Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

increasing the DPI

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 26, 2005 5:54:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am not technical when it comes to digital imagery.

I am using an Olympus C720 to take pictures for a local voluntary newspaper.
The pictures are coming out at 72dpi and the printers would like bigger if
possible, up to 300dpi.

But this all means nothing to me and I am unsure whether I can change the
dpi.
Id there anything I can do to increase the dpi or is that set in the camera
and cannot be changed?

More about : increasing dpi

May 26, 2005 5:54:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
news:3flv91F8k4dsU1@individual.net...
> I am not technical when it comes to digital imagery.
>
> I am using an Olympus C720 to take pictures for a local voluntary
newspaper.
> The pictures are coming out at 72dpi and the printers would like bigger if
> possible, up to 300dpi.
>
> But this all means nothing to me and I am unsure whether I can change the
> dpi.
> Id there anything I can do to increase the dpi or is that set in the
camera
> and cannot be changed?
>
>

Do you mean ppi? (pixels per inch)

It can be done in software such as Photoshop (under Image->Image Size).
Increasing the ppi will reduce the printing dimensions, but the print will
be higher resolution.

The Oly C720 is 3MP with a max resolution of 1984 x 1488. If you set your
images to 300ppi, that means the biggest print you could do (to maintain
this ppi) would be 6.61" x 4.96" (1984/300 by 1488/300). Typically this
camera is good for 6x4 prints @ 300ppi.

If you are printing 8x10, you have to use a lower ppi.

Thanks
Musty.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 5:54:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beck wrote:
> I am not technical when it comes to digital imagery.
>
> I am using an Olympus C720 to take pictures for a local voluntary newspaper.
> The pictures are coming out at 72dpi and the printers would like bigger if
> possible, up to 300dpi.
>
> But this all means nothing to me and I am unsure whether I can change the
> dpi.
> Id there anything I can do to increase the dpi or is that set in the camera
> and cannot be changed?
>
>
It is set in the camera, but the dpi set in the camera is not useful for
anything anyway. You need photo editing software. Virtually any, even
cheapest, software has this capability. Did the camera come with no
such software? Check with your local computer or electronics store.

This is a critical area for good results, so I'd suggest you pick up a
good book on digital photography and become very familiar with pixels,
pixels per inch, resizing, upsampling, etc.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 6:31:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Your camera takes pixels...it doesn't give a fig about inches. If you put a
1000^2 photo in a layout program it puts in 1000^2 pixels. Is the printer
doing the layout? If so they are not too bright. If the layout is done and
sent to the printer the layout person is doing something wrong. But, to make
peace and to avoid having to teach the whole world you can just load the
image into any editor and change the resolution without interpolating. That
will not change the number of pixels but will show a different number.

If we have yet to help its because important information is missing. We
could help more if we knew what image editor and layout program you are
using. Is the layout done at the printer? Are there pdfs involved?


"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
news:3flv91F8k4dsU1@individual.net...
> I am not technical when it comes to digital imagery.
>
> I am using an Olympus C720 to take pictures for a local voluntary
newspaper.
> The pictures are coming out at 72dpi and the printers would like bigger if
> possible, up to 300dpi.
>
> But this all means nothing to me and I am unsure whether I can change the
> dpi.
> Id there anything I can do to increase the dpi or is that set in the
camera
> and cannot be changed?
>
>
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 6:42:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beck wrote:

> Is there anything I can do to increase the dpi

Others have already explained (tersely) the issues.

There is a free program called IrfanView that will do what
you want. Search for it in Google and download it from the
Irfanview site. There are two files to download, the viewer
and the plugins collection.

Irfanview will change the DPI of an image for you, or
will change the DPI of all images in a directory.

There are several ways to do it. You can load an image,
type "I" to get the image properties, and set the DPI
right there. Or you can click Image, Resize/Resample,
and set it there. Or you can click File/Batch Conversion,
click Advanced options, and set the DPI there for all
images in a directory. If you do images one at a time
you have to remember to Save the image after setting the
DPI.

The printers should be able to handle this without your
doing this, but I know it's sometimes easier to do the
work yourself rather than argue with them.

Alan
May 26, 2005 6:42:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Musty wrote:

> Do you mean ppi? (pixels per inch)
>
> It can be done in software such as Photoshop (under Image->Image
> Size). Increasing the ppi will reduce the printing dimensions, but
> the print will be higher resolution.
>
> The Oly C720 is 3MP with a max resolution of 1984 x 1488. If you set
> your images to 300ppi, that means the biggest print you could do (to
> maintain this ppi) would be 6.61" x 4.96" (1984/300 by 1488/300).
> Typically this camera is good for 6x4 prints @ 300ppi.
>
> If you are printing 8x10, you have to use a lower ppi.

