Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Software > Editors (Photoshop, Vegas, Final Cut Pro, Kdenlive, etc.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 22, 2010, 12:48 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
frank-in-toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 1,083
Default

Let me throw a words in here. The exif standard says:

XResolution
The number of pixels per ResolutionUnit in the ImageWidth direction. When the image resolution is unknown, 72
[dpi] is designated.
Tag = 282 (11A.H)
Type = RATIONAL
Count = 1
Default = 72

JohnG in post#4 gave you the whole story. The number itself in the exif is meaningless. as long as you provide sufficient pixels to the printer they will print it so the image will show up on the page. i.e.: if one of your images should print at 4 inches wide on the page, you better give them an image with 1200 or more pixels across. that's all they're asking. sufficient. if you resize your image so it is 1200 pixels wide, that's ok too. the cs5 is just restating the obvious. resolution is important. just not the resolution implied by the ppi field in the exif. the true pixel count resolution is what matters.

The short answer is the printer software will resize your image to fit the inches on paper specified. if you give the s/w 10,000 pixels wide, and ask it to be printed 3 inches wide, it will. no problem.

so this is somewhat hard to accept i know, but if you do a search for "ppi exif meaning", you'll see all sorts of discussion. funny huh?
frank-in-toronto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2010, 2:37 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Marawder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Geneva, SWITZERLAND
Posts: 677
Default

Oh la la, I'm getting a headache...

Anyway, it's done...my order will arrive in 10 days !

It's my first photobook, so I'm really curios of the final result...
__________________
Sony α
dSLR-A580
Minolta AF 35-70mm f/4
Sony DT 50mm f/1.8 SAM

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD
Tamron SP AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di USD XLD
Marawder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2010, 2:42 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Marawder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Geneva, SWITZERLAND
Posts: 677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
- EXCEPT, and this is a big pet peeve of mine - some printing processes automatically apply color correction -
I asked Fuji about that...they told me that photos showing up as having an Uncalibrated color space will be converted to sRGB !

And yes, they also have a technology called Image Intelligence...but there's an option within the software to turn it off, so no kind of correction will be applied to my pics before printing !
__________________
Sony α
dSLR-A580
Minolta AF 35-70mm f/4
Sony DT 50mm f/1.8 SAM

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD
Tamron SP AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di USD XLD
Marawder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2010, 2:45 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
frank-in-toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 1,083
Default

lots to learn, eh?
frank-in-toronto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2010, 3:27 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Marawder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Geneva, SWITZERLAND
Posts: 677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frank-in-toronto View Post
lots to learn, eh?
I really, really don't want to offend anyone (on the contrary, I want to praise all the pro photogs out there), but I'm so grateful I'm not doing this for a living !

I lack the patience and the skills to be a pro (obviously)...
__________________
Sony α
dSLR-A580
Minolta AF 35-70mm f/4
Sony DT 50mm f/1.8 SAM

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD
Tamron SP AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di USD XLD
Marawder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2010, 7:08 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marawder View Post
...So why did you guys kept telling me: ''oh, forget about it, resolution isn't really that important''...
You have missed a few words: "resolution isn't really that important as reported by the camera"

Yes, resolution measured by DPI/PPI matters when printing. Does anyone really think that if the camera reports 300 DPI/PPI resolution they can print a high resolution image at 300x400 meters for football stadium use? Even if that is a 640x480 pixel image?

Last edited by BillDrew; Dec 22, 2010 at 7:35 PM.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2010, 12:44 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Marawder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Geneva, SWITZERLAND
Posts: 677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillDrew View Post
Yes, resolution measured by DPI/PPI matters when printing.
Wasn't the context of the thread about that ?

Having enough DPI/PPI for printing a photo-book, not for a stadium poster !

BTW, I forgot to mention some minor details > format of the book is A4 (28x19 cm), width/height of photos = 4000x3000 (12 Mpx) !

I assume you guys will tell me that the format isn't that big and that 72 PPI would've sufficed, right ?
__________________
Sony α
dSLR-A580
Minolta AF 35-70mm f/4
Sony DT 50mm f/1.8 SAM

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD
Tamron SP AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di USD XLD
Marawder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2010, 12:58 PM   #38
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marawder View Post
I assume you guys will tell me that the format isn't that big and that 72 PPI would've sufficed, right ?
If you'd pay attention and learn instead of just being sarcastic, it would be pretty obvious what we'd tell you. We'd tell you that whether or not the photo had 72ppi or 300ppi set didn't matter. We would tell you that A4 is approximately 8.25" x 11.69 inches. And that to print at 300dpi you need an image file that was 2475 x 3507 pixels. That the ppi # stored in the image file was meaningless and it is only the number of pixels that matter.

That you could have a 2475x3507 image that had values of 300ppi or 72ppi stored and it wouldn't matter whether the value said 300, 72 or any number in between. The only relevant numbers were the pixel count of 2475 x 3507.

We've explained this numerous times. Sorry you're having difficulty understanding it. But that's your problem not ours. So no need for more sarcastic posts on your part
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2010, 1:00 PM   #39
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marawder View Post
I assume you guys will tell me that the format isn't that big and that 72 PPI would've sufficed, right ?

Or to be more direct, yes 72ppi is enough - as long as that 72ppi is in a file that has 2475 x 3507 pixels.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2010, 1:14 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Marawder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Geneva, SWITZERLAND
Posts: 677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
We've explained this numerous times. Sorry you're having difficulty understanding it. But that's your problem not ours. So no need for more sarcastic posts on your part
I haven't been one hint sarcastic...why are you getting that vibe ?

Yes, I'm having trouble understanding...language barrier maybe ?

But anyway, since increasing PPI within PS doesn't negatively affect the photo in any way, it's not a big deal (it actually decreases the file size with 2 Mb)...
__________________
Sony α
dSLR-A580
Minolta AF 35-70mm f/4
Sony DT 50mm f/1.8 SAM

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD
Tamron SP AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di USD XLD
Marawder is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 AM.