How to increase resolution? (Page 2): You can set it to 4 ppi or 4000 ppi (without resampling) if you are using Photoshop or Lightroom and you won't see any difference, and it won't...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Linary wrote:

It's very simple, in PP just change the resolution from the (probable) 72ppi to 300ppi. Whoever is looking at the images won't actually see a difference on the screen but will be happy to see the 300ppi in the image properties.

This will make no difference to the images, but will satisfy the yearbook staff.

You can set it to 4 ppi or 4000 ppi (without resampling) if you are using Photoshop or Lightroom and you won't see any difference, and it won't matter to the yearbook people. What matters is how many pixels you have, and how far away you are viewing the images. For print purposes, 300 ppi output resolution should be adequate, which means that if you are submitting a full-sized image for a yearbook that uses 8.5x11 pages, and the image is a full-page bleed, you will need to provide a 9x11.5 image that is a minimum of 2700 x 3300 px. The uncropped D500 image is 3,712 x 5,568 px, so you are more than ok even with some modest cropping.

This will help you deal with resolution requirements and viewing distances.

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

And this is the science behind the recommendations:
http://www.scss.com.au/family/andrew/camera/resolution/

The yearbook people probably don't know how to put into words what they are looking for - which is more than likely the output resolution I suggested, as a minimum for the perception of sharpness and crisp detail.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

alandg46 wrote:

Consider converting them to TIF's rather than JPG's.

Why?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

alandg46 wrote:

Consider converting them to TIF's rather than JPG's.

That won't increase resolution, possibly reduce file compression artifacts, but can't replace something that isn't there....

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Gene51 wrote:

You can set it to 4 ppi or 4000 ppi (without resam... (show quote)

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

alandg46 wrote:

Consider converting them to TIF's rather than JPG's.

That does not change resolution at all.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

I would provide them as TIFFs on a thumb drive.

Why? Are you thinking a TIFF has more resolution? It does not.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I'm thinking from the print perspective. The custom printers in my city get more accurate prints from TIFFS over JPegs. Actually I think the request comes from confusion. They don't know how to ask for what they want. I ran into this when proofing for a 6' x 9' print on fabric for trade shows.

Linary Loc: UK

Gene51 wrote:

You can set it to 4 ppi or 4000 ppi (without resam... (show quote)

That is what I said.

In my experience many magazine administrators just do not understand ppi, dpi and resolution etc. If they see 72ppi in the properties their reaction is that the image will not be good enough, consequently the message goes back "increase resolution!".

Much of the problem has arisen from digital printing technology, as opposed to commercial litho printing, where non-professionals assume responsibility for creating the magazines or yearbooks etc. from submitted articles and photographs. These guys have little or no training, they simply want to do a good job but sometimes make hard work of it.

BJW

Thanks Linary.
That's exactly the problem.
After going back and forth with the yearbook staff it is clear that neither they nor their "yearbook company" know anything about digital photography, and I truly mean Nothing.
So in the end I sent them the original team photo in RAW without any cropping or other editing and let their outside company figure it out!!!

But I do thank you all for your input and for a most informative thread.

BJ

ssymeono Loc: St. Louis, Missouri

You have been getting excellent advise, like increasing the size of pixels and resolution in 'image size'. Also, if you have the latest version of Lightroom, it allows you to process your image in Photoshop 2017 and when you do this the pixels count doubles from 59.1 to 118.2. Try it , it's amazing!

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I suspect that the critique of sharpness may not be a camera resolution issue but more an issue of shutter speed, lack of focus, or high ISO. Post processing can help with that but not 100% if it's too bad. Or it could be a print resolution issue which can be affected at the printing stage and/or viewing distance.

Ratta Loc: California

Many times an appparent lack of sharpness or resolution comes from low contrast or slightly soft focus.

Panorama

They should have been clearer with you. They need 300dpi. Your photos are likely 72dpi. There is no perceptible increase in "resolution". They just need 300dpi. Look up how you can easily convert your existing photos to 300dpi. Simple issue. Easy to resolve.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Linary wrote:

It's very simple, in PP just change the resolution from the (probable) 72ppi to 300ppi. Whoever is looking at the images won't actually see a difference on the screen but will be happy to see the 300ppi in the image properties.

This will make no difference to the images, but will satisfy the yearbook staff.

Several years ago I was helping a friend get her book published. She had typical 72 ppi/dpi pictures in her proof. I told her that her printer would ask her for higher resolution. She didn't believe me so she turned in her proof. The printer asked her for higher resolution, no less than 300 ppi/dpi. She came to me for help. I taught her to do exactly what you stated here. She used one of my computers, took all her pictures to Photoshop, changed the resolution from 72 to 300, and gave them to her printer. Her printer was ecstatic. Book got printed, and she has sold several thousand of the books but got a new job because of her book.

Note that if you have a specific size that you also need, in Photoshop change the resolution first and then go back and make the size whatever it was originally. That way you won't get pixelation, artifacts, etc.

MtnMan Loc: ID

BJW wrote:

Thanks Linary.
That's exactly the problem.
After going back and forth with the yearbook staff it is clear that neither they nor their "yearbook company" know anything about digital photography, and I truly mean Nothing.
So in the end I sent them the original team photo in RAW without any cropping or other editing and let their outside company figure it out!!!

But I do thank you all for your input and for a most informative thread.

BJ

It is unlikely that they will be able to use the RAW file. They need compatible software to even open it.