Should I resize to 360 dpi?

[Jeremiahd]

Ive heard that it is better to print at 360 dpi. By default, my pictures are 72 dpi at 28 by 21 inches. In the past, I have just been printing 8X 10's at those settings. Should I first resize to 360 dpi at 8X10 or does that happen automatically when I print?

Anyone know?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Bill Richardson]

My understanding is that 250-300 dpi is fine for printing. According to my calculation, you are at 200 ppi now. That is probably adequate but why not just up your image size to 2400x3000 ppi which gives you an 8x10 print at 300 dpi. BTW, I have found that it is much better to think in "ppis" than inches to understand digital imaging (I struggled a long time with this) I am no expert so I will be interested if others agree with what I have said.

Ive heard that it is better to print at 360 dpi. By default, my
pictures are 72 dpi at 28 by 21 inches. In the past, I have just
been printing 8X 10's at those settings. Should I first resize to
360 dpi at 8X10 or does that happen automatically when I print?

Anyone know?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Bill Richardson]

I meant taking the original in the larger format, if possible with your camera.

Ive heard that it is better to print at 360 dpi. By default, my
pictures are 72 dpi at 28 by 21 inches. In the past, I have just
been printing 8X 10's at those settings. Should I first resize to
360 dpi at 8X10 or does that happen automatically when I print?

Anyone know?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Jeremiahd]

I meant taking the original in the larger format, if possible with
your camera.

I am taking it at 2048 x 1536 (3 megapixels) Isnt that enough for 8X10's. What I wanted to know is if I should resample in photoshop?

Thanks for your two repliess

 

[clausiam]

My understanding is that 250-300 dpi is fine for printing.
According to my calculation, you are at 200 ppi now. That is
probably adequate but why not just up your image size to 2400x3000
ppi which gives you an 8x10 print at 300 dpi. BTW, I have found
that it is much better to think in "ppis" than inches to understand
digital imaging (I struggled a long time with this) I am no expert
so I will be interested if others agree with what I have said.

Bill, your terminology is still wrong I'm afraid ;-)

ppi is in effect the same as dpi just for the monitor instead of the printer. ppi means pixels per inch so you're still talking inches when you use that term. What you mean to say I think is just pixels, not ppi.

I agree that thinking in terms of plain old pixels is better than speaking in term of resolution. That is until you need to print a file. At that point the density of pixels (ppi, dpi) becomes important. The lower your dpi the more pixelated your result. Printing at 300 dpi is great but anything > 200 dpi will probably be good enough for most purposes.

If you resample your file to produce more pixels you can avoid pixelation due to the dpi being too low. But there is no free lunch here. Resampling will "invent" pixels based on surrounding "real" pixels so your end result will be a softer image. There is no hard rules for when to resample and when not to, but I use as my rule of thumb that if I can get > 200dpi without resampling then I won't do it. If I fall below that then I resample. You may set your "threshold" differently but the idea should be universal enough.

Claus

 

[Bill Richardson]

My understanding is that resampling is not recommended except when absolutely necessary and your present photo size gives you 200 dpi for an 8x10 so resampling should not be necessary. If you can up your camera image size, that is the best solution. If you can't, try it as is and resampled and report your results. According to OFOTO, 150 ppi is minimum for an acceptable 8x10 but I always try to get an original big enough for 300 dpi prints in that size.

I meant taking the original in the larger format, if possible with
your camera.

I am taking it at 2048 x 1536 (3 megapixels) Isnt that enough for
8X10's. What I wanted to know is if I should resample in photoshop?

Thanks for your two repliess

 

[Patrick_C]

Since I hadn't seen it mentioned yet, it's generally accepted that you should print from 2 to 2.5 times the line screen (line frequency) of your output device, for your typical inkjet, that's around 240 to 300 dpi. Try a little experimentation with your own particular equipment.

Don't forget that you can crop to get the image to fit your dpi/size requirements and not necessarily have to re-sample.

later,

Patrick

Ive heard that it is better to print at 360 dpi. By default, my
pictures are 72 dpi at 28 by 21 inches. In the past, I have just
been printing 8X 10's at those settings. Should I first resize to
360 dpi at 8X10 or does that happen automatically when I print?

Anyone know?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mike Flaherty]

Hi, Claus. I have read in many forums and articles that, for an 8X10, anything over 240 dpi is wasted. I have printed hundreds of 8X10's at this resolution with outstanding results. I use Genuine Fractals to resample my images prior to printing (although Fred Miranda offers a free resampling Action for Photoshop at his website that seems to work well also). All image adjustments are made prior to resampling, except for sharpening. That's done immediately prior to printing.

