seattleddc
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 82 
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by seattleddc on Dec 13, 2020 14:04:03 GMT
Hello folks, haven't been on here for a while. I took senior photos for a friend's daughter, and they have to be 2x3" and 300dpi. I went into Image/Resize/Image size and changed the dpi to 300. This changed the height and width to 4x6, and the pixel dimensions to 1800x1200. My assumption is that if it changed to 4x6, it will be able to print at 2x3. So...... did I do this correctly? I took the same picture and did four versions, a full body, all the way down to a head and shoulders portrait, just to give her a choice. Oddly, I did the same resize process for all four, but one came up with ever so slightly changed dimensions (something like 1800x1199 pixels). I figured the difference was so slight it wouldn't make a difference. Can anyone confirm I did this correctly? Since she's a teenager I'm afraid she'll wait to submit these until the last minute, and if they're not right she wouldn't have time to fix them.
I always get a lot of help here, and I thank you in advance.
|
|
|
|
Post by BuckSkin on Dec 13, 2020 19:45:24 GMT
Yes; 4x6 will print at 2x3, but at twice the PPI.
I am assuming the originals are already 2:3 ratio, meaning standard 35mm-style DSLR output.
If you want the end product to print 2" x 3" at 300-ppi; there are a couple ways of going about this; the simplest being Image > Resize > Image Size - be sure and allow resampling, set the size dimensions in inches and the PPI at 300 and the result should be just that = 2" x 3" at 300ppi.
If you are getting some weird off-measurement results, then use the Crop tool instead and fill in the blanks for size and PPI.
|
|
seattleddc
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 82
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by seattleddc on Dec 13, 2020 21:15:38 GMT
I shot the originals on a Canon crop sensor, and then used the crop tool in PSE to crop them down to 4x6. So it sounds like you're confirming that my process was correct. It's weird about the one that was slightly irregular, because I only used the preset crop tool measurement of 4x6. Thanks for your help.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Dec 13, 2020 21:34:13 GMT
My interpretation of 2"x3" @ 300 dpi would be that they want a 600x900 pixel image so resampling would be needed, as BucksSkin says, if your current image is 1800x1200 pixels. As an aside though many requests for photos that specify 300 dpi just do it because that's what they've always done and as long as you have at least the minimum number of pixels it really shouldn't matter what the dpi is.
Tony
|
|
|
|
Post by Tpgettys on Dec 13, 2020 21:43:12 GMT
Hi seattleddc , I don't know if any more needs to be said, but just in case it isn't already clear, the true size of your image is 1800 x 1200 pixels. Below are two screen shots of the Image Size dialog (Image | Resize | Image Size...). I have unchecked the box at the bottom titled Resample Image so that Elements will not change the actual size of the image.
At a "resolution" of 300 dpi your image would result in a print of 6 in x 4 in. If you change the print size to 3 in x 2 in the "resolution" becomes 600 dpi, but of course the actual image size doesn't change, it remains 1800 x 1200 pixels. Heck, you could tell your printer to render this image at 60 in x 40 in, but then there would be only 30 dpi.
There are many guidelines out there, but a common recommendation for top quality images is to use a resolution of 300 dpi. Look at the actual size of your image in pixels, divide those numbers by 300 and you will get the largest physical size possible for a top quality image.
4 x 6 "Physical size"
| 2 x 3 "Physical size"
| 
| 
|
|
|
seattleddc
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 82
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by seattleddc on Dec 13, 2020 22:10:24 GMT
So..... my Image Size box reads Pixel Dimensions 6.18m w1200 x h1800. Document Size w4.001 x 6.0 Resolution 300. So it looks the same as yours, other than that one funky number of 4.001. It only did that on one of the photos. The others read the same as what you sent. So it sounds to me like these should be fine.
*** I did have all of the boxes on the bottom of the dialog box checked.
|
|
|
|
Post by cats4jan on Dec 14, 2020 1:20:11 GMT
I wish people would stop talking about resolution. Think pixel size. Divide by 300.
Yes, I realize the 300 is resolution, but really - let’s simplify the thought process. Go straight to pixel size and divide by 300. You will easily know the largest decent print you can get.
