Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Software > Printing General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 21, 2009, 7:56 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
longside1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 693
Default Image Size and Print Quality

Hi guys,

Traditionally I have always sent my photos to private company's for printing, and am therefore my knowledge of print quality is pretty limited.

Anyway, I am in the process of setting up my own photography website, which will be html based. To this extent there would be nothing stopping individuals right clicking and performing a 'save as' before printing my photo...without paying!

Below is a photo of the size I would like to display on my website, but i need advice as to whether the photo is too large, i.e. enabling individuals to make decent size prints:



Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Many thanks,

matt
longside1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 21, 2009, 8:14 AM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Matt - there are probably more technically knowledgable people than me here, but I'll give you my opinion. Print quality is driven primarily by imag quality itself - no issues there - lovely image. But, assuming the image is good, what drives print quality is the pixels-per-inch. Anything over 300 is really not noticable. When you get below 300, how noticable it is depends on the size of the print and the viewing distance IMO. A 4x6 at 150dpi will look pretty good - an 8x10 at 150dpi will not look as good. A 16x20 will look poor unless viewed from a distance. That image file is 1024x676 pixels. That would produce a 4x6 photo at 170 ppi - should be fine. Problem is - how many people print landscape photos at 4x6?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2009, 8:18 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
longside1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 693
Default

Thanks John, the image above is the 'Large Size' from flickr, and for ease i just wanted to link to these from my site.

However, what i think I will do is load up the original files in Photoshop and do a 'save for web', just to be on the safe side.

Shouldn't be too time intensive if I create a bulk action.
longside1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2009, 6:16 AM   #4
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

You may want to consider watermarking them if you don't want others using them for prints.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2009, 6:18 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
longside1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
You may want to consider watermarking them if you don't want others using them for prints.
Cheers Jim, to be honest I'd prefer not to use watermarks as they ruin the the image. I don't mind people printing small versions of my work, but i'd be miffed if I were to find out that folks have canvas size print sof my stuff hanging on theri walls!
longside1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2009, 3:13 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by longside1 View Post
Thanks John, the image above is the 'Large Size' from flickr, and for ease i just wanted to link to these from my site.

However, what i think I will do is load up the original files in Photoshop and do a 'save for web', just to be on the safe side.

Shouldn't be too time intensive if I create a bulk action.
In my opinion this image will indeed allow people to make decent sized prints. The wonders of modern interpolation...

I jacked it up to a 31 Meg file, and it looks great. Certainly not as good as the real image, but good enough.

I normally print at 16x20, and I could easily print this image out at that size with some interpolation. At that size no one sticks their face into an image - It's viewed from a few feet. This is especially true with this kind of image, where close up detail is at a minimum. Using save for web will make it more difficult but not a signifigant problem to overcome.

I don't think you should go higher than 800.

But a watermark is not really going to stop people from appreciating an image like this.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2009, 11:45 PM   #7
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

also, check your web development software, there may be add-ons or options that disable the righ-click "save as"

but i think you will be fine keeping things around 900 on the long side or so. and possibly adding even a very small watermark or signature could be helpful.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2009, 9:24 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,212
Default

Ouch! I am on a slow dialup connection and have to use accelerator software to get any kind of reasonable speed when loading images. This degrades the images a lot, and if I want to view one at full quality, I have to right-click. I really hate the 'no right-click' option.
I agree that keeping the size down, and using a lot of compression is the way to go. It is really tough to build a good print from 100K image.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2009, 2:30 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Reanimator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Huddersfield
Posts: 1,347
Default

no right click doesnt stop people taking images.......just do print screen and open the document in photoshop and just save it........not too hard!!!

i have special software for upscaling......genuine fractles......i can get that shot big enough to print as an a3 on paper......and possibly 20x30 inch on canvas

dont put images that big on the net without watermarks........people will take them and not buy........its human nature
one more point mate..........i have had a website with my landcapes on......oh for about 5 years..........if your wanting to make money.....its not the way to go, people much preffer to see the pics in real life framed and buy, hence why i have my own gallery now

Gary
Reanimator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2009, 11:35 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

I think that there are ways to apply watermarks that would let them enjoy viewing the image on line - but deter them from saving and printing. An embossed watermark would distort the image in the form of the watermark itself. If you put it across the bottom, they would just crop it off, so if you watermark it will have to be through the center of the image.

... and by the way, I really like the image - I just wish I had the talent, skill, time and opportunity - as well as the scenery to capture the same.
interested_observer 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 4:05 AM.