Mike Flaherty

My understanding is that 250-300 dpi is fine for printing.
According to my calculation, you are at 200 ppi now. That is
probably adequate but why not just up your image size to 2400x3000
ppi which gives you an 8x10 print at 300 dpi. BTW, I have found
that it is much better to think in "ppis" than inches to understand
digital imaging (I struggled a long time with this) I am no expert
so I will be interested if others agree with what I have said.

Bill, your terminology is still wrong I'm afraid ;-)

ppi is in effect the same as dpi just for the monitor instead of
the printer. ppi means pixels per inch so you're still talking
inches when you use that term. What you mean to say I think is just
pixels, not ppi.

I agree that thinking in terms of plain old pixels is better than
speaking in term of resolution. That is until you need to print a
file. At that point the density of pixels (ppi, dpi) becomes
important. The lower your dpi the more pixelated your result.
Printing at 300 dpi is great but anything > 200 dpi will probably
be good enough for most purposes.

If you resample your file to produce more pixels you can avoid
pixelation due to the dpi being too low. But there is no free lunch
here. Resampling will "invent" pixels based on surrounding "real"
pixels so your end result will be a softer image. There is no hard
rules for when to resample and when not to, but I use as my rule of
thumb that if I can get > 200dpi without resampling then I won't do
it. If I fall below that then I resample. You may set your
"threshold" differently but the idea should be universal enough.

Claus

 

[clausiam]

Hi, Claus. I have read in many forums and articles that, for an
8X10, anything over 240 dpi is wasted. I have printed hundreds of
8X10's at this resolution with outstanding results. I use Genuine
Fractals to resample my images prior to printing

Mike,

Out of curiousity: Why would the dpi requirements be different at different print sizes? Is it because the bigger the image the farther you tend to be away from it when you view it so any pixelation effect is less noticeable. I guess that would make sense.

I have GF too but rarely use it. I just don't think it's that much better than PS Bicubic in the range I resample. Maybe for 10x or more but for 2x or 3x you have to look at the pixel level to see any difference. All just IMHO!

CLaus

 

[Bohdan]

This is my understanding, right or wrong. You can't get away from resampling. Whether you do it in Photoshop or whether the printer driver does it for you.

If a printer can resolve 720 dpi, your image will be resampled to 720dpi. The question is to decide where the best place to do it is. I do most of it in Photoshop, resampling to 360. The printer driver will still resample it up to 720 but 720 being a multiple of 360, it really can't do much to screw it up.

Just for the hell of it I'm going to print something at 200dpi and compare to an upsampled 360. I'll be back.

Hi, Claus. I have read in many forums and articles that, for an
8X10, anything over 240 dpi is wasted. I have printed hundreds of
8X10's at this resolution with outstanding results. I use Genuine
Fractals to resample my images prior to printing (although Fred
Miranda offers a free resampling Action for Photoshop at his
website that seems to work well also). All image adjustments are
made prior to resampling, except for sharpening. That's done
immediately prior to printing.

 

[Mike Flaherty]

Hi, Claus. Not sure I can answer your question. I found it interesting that a pro at Ford Motor Company's Graphic Arts Department printed my D30 TIFF image at 72dpi on their $50,000 printer (uses a wet process) and printed me a wonderful 24X36 that I matted, framed, and mounted on the wall in my vacation home. He said that 72dpi was all he needed to handle the job. Obviously, he was right. So I deduct from that that larger prints require less dpi??? While I've learned tons of information over the past couple of years on the subject of digital imaging, I'm the first to admit that there is lots more for me to learn. My experience and knowledge comes almost exclusively from forums like this one. Unfortunately, I have no friends or acquaintances who know anything about any of this stuff.

Regarding Genuine Fractals, you are right that it's difficult to see differences between PS Bicubic interpolation and Fractals in an 8X10 print. One thing I like, however, is that saving my retouched images in GF format takes less disk space than TIFF images. Also, using Fractals cool interface makes you FEEL like you're doing something awesome (HA!).

Take care...

Mike

Hi, Claus. I have read in many forums and articles that, for an
8X10, anything over 240 dpi is wasted. I have printed hundreds of
8X10's at this resolution with outstanding results. I use Genuine
Fractals to resample my images prior to printing

Mike,

Out of curiousity: Why would the dpi requirements be different at
different print sizes? Is it because the bigger the image the
farther you tend to be away from it when you view it so any
pixelation effect is less noticeable. I guess that would make sense.

