amazing resolution.
    photography makes one sees things from all angles.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    Quote Originally Posted by hotwork77 View Post
    Bus ads in Singapore is 150dpi minimum.
    that may be what they claim, but they are just wasting everyone's time cause:

    a) they don't need the resolution because people view it from a distance and can't see greater detail anyway,

    b) the "so-called" "150dpi" files they get are probably mostly blown up in computer just to get to that spec, meaning the images don't have that much resolution to begin with anyway, and from what we can see on buses on the road this is evident,

    c) taking 13' (~4m... they should be higher but I just use a convenient figure here) as the height of a double decker, minusing the ground clearance of say 1 1/2', the image would have to be 11 1/2' high... translate that into 150ppi image size, the height would be 20700 pixels high for single full height photo images (not taking into account any cropping that might be required)... the highest res MF digital format back can't achieve that without significant up-sizing (Phase One P65+: 8984x6732; Leaf Aptus-II 10: 9288 x 6000; Hassey H4D-60: 8956x6708)... and those MF digital backs were only available in the past few years... DSLRs even more difficult to get to that size (D3X, 6048x4032)...

  17. #17

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    Quote Originally Posted by johnlim View Post
    Bicubic sharpening is good for landscape where more details need sharpening...., also for downsizing....
    using Bicubic Sharper to up-size, even for more detailed images, might not give as good a result as the sharpening applied with the up-size algorithm might reduce the amount of detail that is retained... one might get "crunchier", "sharper" looking images, but actual detail might be reduced... I would still recommend Bicubic Smoother and then doing the sharpening oneself as there would be more control over the final result... but for downsizing, yeah, it works great

  18. #18

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    Quote Originally Posted by theRBK View Post
    using Bicubic Sharper to up-size, even for more detailed images, might not give as good a result as the sharpening applied with the up-size algorithm might reduce the amount of detail that is retained... one might get "crunchier", "sharper" looking images, but actual detail might be reduced... I would still recommend Bicubic Smoother and then doing the sharpening oneself as there would be more control over the final result... but for downsizing, yeah, it works great
    You must have done it well.

    How long does it takes for the sharpening after the upsizing because the file must be huge in size.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Anson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    ansonchew.com
    Posts
    8,210

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    Quote Originally Posted by johnlim View Post
    I think the bicubic interpolation has been greatly improved by Adobe, so it isn't a problem if you want to increase the size to 100-200% . Do a search in the webs and you will know it can easily be done.
    I prefer to use Blowup instead.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Confuse with image size for printing

    Quote Originally Posted by Anson View Post
    I prefer to use Blowup instead.
    Sorry for being a noob. Can you please elaborate?
    Canon 7D|50mm f1.4|100mm f2.8|10-22mm f3.5-4.5|17-55mm f2.8|70-200mm f4L|580EXII|Raynox 250DRC

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •