Professional Web Applications Themes

a high res question - Adobe Photoshop Elements

ok, I am not used to the higher resolution of my new camera. With my other Kodak point and shoot it gave me 300 res for a 4 X 6 picture which seemed great for printing my multiple image album pages . With the new camera for an approx 4 X 6 it gives me 470 resolution. I'm almost scared to send it to the printer. It would be letter size paper with multiple 4 X 6 pics at 470 res. My printer is the Epson 785 epx which prints with res up to 2880 X 720. Am I being ...

  1. #1

    Default a high res question

    ok, I am not used to the higher resolution of my new camera. With my other Kodak point and shoot it gave me 300 res for a 4 X 6 picture which seemed great for printing my multiple image album pages . With the new camera for an approx 4 X 6 it gives me 470 resolution. I'm almost scared to send it to the printer. It would be letter size paper with multiple 4 X 6 pics at 470 res. My printer is the Epson 785 epx which prints with res up to 2880 X 720. Am I being ridiculous to worry about this or should i resample ? Help
    JodiFrye Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: a high res question

    Jodi, no harm likely done printing at 470, although if you downsample to 360
    ppi, you get an even multiple of your printer's native resolution of 720
    dpi. Some sources I've read indicate that it's good to have that even
    multiple, but.... Anything 300 or more will give you a fine print, I'm
    quite confident!

    Chuck


    Chuck Snyder Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: a high res question

    Thank you very much Chuck. I just don't know enough about this stuff. That's why I come here...I knew you'd answer ;) I'm not complaining about the high res 8 X 10's I get though ....yay ! I'll go ahead and lower it to 360 and see what i get. So, generally, resampling this way isn't such a bad thing ? I never thought I'd have to consider taking pixels away for printing !
    JodiFrye Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: a high res question

    Jodi,

    My camera makes picture of 3072 x 2048. So, at 6 x 4, it makes 512 pixels per inch. I've never had
    to resample or downsize the number of pixels to get them to print. I have an HP 940Cvr and it
    discards the extra information is doesn't need. It may takes a few extra seconds to send the
    information to the printer, this I can't really tell. It doesn't take more ink because its ink
    consumption has been consistent since I got it, and at that time, I had a 2.2 Mp camera (compared to
    a 6Mp now).

    Ray


    Ray Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: a high res question

    Ray, like you, I'm becoming a believer in the view that printers don't
    'waste ink' when you send them more pixels than they need. However, I'm
    trying to dredge up a reference that I read once which indicated that excess
    image resolution could actually cause a degradation in the printed image.
    That may have been more myth than fact, but I'm still going to look for it
    just to satisfy my curiosity.

    Chuck


    Chuck Snyder Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: a high res question

    "JodiFrye" <lwsfryemybizz.net> wrote in message
    news:2ccd80ee.-1webx.la2eafNXanI...
    > ok, I am not used to the higher resolution of my new camera. With
    > my other Kodak point and shoot it gave me 300 res for a 4 X 6
    > picture which seemed great for printing my multiple image album
    > pages . With the new camera for an approx 4 X 6 it gives me 470
    > resolution. I'm almost scared to send it to the printer.
    I'm not sure what you're asking. 4x6 should print as 4x6 (assuming no
    changes to the print settings), no matter what the image resolution is given
    as. The only difference is how much detail there is, and whether the
    printer is capable of showing all of that detail at that size.

    Don't be scared to send it to the printer. Embrace all those extra
    pixels...they are good for you. :)

    Pete


    Peter Duniho Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: a high res question

    "Chuck Snyder" <csnyderhouston.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:6332FB78BDC6EE6BC5CB756208E4372Ain.webx.la2e afNXanI...
    > Ray, like you, I'm becoming a believer in the view that printers don't
    > 'waste ink' when you send them more pixels than they need. However, I'm
    > trying to dredge up a reference that I read once which indicated that
    excess
    > image resolution could actually cause a degradation in the printed image.
    > That may have been more myth than fact, but I'm still going to look for it
    > just to satisfy my curiosity.
    It just depends. It may have even been a rampant problem in the early days
    of color printers (though there was no such problem with my ImageWriter II).
    But I believe that these days, the printer driver has been designed
    carefully to take the best advantage of the printer hardware, a luxury that
    Adobe doesn't have (since they have to work on all hardware).

    To print an image created with a different resolution than being used to
    print it, *some* component somewhere will have to resample the image. IMHO,
    it is much better to let the printer driver do the resampling, than to do it
    in advance with a piece of software that doesn't know the fine details of
    the printer's performance characteristics.

    Same thing with respect to adjusting the image resolution to be an even
    fraction of the printer's resolution. At the point that the image is
    captured, if you have the option of doing this, that's a good idea. But
    once you have the digital image in the computer, you should let the printer
    driver do as much of the resampling as possible, even if that means feeding
    it an image with a resolution that's not an even fraction of the printer's
    resolution.

