| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/07/2005 10:25:55 PM · #1 |
I shot a wedding last weekend (my first) so i figured i'd print a few test edit shots at walmart. I want to see what sharpening works best, what DPI is sufficient, check out resampling issues, neat image use, etc.
So i printed the same pic at 240dpi (origianl image) and one at 100dpi, and resampled that to 200 dpi and printed it too. There is NO difference - I cannot see a difference - in details or grain or noise or anything. I have had 6 non-photogs look at them and they prefer the resampled image!
I will do a seriously abusive test print again just to make sure this was not a fluke - i intend to crop an image severaly and enlarge it to 8x10 and see what i get.
BTW, the prints were done at a walmart on a fuji machine on crystal archive paper. For some reason they only charged me 19 cents per 4x6 and $1.47 per 8x10. for one hour service!! Surprisingly, they did not ask me about any copyright issues...I take that as an insult! Well, not really, but this was printed out 8x10 - and they never asked...
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:27:54 PM · #2 |
this is exactly why you can get decent 8 x 10's from a 1mp image.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:29:55 PM · #3 |
that's weird that Walmart wouldn't ask. I once had somebody who tried printing their PROOFS with my COPYWRIGHT written all over them (stupid bast...), Walmart called me immediately, and asked me if I had given them permission. Needless to say, the pictures never got printed. Every Walmart that I've gone to has asked for a signed release, and all of them have my business card just in case something like that comes up again.
You should tell your local Walmart to be more strict. You never know what your cheapskate clients may be up to.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:30:18 PM · #4 |
Then I'm confused. Why is it so difficult for me to get an 8x10 with my 3.2 megapixels (let alone anything larger)? I've been told 8x10 is probably the largest I'll be able to get if I want to keep image quality. What am I missing?
Sara
*edit - spelling
Message edited by author 2005-07-07 22:30:53.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:36:05 PM · #5 |
Prof Fate: Printing Resolution - 100dpi is good enough
mmmm.... not in my experience. I've had many images printed. I found 240 to be sufficient, but a real loss of quality below that. I've printed at up to 300 dpi, with excellent results, but never below 240 with anything but @#O$IU. |
|
|
|
07/07/2005 10:43:52 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Bebe:
Prof Fate: Printing Resolution - 100dpi is good enough
mmmm.... not in my experience. I've had many images printed. I found 240 to be sufficient, but a real loss of quality below that. I've printed at up to 300 dpi, with excellent results, but never below 240 with anything but @#O$IU. |
really depends on the detail in the image too. I have a 16 x 24 at 125dpi that looks really good :-)
|
|
|
|
07/07/2005 11:22:01 PM · #7 |
Doh...I do not know what i did, but when i went (just now) to see what the file sizes were I printed...i find this:
-(all JPGs)
-the original is 179k, the 100dpi one is 173k and the resampled one is 189k....actual sizes are 869x1303 on teh first two and 800x1200 on the third one (resampled one). Hmmm..something fishy going on.
The 8x10s are great - 1mb JPG files, 1726x2158. Hmmm, those numbers seem low too. The original capture is 3072x2048, and i did crop to get the ratio right, but 60%? not bloody likely.
The prints are fine...but i am very curious WTF i did in PS. I know the crop tool (which is what i used) can do weird things to the DPI, but jeez, i thought I was watching that.
|
|
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: 08/21/2025 02:47:22 PM EDT.