I can’t believe these drop down menus are still so complicated - they just confuse a simple concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sepiana on Dec 14, 2020 1:37:35 GMT
Resolution does matter
Resolution is important not only for printing purposes but it is also important in the post-processing workflow. For example:
In addition to Elements or Photoshop, one uses Photomatix, Dynamic Auto Painter, Topaz, Luminar, etc., etc. High-resolution images will produce better results as they can withstand more pixel manipulation.
Creating some effects manually can also be affected by resolution. The Displacement Map comes to mind. Depending on the image resolution (72 ppi vs 300 ppi), when one applies the Gaussian Blur filter, it needs to be adjusted to the resolution. If not, the undulations will be lost or the lines will appear jagged.
|
|
seattleddc
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 82
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by seattleddc on Dec 14, 2020 1:47:38 GMT
Since we've broached this subject, I'm wondering if someone can shed some light on this for me. What is it that determines the Pixel Dimensions on any given photo? I have a Canon crop sensor, so one thing I believe I know is that those pixel dimensions on all of my photos will be in a 2x3 ratio. But what determines the amount?
1: Do more pixels mean you can print larger?
2: What is it that determines the amount of pixels on any given photo? Is it the lens? The three components of the exposure?
3: Is there a way to manipulate a photo that has a limited amount of pixels, and can only be printed to 4x6, to where it can be printed larger? If so, can you do this in PSE, or is this separate software?
Thanks in advance, and I hope this doesn't create a bunch of turmoil on here. From reading a past thread, it seems like this is a sensitive subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tpgettys on Dec 14, 2020 4:04:13 GMT
Since we've broached this subject, I'm wondering if someone can shed some light on this for me. What is it that determines the Pixel Dimensions on any given photo? I have a Canon crop sensor, so one thing I believe I know is that those pixel dimensions on all of my photos will be in a 2x3 ratio. But what determines the amount? 1: Do more pixels mean you can print larger? 2: What is it that determines the amount of pixels on any given photo? Is it the lens? The three components of the exposure?
3: Is there a way to manipulate a photo that has a limited amount of pixels, and can only be printed to 4x6, to where it can be printed larger? If so, can you do this in PSE, or is this separate software?
If I am understanding your questions correctly, it is the sensor inside your camera that determines the (maximum) pixel dimensions of an image. They have been providing larger and larger images each generation. The lens and settings have nothing to do with image size.
More pixels does mean you can print larger at any specific dpi. The answers to your last question is yes and yes. Take your earlier example, 1200x1800 pixels (4x6 inches at 300 dpi). If you want a print that as 8x12 inches and still 300 dpi, you would click the Resample Image box, type in the dimensions and click OK. In the screen shots below, notice that the image size has increased to 2400x3600 pixels. Magic!
Well, not quite. Where did those extra pixels come from? They are manufactured by Elements using the existing ones. The precise algorithm used to do the interpolation is selected from the drop-down list at the bottom, but the bottom line is that they are guesses to make the image look "natural". Simplistically, if two adjacent pixels where pure black and pure white, it would insert a 50% gray pixel between them.
4x6 inches at 300 dpi
| 8x12 inches at 300 dpi
|  |  |
|
|
|
|
Post by BuckSkin on Dec 14, 2020 7:25:07 GMT
Since we've broached this subject, I'm wondering if someone can shed some light on this for me. What is it that determines the Pixel Dimensions on any given photo? I have a Canon crop sensor, so one thing I believe I know is that those pixel dimensions on all of my photos will be in a 2x3 ratio. But what determines the amount? 1: Do more pixels mean you can print larger? YES; more pixels = larger print capability2: What is it that determines the amount of pixels on any given photo?The size of the original photo is governed by the amount of pixels in your sensor; the more megapixels, the larger the pixel dimensions of the image
3: Is there a way to manipulate a photo that has a limited amount of pixels, and can only be printed to 4x6, to where it can be printed larger?Yes; the procedure is called "up-sampling" ; Elements can do this, but there are other dedicated programs that can do it better
Just confirming what Tpgettys already said. There is an exception to Number 2: the answer holds true providing you are shooting Large jpeg or RAW; any of the smaller resolution choices will produce smaller pixel dimensions. |
|
seattleddc
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 82
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by seattleddc on Dec 15, 2020 3:09:05 GMT
Wow, I must be really dense. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. So the specs on my sensor are 5196x3464. From reading the responses to my question, I understand that there is a limit on how large a print could be made from a photo I take due the size of my sensor. But tpgettys gave an example where I could check the "Resample" box and make a larger print, but it seems like I would lose some resolution. Am I getting that correct? So how is it that when I send photos out for print they can print sometimes as large as 24"x36"? Are they using software to manipulate my image to make it more resolute?