    Finally, as far as the "extra ink" thing goes, I still have no idea where
    that came from, and I can say with great confidence that the printer will
    use the same amount of ink regardless of the resolution of the original
    image. The *print* resolution may well affect ink consumption (just feel
    how much "wetter" a piece of paper feels after being printed at 2880 dpi vs
    720 dpi, for example), but the original data being sent to the printer will
    not affect ink consumption in any way.

    Pete


    Peter Duniho Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: a high res question

    Pete, I was more concerned with the printer than anything else. I was afraid to throw too much at it considering it had never printed above 300 res since i bought it ( I never gave it more than that ) and I get awesome prints out of it. I don't want to mess up my relationship with it...I guess I'm a freak about my equipment. Chuck, I'll be waiting to see what info you come up with...if it tosses out what it doesn't need then fine, I have nothing to be concerned about.
    JodiFrye Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: a high res question

    Pete, one thing still has me baffled on image resolution vs. printer
    resolution: the difference between a pixel and a printer 'dot'. Image
    resolution is easy - it's the number of pixels per inch, with each pixel
    being a square consisting one of 16.7 million colors. On the other hand, a
    printer has to use multiple 'dots' of cyan, magenta, yellow, and black ink
    to form its equivalent of a pixel - some references say as many as 50 dots
    in a matrix to comprise a pixel. My understanding is that the dots are put
    in close proximity to each other so that the eye sees them as a single
    color - but they're still discrete dots. The $64 question is: is the dpi
    of a printer counting the individual dots of color in an inch of print, or
    is it somehow a 'pixel equivalent' number where the actual number of dots
    per inch is much larger? If it's the former, the relationship between image
    ppi and printer dpi isn't one-to-one; if it's the latter, then a 1:1
    correspondence is possible. It would be great if it was a pixel equivalent:
    then one could 'tune' the images in Elements to feed the printer its desired
    resolution. I'm sure the better printers have good interpolation
    algorithms; not so sure about the ones that come free with a computer....
    :-)

    Chuck


    Chuck Snyder Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: a high res question

    "Chuck Snyder" <csnyderhouston.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:93209C738567B32F80389E5C78245B8Ein.webx.la2e afNXanI...
    > [...] The $64 question is: is the dpi
    > of a printer counting the individual dots of color in an inch of print, or
    > is it somehow a 'pixel equivalent' number where the actual number of dots
    > per inch is much larger?
    Printer resolution is reported in the maximum number of dots printable, and
    does not take into account the dithering required to print 24-bit color on
    what is effectively a 4- to 8-bit device (depending on how many colors of
    ink the printer uses).

    *However*, just because you lose effective resolution due to the dithering
    (just as you would when using a halftone screen in a conventional printing
    process), that doesn't mean that providing the printer with as high a
    resolution image as possible isn't useful. There are actually a variety of
    dithering techniques in use (one common one being "error diffusion"), but
    all of them can benefit from additional image data.

    The reason comes down again to the question of where the resampling is done.
    The printer driver, being intimately familiar with the hardware, can do THE
    most effective job of resampling in order to produce an image that most
    closely matches the original digital data. It knows the exact shades of
    each of the inks being used, and it knows how it to blend those shades just
    so to match the original image. It can also adjust the dithering so as to
    preserve apparent lines in the image, helping to reduce the appearance of
    aliasing in the printed image.

    Let's take an extreme example and look at it. Consider a 300 dpi B&W laser
    printer using half-toning (which is essentially just another kind of
    dithering). Let's say you choose a half-tone screen that drops the
    effective resolution down to about 50 dpi (I guess we want a lot of
    gray-scale resolution :) ). Now, print an image that has a single diagonal
    line on it, first at 300 dpi, and then at 50 dpi.

    You *will* be able to see a noticeable difference between the two printouts.
    While the effective resolution for both is still just 50 dpi, you will find
    that the image printed at 300 dpi still has less "jaggies" than the one
    printed at 50 dpi. Yes, the "grain" of the half-tone screen will make the
    edge of the line a little fuzzier, but you'll get more of an anti-aliased
    effect rather than a hard edge at the edge of the line.

    Another way to think about it is to realize that there's "real" resolution
    and "effective" resolution. "Real" resolution is how many dots that can be
    reproduced, and "effective" is how much detail can actually be reproduced.
    What "effective" is describing is, what is the smallest "feature" that you
    would be able to resolve at that resolution? Sort of like the resolution of
    spy satellites, when they say they can resolve down to 10 meters or 1 meter
    or whatever. But with a spy satellite, just because you can only resolve
    down to 10 meters, that doesn't mean that a car only 5 meters long won't
    show up. It just means that you won't be able to tell exactly that it's a
    car.