I have GF too but rarely use it. I just don't think it's that much
better than PS Bicubic in the range I resample. Maybe for 10x or
more but for 2x or 3x you have to look at the pixel level to see
any difference. All just IMHO!

CLaus

 

[Fotomania]

I am taking it at 2048 x 1536 (3 megapixels) Isnt that enough for
8X10's. What I wanted to know is if I should resample in photoshop?

My camera is a 3,3 and I have made 8x10's and even larger. It works fine, if the original picture is good the print will be great. I crop the picture using the setting 8x10 leaving the resolution box blank.

Eva

 

[Bill Richardson]

Of course Claus is correct. I should have said 2400x3000 PIXELS. Serves me right to try to type with the cat in my lap!

My understanding is that 250-300 dpi is fine for printing.
According to my calculation, you are at 200 ppi now. That is
probably adequate but why not just up your image size to 2400x3000
ppi which gives you an 8x10 print at 300 dpi. BTW, I have found
that it is much better to think in "ppis" than inches to understand
digital imaging (I struggled a long time with this) I am no expert
so I will be interested if others agree with what I have said.

Bill, your terminology is still wrong I'm afraid ;-)

ppi is in effect the same as dpi just for the monitor instead of
the printer. ppi means pixels per inch so you're still talking
inches when you use that term. What you mean to say I think is just
pixels, not ppi.

I agree that thinking in terms of plain old pixels is better than
speaking in term of resolution. That is until you need to print a
file. At that point the density of pixels (ppi, dpi) becomes
important. The lower your dpi the more pixelated your result.
Printing at 300 dpi is great but anything > 200 dpi will probably
be good enough for most purposes.

If you resample your file to produce more pixels you can avoid
pixelation due to the dpi being too low. But there is no free lunch
here. Resampling will "invent" pixels based on surrounding "real"
pixels so your end result will be a softer image. There is no hard
rules for when to resample and when not to, but I use as my rule of
thumb that if I can get > 200dpi without resampling then I won't do
it. If I fall below that then I resample. You may set your
"threshold" differently but the idea should be universal enough.

Claus

 

[Bill Richardson]

One last comment. Bruce Komusin posted an excellent comment on resizing in this forum previously. It is posted under Optimal Photo Resolution, I believe. It is worth doing a search for. He generally.recommends against resizing up.

Ive heard that it is better to print at 360 dpi. By default, my
pictures are 72 dpi at 28 by 21 inches. In the past, I have just
been printing 8X 10's at those settings. Should I first resize to
360 dpi at 8X10 or does that happen automatically when I print?

Anyone know?

Thanks in advance.

 

[david16793]

Ive heard that it is better to print at 360 dpi. By default, my
pictures are 72 dpi at 28 by 21 inches. In the past, I have just
been printing 8X 10's at those settings. Should I first resize to
360 dpi at 8X10 or does that happen automatically when I print?

Anyone know?

Thanks in advance.

Hi

You can quite easily print at 166 dpi. You only really need to go as high as 300 dpi if you are sending your work of to magazines on disc. Have you tried a few test prints at different settings..?? I use 166 all the time for my work with problem.

Hope this helps

David
http://www.davrodigital.co.uk Photoshop tutorials

 

[larry41017]

I'm printing 4mp images on an Epson 1270 as large as 13x17 inches.

For smaller snapshots, I can see significant improvement when
printing 360 ppi vs. 240. This is seen close up (4 inches from
eyeball) in fine edge details, and tiny, high-saturation details.
This is for Epson's Premium Glossy Photo Paper. I also print
to Heavyweight Matte, which tends to blur fine details as the
ink bleeds thru the fibers.

I usually DO examine snapshots, BTW. YOUR mileage may
vary...

On larger prints, upsampling greatly reduces pixelation/stair
stepping on sharp edges. I look closely at these large prints,
too - 12 to 16 inches when I'm looking at fine details.

Take some of your highest-quality 35mm prints, and look at
them side-by-side with your inkjet prints. You'll not be happy
with the lack of sharpness or the lack of tiny details.
Thank G** that the accurate colors, high contrast, etc of
inkjet prints makes up for this!

It's real easy to find out how much detail you require in
your prints. Take a small crop of an image that's in-focus
and has tiny details, and print it out at various ppi. For
my images, which come from the camera at 2240x1680,
printing that crop at 132 ppi shows what it would look like
if the full image was printed to 13x17 inches.

I've been following this 'size' issue for several years now,
and I definitely am pickier than the rest of you... ;-)