Canon EOS 700D (T5i) Producing 72 dpi images

cgarzi wrote:

Our Canon EOS 700D (T5i) camera has been producing images with a dpi of 72, when we obviously need 300 dpi for our print products.

We've read the user manual and played around with all the settings (and we have some experienced photographers in the office), and no one can figure it out. Can anyone provide some assistance? We do not want to shoot raw.

Thanks,

Caitlin

The DPI setting on the file itself is arbitrary/meaningless - there's no fixed display size on a file, so it doesn't really have an actual DPI - it just needs a value put in there.

for printing, to get 300dpi you'd need to output

1200*1800 (4x6)

1500*2400 (5x7)

2400*3000 (8x10)

3300*4200 (11x14)

beyond this size, you can start upsizing in your output software to provide a 300dpi file to the printer - at these sizes and below, they are smaller than what the camera outputs (3456x5184)

Edit: In other words, it wouldn't actually be 72dpi unless you printed a 48x72 print from the out of camera file

Thank you-- this is actually really helpful. Which setting would i change on the camera to make the image output larger?

Thanks,

Caitlin

cgarzi wrote:

Thank you-- this is actually really helpful. Which setting would i change on the camera to make the image output larger?

Thanks,

Caitlin

Caitlin,

Cameras know nothing about DPI. The camera has no setting for DPI as it is meaningless to the camera. All the camera knows is total pixels. The DPI setting is a software setting. You can change that setting in most software.

Also, most software allows you to set the dimensions you need for your print and will change the dpi accordingly.

Here's one of the many writeups: http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/mythdpi.html

Olga Johnson wrote:

cgarzi wrote:

Thank you-- this is actually really helpful. Which setting would i change on the camera to make the image output larger?

Thanks,

Caitlin

Caitlin,

Cameras know nothing about DPI. The camera has no setting for DPI as it is meaningless to the camera. All the camera knows is total pixels. The DPI setting is a software setting. You can change that setting in most software.

Also, most software allows you to set the dimensions you need for your print and will change the dpi accordingly.

Here's one of the many writeups: http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/mythdpi.html

^^This++

crop to the appropriate aspect ratio (unless you're doing 4x6 which is in the native 3:2 aspect ratio) and downsize to the appropriate resolution in software.   No need to shoot smaller in camera, as that will limit you if you want to print larger from the same file in the future.

ushibaba wrote:

imqqmi wrote:

cgarzi wrote:

Thank you-- this is actually really helpful. Which setting would i change on the camera to make the image output larger?

Guys, Here I would likely would not agree with you.

Being Honest DPI, when it comes to print; Does matter a lot.

it never does.

I am a wedding, product & documentation photographer and here in PK(Pakistan) we give out printed digital albums of dimensions like 12x36. So when it comes to something below 150 dpi its worth not printing even if you choose to downgrade the size and dimensions of the images in pscs6 or any software.

That makes no sense. 12x36, what is that? 1:3 is very uncommon. If you choose to make an image smaller, the pixels per inch automatically get more dense. DPI is something only useful to internal processing of printer software, and 300 DPi and 150DPI numbers are relics to the 1980's when that is the output black and white laser printers gave.

In fact i came across this thread just to find a easy solution for one of mt fellow photographers problems as he had already had an album printed and when it came to his office he could not believe the pointless blurs in his images Larger sized or smaller sized

Whatever caused that crappy album output, it most certainly was not some DPI muber in the EXIF of an image.

I would rather go into Adobe Photoshop and increase the DPI of the images before I send them for a print. Even if it takes good time for me to do so.

That makes no sense. One can let photoshop resize the print size by adjusting the DPI setting, but that is a silly thing to do. Just set the image size you want in the output software. Not a silly DPI number.

Where as I would also recommend applying the setting changes in your camera as the previous fellow did. maybe they could be gratefully helpful.

No, it is not helpful in any way to do so.

In either case, you need some help in applying changes to your images in regards to DPI
follow this link.
https://www.fiverr.com/ushibaba

Don't bother, seriously...

-- hide signature --

Winners Never QUIT And Quitters never WIN

ushibaba wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

ushibaba wrote:

imqqmi wrote:

cgarzi wrote:

Thank you-- this is actually really helpful. Which setting would i change on the camera to make the image output larger?