    Same thing with printed output. At the "effective" resolution, you'll find
    the limits of being able to identify a feature in the image clearly. But
    that doesn't mean that there won't be any additional detail smaller than
    that. It just means it will be harder to tell what that additional detail
    is.

    Finally, as far as "the ones that come free with a computer", I think you'll
    find that, other than the maximum resolution the printer is capable of (the
    "free" ones are usually down in the 720dpi range, while the expensive ones
    are up in the 2880dpi range), they are using substantially the same software
    to run the printer, and thus would take the same advantage in the dithering
    algorithms that the more expensive printers do.

    In fact, the drivers that came with my Epson 2200 appear to be used for all
    (or almost all) of the current Epson line, and likewise the HP drivers I
    downloaded a few weeks ago just to play with also appear to cover an entire
    HP product line (their "photo" printers).

    So I would still send as high a resolution image as possible to the less
    expensive printers. Obviously you'll reach a point of diminishing returns.
    The driver can only do so much, and can't create resolution in the printer
    where none exists. I doubt sending a 2880 dpi image to a 720 dpi printer is
    going to be much better than sending a 720 or 1440 dpi image, if at all.
    But up to and including the actual resolution of the printer, more dots are
    better.

    If all one is trying to do is print a picture at a particular size on the
    printer, I do not think it is EVER useful to resample the picture in
    Elements or a similar editing program. All such programs allow you to
    specify the final printed size without changing the underlying pixel data,
    and that's the right way to print a specific size.

    All IMHO, of course.

    Pete


    Peter Duniho Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: a high res question

    "JodiFrye" <lwsfryemybizz.net> wrote in message
    news:2ccd80ee.6webx.la2eafNXanI...
    > Pete, I was more concerned with the printer than anything else.
    > [...] I don't want to mess up my relationship with it
    Um...so this is more about your interpersonal relationship between you and
    your printer than a technical issue.

    Okay, that sounds reasonable to me. I don't kick my PC when it misbehaves,
    and I think everyone ought to be on good speaking terms with their computer
    peripherals. :)

    Pete


    Peter Duniho Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: a high res question

    Pete, you gave us a lot to think about - thanks.

    I do want to pursue your very last point - about not ever resampling for
    printing in Elements. I think that may be true above a certain image
    resolution; however, for lower resolution - like 72 ppi - my printer will
    faithfully reproduce the very noticeable pixellation of the image - as it
    should. (There have actually been a couple instances where I wanted to print
    something that showed individual pixels for demo purposes) If, on the other
    hand, I sequentially resample the image until the resolution is, say 180
    ppi, the resultant picture - while definitely 'softer' - will not display
    any significant pixellation at the same print size as the previous case.
    I'll take 'soft' rather than 'pixellated' in most cases. Resampling within
    Elements has its place.

    Chuck


    Chuck Snyder Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: a high res question

    I have a headache. :)
    Beth Haney Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: a high res question

    Beth

    I think Leen Koper has given you the best advice. I agree that the best way
    would be to copy the pictures photographically (digital or film). A two
    light set up metering of a grey card is standard and can be found in most
    books that cover copy photography. Once set up you can do lots of images in
    a short time.

    Grant


    Grant Dixon Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: a high res question

    "Chuck Snyder" <csnyderhouston.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:0F1BC022EB3FF5DA8EA9FE69990B9F52in.webx.la2e afNXanI...
    > [...] I think that may be true above a certain image
    > resolution; however, for lower resolution - like 72 ppi - my printer will
    > faithfully reproduce the very noticeable pixellation of the image - as it
    > should.
    Sorry, yes, that's true. I should have qualified my statement to
    cirstances where one is resampling *down*, throwing away data. Adding
    data is trickier, and the results are not really dependent on the printer
    hardware.

    With a few notable exceptions, a printer driver generally will not upsample
    with any sort of sophistication, if at all. The Epson driver is one
    exception and I'm sure there are others -- it has an "Edge Smoothing" option
    that enables anti-aliasing, and it works quite well as long as there's not
    too huge a difference between the original resolution and the upsampled
    print resolution.

    An image editing program like Elements would probably do a better job
    (though, I'd use the printer driver setting if available, and compare the
    two methods) especially when the resolution difference is large, and you
    also get more control that way (since you can do it in multiple passes),
    which is not important when downsampling.

    Basically, I'm mainly just arguing against the practice of downsampling an
    image to 300 or 360 dpi (for example) when the original has a higher
    resolution. Pretty much any ink jet printer can take advantage of the
    additional resolution if you have it.

    Pete


    Peter Duniho Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: a high res question

    Pete, thanks - makes a lot of sense.

