| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/25/2002 03:15:41 PM · #1 |
Photographs for print media (brochures, zines, etc.) need a standard of 300 dpi minimum for the off-set printer (or other) to get a crisp reproduction. Everything I read tells me pixel and mega-pixel information and what size print I can make. The only standard professional four-color pressmen can give me is 300 dpi. It does NOT work to "up" the dpi in Photoshop after taking the photo. Photo must contain 300 dpi initially.
What resolution is that? We're buying a new camera at work. I get to make the selection. I don't know how to answer my initial criteria. Everyone (who's not a commercial printer) tells me to adjust it in Photoshop. The printer FIRMLY says not to adjust it.
Thanks to all who can help.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2002 03:23:22 PM · #2 |
I don't claim to know anything about digital cameras...and I'll probably be told I don't..lol...but, couldn't you just take the photos in .tif mode? I use .tifs for all the brochures I do..or .eps files. Like I said...I don't know ..but I hope someone can help you in here. I'm sure they will.
:) Karen |
|
|
|
06/25/2002 03:25:02 PM · #3 |
It depends on the size of the prints you''re making. Any camera can print 300 ppi (pixels per inch). What you don''t want to do it resample the image (add in extra pixels your camera didn''t capture).
Say you have an image from a camera that''s 640x480 pixels. To print it at 300 pixels per inch, it would be (640/300)x(480/300) - 2.13x1.6 inches. So what you want to do is take the size of the print you want, say 5x7, and multiply times 300 to get the number of pixels you want your camera to have. (5X300)x(7X300) = 1500x2100 = about 3.1 megapixel.
Oh, screw it. I''m not very good at explaining this stuff, but I think I learned it here.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/25/2002 3:24:50 PM. |
|
|
|
06/25/2002 03:25:55 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by crisa58:
Photographs for print media (brochures, zines, etc.) need a standard of 300 dpi minimum for the off-set printer (or other) to get a crisp reproduction. Everything I read tells me pixel and mega-pixel information and what size print I can make. The only standard professional four-color pressmen can give me is 300 dpi. It does NOT work to "up" the dpi in Photoshop after taking the photo. Photo must contain 300 dpi initially.
What resolution is that? We''re buying a new camera at work. I get to make the selection. I don''t know how to answer my initial criteria. Everyone (who''s not a commercial printer) tells me to adjust it in Photoshop. The printer FIRMLY says not to adjust it.
Thanks to all who can help.
Use the IMAGE SIZE command, but UNCHECK the box which says "Resample." Then enter 300 in the "Resolution" box; the dimensions (in/cm) should change correspondingly. The number of PIXELS (displayed in the upper half of the window) must remain UNCHANGED.
From this point on, you are working at 100% of the final printed size. You can make it smaller or crop it, but enlarging it will produce degradation (although possibly within acceptable limits).
My camera captures 1600x1200 pixels. This equals 5.4 x 4.0 inches at 300 dpi. 8x10 at 300 = 2400x3000 pixels (definitely expensive).
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/25/2002 3:28:06 PM. |
|
|
|
06/25/2002 03:34:40 PM · #5 |
i deal with this all the time.
all of the cameras' default dpi is 72, which is screen res.
say you have a 4 mp camera and it makes a 2240 x 1900 file. You bring it into photoshop and look in the image size box. it's going to say something like 22 inches x 18 inches at 72 dpi.
if you do as generalE said and uncheck the resample box and type in 300, you'll see the dimensions go down to something much smaller like 8 x 6.
That's because the # of pixels or dots that make up the picture havent changed. But to print you need them closer together, or at a higher density. The density of the pixels, or how many fit in a "printed inch" is the dpi and is independent of the absolute size of the file generated by the camera.
dig?
|
|
|
|
06/25/2002 03:43:10 PM · #6 |
Huh??? Of course you can interpolate the image up in Photoshop. You would certainly want to begin with as good of an image as possible but there is nothing wrong with adding pixels and doing a little bit of accurate sharpening to prepare the image for printing. It seems that everyone has a pretty strong opinion on the subject and there are the so-called purists out there who would only use the RAW format setting on a digital camera and act like any amount of interpolating is poison to the image. In my humble opinion it is the fianl picture quality that is of primary importance and there are many different steps available in getting there. True, there are some pretty bad examples of interpolating and sharpening out there but if you are careful you can produce some outstanding results. I've got some very pleasing results from my older 2 megapixel camera when I enlarged the images to 8 x 10. Very few people would guess that they were from only a medium res camera. I know you were specifically talking about 4 color printing but it's not that different from inkjet printing. (Color can be an issue) It should still be between 200 and 300 ppi at the print size and it should look pretty good when you are viewing the image at 100% on your monitor. That reminds me. I make sure that I do all of my sharpening after resizing and when I am viewing a part of the image at 100% on my monitor. You can't see the image any more accurately then at 100%. I know this is long but I hope it helps.
Tim
|
|
|
|
06/25/2002 03:49:04 PM · #7 |
These are some very good answers. One thing I would add, you should be able to resample some, and not see any deterioration.
e.g.: 2400x1800 image would give you a 8x6 inch image. If you needed 11.5x8 inch image, you should be able to resample a quality image to the required size (3450x 2588) and still have acceptable quality. At least that is what I have read in magizines like Shutterbug.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/25/2002 3:51:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2002 04:41:00 PM · #8 |
If you are REALLY dead set on resampling up, there is supposed to be a relatively miraculous program/Photoshop plug-in out there called Genuine Fractals. It''s not exactly cheap, but for what it does, it would seem worth the price.
Here''s a review with some samples.
And another review with a little additional upsampling info. Make sure to read the second page of this one.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/25/2002 4:48:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2002 06:08:00 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
These are some very good answers. One thing I would add, you should be able to resample some, and not see any deterioration.
e.g.: 2400x1800 image would give you a 8x6 inch image. If you needed 11.5x8 inch image, you should be able to resample a quality image to the required size (3450x 2588) and still have acceptable quality. At least that is what I have read in magizines like Shutterbug.
Specifically for print applications, there is one other important factor: the "halftone screen" ruling the photo will be printed at. In magazines, this is typically 150 (or 175) Lines per inch (LPI), and the preference is to have 2 PIXELS for each HALFTONE DOT (hence the request for a 300 dpi file). But, if you are printing in a newspaper, typically a 85-100 LPI screen is used, so a 200 dpi file would be fine.
The other common alternative in printing is to use a ratio of 1.5:1 instead of 2:1. This lets you print a 225 dpi file to a 150 LPI screen.
Send me an email/message (NOT "mean" email like it said bfore!) if you have more specific questions -- I''ve worked in prepess for 20+ years (traditional and digital).
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/25/2002 6:09:23 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/25/2002 9:58:37 PM. |
|
|
|
06/25/2002 09:51:50 PM · #10 |
I use Genuine Fractals quite a bit and it works very well. In fact I used it for my 2 megapixel image that I was talking about to increase it to 8 x 10. I often use it when I have done considerable changes to an image that may be difficult to duplicate again. That way it will be ready for me if I want to enlarge it big.
Tim
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/25/2002 9:53:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2002 08:59:55 AM · #11 |
Clear and helpful answers, coupled with a photography lesson every time I visit the site. Does it get any better than this?
Thank you, thank you one and all. |
|
|
|
06/26/2002 09:11:16 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by crisa58:
Clear and helpful answers, coupled with a photography lesson every time I visit the site. Does it get any better than this?
Thank you, thank you one and all.
Give it a few weeks and we'll start insulting you too. ;)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 04:47:14 PM EDT.