Guys, Here I would likely would not agree with you.

Being Honest DPI, when it comes to print; Does matter a lot.

it never does.

I am a wedding, product & documentation photographer and here in PK(Pakistan) we give out printed digital albums of dimensions like 12x36. So when it comes to something below 150 dpi its worth not printing even if you choose to downgrade the size and dimensions of the images in pscs6 or any software.

That makes no sense. 12x36, what is that? 1:3 is very uncommon. If you choose to make an image smaller, the pixels per inch automatically get more dense. DPI is something only useful to internal processing of printer software, and 300 DPi and 150DPI numbers are relics to the 1980's when that is the output black and white laser printers gave.

It does makes some sense, if you havent seen an album like that so its not my fault buddy

It is your fault if you think DPI numbers matter in images.

In fact i came across this thread just to find a easy solution for one of mt fellow photographers problems as he had already had an album printed and when it came to his office he could not believe the pointless blurs in his images Larger sized or smaller sized

Whatever caused that crappy album output, it most certainly was not some DPI muber in the EXIF of an image.

i quoted this from an example in real.

Then you just have dealt with someone who made the album who is a nitwit.

I would rather go into Adobe Photoshop and increase the DPI of the images before I send them for a print. Even if it takes good time for me to do so.

That makes no sense. One can let photoshop resize the print size by adjusting the DPI setting, but that is a silly thing to do. Just set the image size you want in the output software. Not a silly DPI number.

it sure does makes some sense if you can try to automate the procedure, but i dont blame you for not gathering any sense of that too.

One works with image dimensions, not DPI.

Where as I would also recommend applying the setting changes in your camera as the previous fellow did. maybe they could be gratefully helpful.

No, it is not helpful in any way to do so.

?? No idea, never clicked with a Canon before

In either case, you need some help in applying changes to your images in regards to DPI
follow this link.
https://www.fiverr.com/ushibaba

Don't bother, seriously...

ohhhh Pooolease...

-- hide signature --

Winners Never QUIT And Quitters never WIN

-- hide signature --

Winners Never QUIT And Quitters never WIN

Just noticing the same thing in Windows Photo Viewer.

Two images (camera image quality comparison) shot, one on my new Canon EOS 6D MkII with 24 Mp Full-Frame sensor.  The other image shot on Nikon D5000 with 12.3 Mp Crop Frame APS-C sensor. The Nikon is a 7 year old camera.

Surprisingly the Canon (full frame) reports its DPI as 72.

The Nikon image shows its DPI as 300.

The on-screen images both viewed at 100% look identical in size and resolution.

That seems to confirm the value is not relevant at least in windows photo viewer.

They were both shot with 300mm lenses.

I'm still scratching my head at how the Nikon is matching the Canon on image quality.

It must be that I am only seeing the central area of the image from both cameras and hence the crop factor is irrelevant.  Any comments on this?

Don't throw away your crop sensor camera just yet - LOL!

The Nikon D5000 image first.

The Canon 6D MkII image.

Both images shot within a couple minutes of each other.  Both with 300mm non-image stabalised lens (so camera shake a factor, but I took the best of 4 from each camera).

That tree also fooled the Canon Sensor (using just the central focus point and clearly not placed over the tree) at least a couple of times.

A bit of a surprise for anyone upgrading their crop sensor camera to a full-frame.

Both shot with Aperture Priority at F/7 and ISO set to my normal daytime 400.

The Canon set to - 1/3 exposure comp.  I forget about that being set.

When I first saw the images on camera, the Canon looked way better, but I realised the Nikon LCD is much lower resolution (2013 standard).  Once off camera I would say the Nikon just edged the photo challenge.

It's my understanding that the Canon 75-300mm lens is a very low quality entry level lens. Why did you use that lens for a test such as this?  This is also a very old thread.

The images from these lenses are excellent.  They may be budget priced but they are still well designed and built.  My images in this post are just for comparison - they were actually shot through a window and hand held at 300 mm, neither recommended for image quality.

So its really only a comparison of the image scale and resolution from the full frame camera to the crop frame and furthering the thread that for some reason the Canon puts out that 72 dpi data.