    One other problem with resolution that has occurred with some inkjets,
    although I haven't heard any chatter about it lately: if the resolution
    after playing with image size, cropping, etc. comes out to a number with a
    decimal value, some printers can't seem to handle that number and experience
    printing errors such as parallel lines. I've not experienced that with my
    HP, but it's been advised to resample ever so slightly to get rid of that
    decimal. Any thoughts?

    Chuck


    Chuck Snyder Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: a high res question

    "Chuck Snyder" <csnyderhouston.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:7F7B95823B7F53A5B009B7E33BDF7F0Bin.webx.la2e afNXanI...
    > [...] if the resolution [...] comes out to a number with a
    > decimal value, some printers can't seem to handle that number and
    experience
    > printing errors such as parallel lines. I've not experienced that with my
    > HP, but it's been advised to resample ever so slightly to get rid of that
    > decimal. Any thoughts?
    I've never seen that either, but I'd never say it could never happen. I
    would hope any name-brand printer, even those made ten or fifteen years ago,
    shouldn't exhibit a problem like that, but I guess you never know. It would
    be a software issue though, so a new printer driver would fix the problem
    (which means it's possible people have seen it during a brief window of time
    when a buggy printer driver was provided).

    I will point out that without extra work on the user's part (adjusting the
    print size by changing the image resolution with or without resampling), one
    is almost *always* dealing with a fractional resolution somewhere in the
    loop. So if this were an issue worth worrying about, I'd think it'd show up
    a lot more often. Most people do not ever touch the image's resolution
    setting.

    So, I'd say that for sure one should not waste any time worrying about
    fractional resolution, if that's otherwise consistent with their goals, but
    that if they DO see weird printing anomalies, it might be worth ensure the
    image has an integer resolution, just in case that's what's going on.

    Pete


    Peter Duniho Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: a high res question

    Okay, on the subject of resolution, here's one that's making my head ache. I've been fooling around with my new canon s400, which would be an amazing camera in the hands of someone qualified to use it (not me, yet) and I saved part of an image as a jpeg using save for web.

    Fine. But I noticed when I looked at the resulting jpg in mac os x preview, the detail wasn't as impressive as it looked in Elements. Well, I was fooling around looking in the preview prefs to change another setting and I saw that "ignore dpi" is on by default. So I turned it off (i.e. told the computer, yes, consider dpi now), expecting maybe to see the image shrink down to approximately print size as a result. Instead it got bigger.

    Can anyone explain that? It seems a direct contradiction of everything that's ever been said about absolute resolution for onscreen display.
    Barbara Brundage Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: a high res question

    As I recall from many readings, the problem (printer vs. image resolution) is this: Chuck, you said most of this. The printer uses multiple dots of ink to create a pixel. If the resolution is too high...i.e., pixels are too small...then the printer cannot cram enough ink dots into the pixel area to accurately reproduce the color specified by the C, M, Y and K values. Therefore, resolutions higher than 300 dpi can actually DEGRADE the print quality.
    Bert Bigelow Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: a high res question

    "Barbara Brundage" <memberadobeforums.com> wrote in message
    news:2ccd80ee.16webx.la2eafNXanI...
    > [...] I was fooling around looking in the preview prefs to
    > change another setting and I saw that "ignore dpi" is on
    > by default. So I turned it off (i.e. told the computer, yes,
    > consider dpi now), expecting maybe to see the image
    > shrink down to approximately print size as a result.
    > Instead it got bigger.
    Well, it all depends on the resolution that is stored with the image AND on
    what exactly the preview program does when it is supposedly "ignoring" the
    resolution of the image.

    Is "Ignore DPI" the exact wording of the checkbox? I did a search of
    Apple's Mac OS X support database and didn't see anything relevant.

    That said, I think what you saw makes sense. I'm guessing (without having
    actually used that feature) that "save for web" sets the resolution to 72
    dpi. The Mac display is probably 96 dpi. When the preview application is
    ignoring the DPI in the image, you get a one-for-one pixel mapping. But
    when you turn that off, it has to stretch the image to get it to come out
    the "same size" on the monitor.

    Depending on what the actual numbers are, the amount it gets bigger would
    vary. But showing a 72 dpi image on a 96 dpi display would be a 33%
    increase in size.

    Pete


    Peter Duniho Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. High-level question about ASP.NET web controls..
    By RCS in forum ASP.NET Building Controls
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 23rd, 10:18 PM
  2. High run queue, high idle cpu percentage
    By Tom Carroll in forum Linux / Unix Administration
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 29th, 06:22 PM
  3. Newby High Level Design/Architecture Question
    By Tobes \(Breath\) in forum ASP.NET Web Services
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 19th, 09:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139