Thanks for the quick reply. Is there somewhere in the camera where I can
set it to 300ppi? I am sorry for the silly questions but I haven't a clue
about all this. I have looked around the camera and obviously know how to
change the picture resolutions, but can see nothing relating to ppi.
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 6:52:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I am using an Olympus C720 to take pictures for a local voluntary
newspaper.
> The pictures are coming out at 72dpi and the printers would like bigger if
> possible, up to 300dpi.

My advice is to find a printer that has a clue.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 26, 2005 9:00:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I am using an Olympus C720 to take pictures for a local voluntary
> newspaper. The pictures are coming out at 72dpi and the printers
> would like bigger if possible, up to 300dpi.

*Provided* you are shooting at the highest no of pixels that the camera
can supply, the fact that they are tagged with a 72dpi resolution
indicator (and that is all it is, just a little indicator tag on the
file) is completely irrelevant. In the interests of better education,
you should tell them to learn a few basic facts, and simply change the
flaming dpi tag themselves!

The only important thing in an image file is the number of pixels it
contains (let's forget color depth!). So if your image file contains
1984x1488 pixels it can be used to print a 6x4 at ~300dpi, a 7x5 at
~280 dpi, an 11x8 at ~180dpi, and I could go on ad infinitum.. All
from EXACTLY the same file - simply by telling the printing software
how big you wish to display it (ie simply by changing that little 'dpi
tag'.) - the file itself is unchanged.

Now, given that it is THEM who are determining how big they want to
print or display the file, it should be THEM who should be doing this.
If they don't know how, they are sadly incompetent. If that's the
case, then yes, you could simply change that tag for them in almost any
image editor or browser.

But are you sure they are not telling you that your files are too small
for what they want to print? I sincerely doubt this if it is just a
local newsrag, but maybe they want to print a really high quality image
at 300 dpi for a full double-page spread (O;, and you haven't given
them a large enough file...

If *that*'s the problem, you have only two options - either buy a
higher resolution camera, or *resample* the file in an image editor to
create more pixels, and hope they don't notice that you cheated..

Hope this helps.
May 27, 2005 12:53:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote in message
news:3flv91F8k4dsU1@individual.net...
> I am not technical when it comes to digital imagery.
>
> I am using an Olympus C720 to take pictures for a local voluntary
newspaper.
> The pictures are coming out at 72dpi and the printers would like bigger if
> possible, up to 300dpi.
They are not very expert printers then.
>
> But this all means nothing to me and I am unsure whether I can change the
> dpi.
> Id there anything I can do to increase the dpi or is that set in the
camera
> and cannot be changed?
An image processing program change change the dpi. It is merely a scale
factor.
Jim
>
>
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 2:53:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <3fm22uF89qi4U1@individual.net>,
"Beck" <my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

>Musty wrote:
>
>> Do you mean ppi? (pixels per inch)
>>
>> It can be done in software such as Photoshop (under Image->Image
>> Size). Increasing the ppi will reduce the printing dimensions, but
>> the print will be higher resolution.
>>
>> The Oly C720 is 3MP with a max resolution of 1984 x 1488. If you set
>> your images to 300ppi, that means the biggest print you could do (to
>> maintain this ppi) would be 6.61" x 4.96" (1984/300 by 1488/300).
>> Typically this camera is good for 6x4 prints @ 300ppi.
>>
>> If you are printing 8x10, you have to use a lower ppi.
>
>Thanks for the quick reply. Is there somewhere in the camera where I can
>set it to 300ppi?

No.

>I am sorry for the silly questions but I haven't a clue
>about all this. I have looked around the camera and obviously know how to
>change the picture resolutions, but can see nothing relating to ppi.

These numbers mean absolutely *NOTHING*, unless you tell the program to
print, without telling it what size to print at; in that case, it will
determine the output size based on the PPI figure. The image itself
does not have a PPI; it is only an instruction as to how many of the
pixels of the file to print at in the space of an inch; you can print at
any size you want and ignore the PPI.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 5:48:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<chrlz@go.com> wrote in message

> *Provided* you are shooting at the highest no of pixels that the camera
> can supply, the fact that they are tagged with a 72dpi resolution
> indicator (and that is all it is, just a little indicator tag on the
> file) is completely irrelevant. In the interests of better education,
> you should tell them to learn a few basic facts, and simply change the
> flaming dpi tag themselves!