This topic may be pretty elementary for some folks, so I apologize for my ignorance. This is something that I've really struggled with for a long time, and it's time I try to figure it out. Like using off-camera flash or strobes. For the longest time I thought "I just like to use ambient light". When really I was just afraid of trying to figure out that process. So I finally figured that out. Hopefully I can figure this out too.
There are a lot of extremely knowledgeable and patient people on here, and it is greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by BuckSkin on Dec 15, 2020 7:08:25 GMT
Wow, I must be really dense. Better to be DENSE than to be empty ! But I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. So the specs on my sensor are 5196x3464. From reading the responses to my question, I understand that there is a limit on how large a print could be made from a photo I take due the size of my sensor. But tpgettys gave an example where I could check the "Resample" box and make a larger print, but it seems like I would lose some resolution. Am I getting that correct? So how is it that when I send photos out for print they can print sometimes as large as 24"x36"? Are they using software to manipulate my image to make it more resolute? This topic may be pretty elementary for some folks, so I apologize for my ignorance. This is something that I've really struggled with for a long time, and it's time I try to figure it out. Like using off-camera flash or strobes. For the longest time I thought "I just like to use ambient light". When really I was just afraid of trying to figure out that process. So I finally figured that out. Hopefully I can figure this out too. There are a lot of extremely knowledgeable and patient people on here, and it is greatly appreciated. I am one of the much less knowledgeable, but with little enough sense to try to answer anyway... To confuse you more, 300ppi is sort of the holy grail of printing resolutions; however, perfectly fine large prints can be had from files as less dense as 200ppi; 240ppi is not a bad resolution for general photo printing. I read an in-depth article somewhere where this guy explored and tested all of this. As for your 5196 x 3464 sensor, use the cat lady's divide-by-300 formula to get the print size at 300ppi. 5196/300 = 17.32" 3464/300 = 11.55" So, you can print a 17.32 x 11.55 at 300ppi 21.65 x 14.43 at 240ppi 25.98 x 17.32 at 200ppi The 24 x 36 print is at 144.33ppi You can test this ppi business yourself on smaller prints. Print some 4x6 of the same image; one each at 300ppi, 240ppi, 200ppi, and 144ppi, and compare the results. If you have plenty of ink, make the prints bigger, maybe 8-1/2x11 |
|
|
|
Post by Tpgettys on Dec 15, 2020 7:09:42 GMT
Wow, I must be really dense. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. So the specs on my sensor are 5196x3464. From reading the responses to my question, I understand that there is a limit on how large a print could be made from a photo I take due the size of my sensor. But tpgettys gave an example where I could check the "Resample" box and make a larger print, but it seems like I would lose some resolution. Am I getting that correct? So how is it that when I send photos out for print they can print sometimes as large as 24"x36"? Are they using software to manipulate my image to make it more resolute? This topic may be pretty elementary for some folks, so I apologize for my ignorance. This is something that I've really struggled with for a long time, and it's time I try to figure it out. Like using off-camera flash or strobes. For the longest time I thought "I just like to use ambient light". When really I was just afraid of trying to figure out that process. So I finally figured that out. Hopefully I can figure this out too. There are a lot of extremely knowledgeable and patient people on here, and it is greatly appreciated. I don't think you are dense seattleddc . It is a common question and for good reason, as it really is not a trivial topic. There is the one true thing, the 5196x3464 pixel image captured by your camera. There are all those numbers which describe what the camera saw, but the process of rendering those numbers visually involves a lot technology. Just take your computer screen. Does the technology of your display device have any bias toward red that needs to be corrected for? The calibration of video displays is a topic of great interest in itself! When you force Elements to make the size of an image larger than it was originally, the algorithms used are pretty sophisticated, so the result will often look quite good. So yes, your 24"x36" print may well look very good indeed! I would guess that the printer is using some software akin to what PSE does to try and optimize the result. However, if there are some plants or people in the background, it will be impossible to fill in the details of the leaves or faces, as that information is simply not present in the original image.
|
|
