Deewheat

I've found it to be quite good, assuming the quality of the original is good. I've never actually printed a billboard sized one, but I have gone quite large with little loss of resolution.

Indi Loc: L. I., NY, Palm Beach Cty when it's cold.

OK, this concept is confusing me. According to this article, "less is more." Less PPI = a larger picture. I thought the opposite. More PPI would allow more pixels in a given area and therefore greater clarity.
I'm not exactly a newbie at digital photography but I'm also not a professional photographer...somewhere in between.

When I use my DIP, and change the size of the image so I can email it. I fix the size I want by choosing the bullet next to the image size in inches. Then I choose a lower PPI, like 96 or 150, so the image size doesn't overload the recipient's mailbox.

What am I missing here?

BTW, I downloaded Irfanview (which I tried years ago) and Rasterbator. Thanks for the info. I also have Lightworks, Raw Therapee, Tiltshift and Nikon's ViewNX. I try to play with each to learn some more.

Bob.J Loc: On The Move

Good job, fun is what it's all about

SQUIRL033 Loc: Chehalis, WA

okay... to answer your question, if you have a set number of pixels, and you print at a lower resolution, say, 100 ppi instead of 300, you can make a larger print, but the print quality will be poor. here's a way to figure out the print size for a given image. let's say you have an image that is 6000 pixels by 4000. divide the length of the image in pixels by 300, and you get 20 that means that at 300 PPI, you can make a print 20" long with excellent print quality. now divide by 200. 6000/200 = 30, so you can make a print that's 30 inches long, but you'll have a bit less print resolution - still more than enough for a good print. if you divide that same 6000 pixels by 100, you can make a print 60" long, but at only 100 PPI, you'll see a lot of pixelation and 'jaggies'. does it make sense now?

for a given PRINT size, the more pixels per inch, the clearer and sharper the image will be - to a point. beyond about 200 PPI, the human eye cannot resolve any smaller detail, so you won't gain much. a 300 PPI print may appear ever so slightly 'smoother' than one at 200 PPI, but it won't be any sharper or more detailed.

Indi Loc: L. I., NY, Palm Beach Cty when it's cold.

OK, that just told me I'm not crazy. That's what I thought...more PPI (up to a point) the better the image.

Phew! OK, I'm clear on that now. Thanks.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

Yes, but remember as well, that generally, the larger the image, the farther your viewing distance, which tends to even out the lower PPI - one does not gaze at a billboard from the same viewing distance as one gazes at that 5x7 of little Billy on the teeter-totter. So the APPARENT quality does not degrade as much as you might think.

Greg Loc: Maryland

The idiots at Nikon didn't touch the question because it's a Microsoft Digital Image Pro question, not a camera question.

Deewheat

That's a shame. I can honestly say that the Canon folks I've dealt with have all been very good, although I have to say it's one of those YMMV (your mileage may vary) situations on the best of days.

DJ Mills Loc: Idaho

I was headed out tomorrow to buy a D5100. Are you telling me that I can't make giant prints? I can already go 16x20 with my 10 mpx Canon SX10.

Hurry with some answers as the Nikon sale ends this week.

Greg Loc: Maryland

OMG

http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

The questioner is asking a question that I also had and have. Let me see if I can explain it better.

I can put an 18MP file from let's say, a Canon, into an editing software (no certain editor because this happens to me with 3 different editors including PhotoShop CS5) and it will open at X inches wide by X inches tall at 300 dpi. I can put an 18MP file from, let's say, a Fuji camera into that same editor and it will open as larger inches wide by tall but choose 240 dpi. I can put an 18MP file from my Sony Alpha 55 in the same editor and it will open as a smaller inches wide by tall and choose 350 dpi. Theoretically all three should open at a 300 dpi standard and the width and height shown on the rulers should be exactly the same or at least very similar (depending on whether it's 18 or 18.2 or 17.9MP used for image capture). But it doesn't happen that way.

I don't want to hear about megapixels versus inches of print size because that's common knowledge and doesn't pertain to this question. The question is about why 3 different similar files set on finest JPG compression, from 3 different camera manufacturers, that have virtually the same MP size sensors, open as different inches wide and tall as well as different dpi settings in a software editor.

Greg Loc: Maryland

That still doesn't change the fact that he is asking the wrong people. That's like calling Whirlpool and asking them what a particular gauge on your car is for. That would be a question for your mechanic or car dealer. Just as his above question should not be directed at Nikon, but the maker of the software that is displaying his images that way. I'm sure that the embedded exif data for both camera's have the ppi recorded differently. Likely this is due to differences in the size of the sensor, but not necessarily. I would expect a 18MP full frame sensor to record its is ppi differently that a 18MP DX size sensor as even though they are the same relative size image, the pixel would have been packed more densely on hte DX sensor and it's 'true' ppi would be higher. However this would have no bearing on the size that the image can be printed, as even if the ppi embeded in the image is different, you can change it to what you would like it to be in software. When you open the image however, it's default is going to be what ever the file says it is. A question to pose to Nikon isn't why does this other brand camera not have the same ppi as my Nikon (or the more vague question posed in the beginning of the thread), but maybe why did Nikon chose a PPI of XXX for this camera.

Indi Loc: L. I., NY, Palm Beach Cty when it's cold.

I would definitely RE-BUY THE NIKON 5100. From what I got from this discussion the way (size) the image appears in your editor is irrelevant to the size, and clarity you can actually have the print made.
Also, the software suggestions, which I already downloaded, will allow you to print your picture mural size.
I love the camera. I only have it a few weeks, but it really has some nice features.
BTW I bought mine as a package at COSTCO. With it I got an 18-55mm lens, a 55-300 mm lens, camera body and nice case for it. It was $1000 + tax.
BJs had a similar kit but the long lens was only 55-200mm.

DJ Mills Loc: Idaho

Thanks. It's the COSTCO package that I'm gong to get.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

So with all that blah, blah, blah crap out of the way, the simple answer is that three manufacturers with identical DX sensor sizes and virtually identical MPs on those sensors choose to use different embedded exif data for whatever reason and that directs editing software on how to display the file.

Apparently the embedded exif data also takes precedent over your setup choice in the software of wanting everything displayed at 300 for consistency and overrides it.