“High Resolution “
Mar 17, 2020 12:10:55 #
Doc Barry wrote:
Congratulations to your grandson. Outstanding achievement to graduate from The Georgia Tech of the North. 
As a GIT Grad (BME 67) I love your comment.
Mar 17, 2020 12:39:40 #
In my commercial work, oftentimes very large prints are required, or lithographic reproduction on outdoor advertising (billboards) and transit displays (larger signage on the sides of buses etc.). Some of my work is displayed on the Jumbotron at the local NHL arena. 300 dpi usually does the trick.
When posting on the forum, on many occasions my images are low resolution because I am often on the road and have many images and diagrams stored in my cellphone or tablet. Also, my contracts sometimes stipulate that I can not post images in reproducible form.
When posting on the forum, on many occasions my images are low resolution because I am often on the road and have many images and diagrams stored in my cellphone or tablet. Also, my contracts sometimes stipulate that I can not post images in reproducible form.
Mar 17, 2020 12:47:31 #
Alafoto
Loc: Montgomery, AL
Doc Barry wrote:
Congratulations to your grandson. Outstanding achievement to graduate from The Georgia Tech of the North.
LOL @ G.T. of the north.
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Mar 17, 2020 13:05:49 #
Doc Barry wrote:
Congratulations to your grandson. Outstanding achievement to graduate from The Georgia Tech of the North.
Or wannabe Cal Tech of the East.
Mar 17, 2020 13:21:16 #
coolhanduke wrote:
My Epson 7900 prints at 300 dpi so any photos I print on it I crop to the size I want at 300dpi and prints look great.
This is just how I do it on my Epson P800. I set the printer dpi at 300 two years ago and haven't touched it since. I actually don't pay any attention to it. Sometimes I crop radically and my favorite size is 17x25. If it's a nice, sharp, well exposed picture, most of the time it looks great. You don't need to worry about dpi or ppl or pixel dimensions. You don't need to do math or think about viewing distance. The printers and programs are smart. They will upsample (or whatever magic they do) without you having to do anything special. Don't sweat the numbers. Find a file, tune it up and print it, any size you like. It will probably look just fine.
...Cam
Mar 17, 2020 14:20:06 #
In case someone wants to learn more about this subject you can go to my Lightroom website and I have two articles posted on it, https://www.viathelens.net. Either one will help you to get started in understanding the various aspects of digital sizing and resolution. There is more information than would be easy to post here. Click on "Image Resolution" or use the pull-down menu.
Mar 17, 2020 15:17:57 #
Check out Drone Video and Photography Forum section of our forum.
Mar 17, 2020 16:56:08 #
RichKenn
Loc: Merritt Island, FL
bleirer wrote:
Neither of those cameras quite gets to 300 pixels ... (show quote)
I have been wondering why some of you insist on printing at 300 ppi. Now I know. My 89 year old, macular degenerated, 20/50 vision is perfectly happy with 100 ppi.
Mar 17, 2020 17:06:04 #
RichKenn wrote:
I have been wondering why some of you insist on printing at 300 ppi. Now I know. My 89 year old, macular degenerated, 20/50 vision is perfectly happy with 100 ppi.
Those that insist on 300ppi would be shocked to see how little difference there is between a 150ppi and a 300ppi image printed to 24x36 and viewed at 6 ft.
Mar 17, 2020 17:15:25 #
Gene51 wrote:
Those that insist on 300ppi would be shocked to see how little difference there is between a 150ppi and a 300ppi image printed to 24x36 and viewed at 6 ft.
Those that insist on 300ppi would be shocked to see how little difference there is between a 150ppi and a 300ppi image printed to 24x36 and viewed at 6 ft.
Realizing this throws off all the complicated math some do in deciding what size is possible. Almost any size is possible from a good starting file.
...Cam
Mar 17, 2020 17:32:58 #
Gene51 wrote:
Those that insist on 300ppi would be shocked to see how little difference there is between a 150ppi and a 300ppi image printed to 24x36 and viewed at 6 ft.
Those that insist on 300ppi would be shocked to see how little difference there is between a 150ppi and a 300ppi image printed to 24x36 and viewed at 6 ft.
Gene, when you go into a gallery do you stand 6" away to view the prints? Well, before the Coronavirus issue, now you'd stand six feet away! What if the print was a 13" x 19" printed at 100 dpi? Would the print still be something nice to look at with good tonal range and a smoothness in tone to tone? Would there be artifacts? Don't you think it's good for people to learn and understand and then make an informed choice to get the outcome they desire?
Check out Smartphone Photography section of our forum.
Mar 17, 2020 22:30:22 #
Lsweaver wrote:
Yes, that is a rather nebulous subject which is wh... (show quote)
Before an answer to this common question, resolution simply refers to the file size your camera can produce. So a 24 MP file has twice the resolution as a 12 MP which has twice that of a 6MP file. A 16x20 photo requires 16"x20"x300ppi x300ppi = 28,800,000pixels = 28.8MP. So a 24MP will not produce sufficient pixels for a best 16x20 but the image will be "ok" printed at 1400DPI (DPI must be about 4 times the PPI) We have lost the importance of sharpness unfortunately. So even with a "nice" camera and lens, unless you use a tripod, your photo will not be as sharp as possible.
Mar 17, 2020 22:40:55 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
The required DPI of the print will depend on the viewing distance. The limit is the resolution of the eye, which I believe is 240 DPI at a distance of 12" (Burkphoto has the appropriate reference [I'll have to bookmark that]). If you are not going to get closer than 12" you can drop the DPI proportionally.
So yes, you can print at 72 DPI if you're not viewing the photo closer than about a meter.
So yes, you can print at 72 DPI if you're not viewing the photo closer than about a meter.
The minimum DPI you need to print a photo for acceptable results would be 720DPI.
Mar 18, 2020 00:47:00 #
ralphjh wrote:
Before an answer to this common question, resoluti... (show quote)
I think this answer is wrong. To believe this would mean that before cameras that had more than 24mp, no one could produce big prints that were great, and that is certainly not true. Or, if you half cropped your 24mg, what was left couldn’t look great big. And this is not true either. I think you are getting caught up in the math instead of the wonderful big pictures hanging all around you that were mostly shot with 24 mgs and less. Often a lot less. I don’t even know what my Epson printer is printing my 16X20 and 17x25 prints at but they all come from 24mg, 20mg, and even 12mg cameras and I wouldn’t hang any of them on the gallery wall if they didn’t look great. I think your formulas are from the past and current software and hardware makes great prints even when the old numbers don’t add up.
...Cam
Mar 18, 2020 18:04:30 #
ralphjh wrote:
... So a 24 MP file has twice the resolution as a 12 MP which has twice that of a 6MP file...
Resolution is measured by the ability to distinguish two lines close together. If you have higher resolution, you can distinguish two lines closer together.
Resolution measures one dimension. The number of pixels defines an area, or two dimensions. Therefore if you have a 6 MPx image, and you want twice the resolution, you need 4 times the number of pixels, or 24 MPx.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Panorama section of our forum.