I was wondering if anyone else would see this from my point of view. I
can't believe a printer would be this clueless. I would seriously find
someone else to do my prints.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 6:37:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:54:45 +0100, in rec.photo.digital "Beck"
<my_bulkmail@btopenworld.invalid> wrote:

>I am not technical when it comes to digital imagery.
>
>I am using an Olympus C720 to take pictures for a local voluntary newspaper.
>The pictures are coming out at 72dpi and the printers would like bigger if
>possible, up to 300dpi.
>
>But this all means nothing to me and I am unsure whether I can change the
>dpi.
>Id there anything I can do to increase the dpi or is that set in the camera
>and cannot be changed?

Nothing in the camera. Get a copy of Irfanview at
http://www.irfanview.com and use the batch conversion/rename function
in the file menu. In the bottom right of the dialog box choose JPG as
the output format and click the set advanced options button. Unselect
every option EXCEPT Set DPI: 300.

________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com
May 27, 2005 9:13:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gene Palmiter wrote:
> Your camera takes pixels...it doesn't give a fig about inches. If you
> put a 1000^2 photo in a layout program it puts in 1000^2 pixels. Is
> the printer doing the layout? If so they are not too bright. If the
> layout is done and sent to the printer the layout person is doing
> something wrong. But, to make peace and to avoid having to teach the
> whole world you can just load the image into any editor and change
> the resolution without interpolating. That will not change the number
> of pixels but will show a different number.
>
> If we have yet to help its because important information is missing.
> We could help more if we knew what image editor and layout program
> you are using. Is the layout done at the printer? Are there pdfs
> involved?

I am sorry I know not much more than that. I only take the pictures, I am
not responsible for the printing and layout.
What I do know is these pictures are taken at the highest resolution but are
reduced to a very small picture of about 4x3inches, then converted to 2
colour. Not black and white, but could be green and white, or sepia and
white.
My post was not very clear, my apologies. I am just confused as to why they
want the increase when they are going to reduce the images and 2 colour them
anyway.
May 27, 2005 9:14:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr. Mark wrote:
>> I am using an Olympus C720 to take pictures for a local voluntary
>> newspaper. The pictures are coming out at 72dpi and the printers
>> would like bigger if possible, up to 300dpi.
>
> My advice is to find a printer that has a clue.

Not my printer, but I shall suggest it to the printers :-)
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 9:14:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > My advice is to find a printer that has a clue.
>
> Not my printer, but I shall suggest it to the printers :-)

:) 

A company that is making its living in the print industry these days needs
to be well steeped in how to use digital files.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 9:14:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > My advice is to find a printer that has a clue.
>
> Not my printer, but I shall suggest it to the printers :-)

Ah you're providing images for a local paper/news letter and it's their
printer that is confused - is that right?

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
May 27, 2005 9:15:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Meyer wrote:
> Beck wrote:
>
>> Is there anything I can do to increase the dpi
>
> Others have already explained (tersely) the issues.
>
> There is a free program called IrfanView that will do what
> you want. Search for it in Google and download it from the
> Irfanview site. There are two files to download, the viewer
> and the plugins collection.
>
> Irfanview will change the DPI of an image for you, or
> will change the DPI of all images in a directory.
>
> There are several ways to do it. You can load an image,
> type "I" to get the image properties, and set the DPI
> right there. Or you can click Image, Resize/Resample,
> and set it there. Or you can click File/Batch Conversion,
> click Advanced options, and set the DPI there for all
> images in a directory. If you do images one at a time
> you have to remember to Save the image after setting the
> DPI.
>
> The printers should be able to handle this without your
> doing this, but I know it's sometimes easier to do the
> work yourself rather than argue with them.

Thankyou very much Alan, I do have irfanview anyway, I just use it to resize
images. Never had cause to look around more, but I guess I do now :-)
May 27, 2005 9:22:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chrlz@go.com wrote:
>> I am using an Olympus C720 to take pictures for a local voluntary
>> newspaper. The pictures are coming out at 72dpi and the printers
>> would like bigger if possible, up to 300dpi.
>
> *Provided* you are shooting at the highest no of pixels that the
> camera can supply, the fact that they are tagged with a 72dpi
> resolution indicator (and that is all it is, just a little indicator
> tag on the file) is completely irrelevant. In the interests of
> better education, you should tell them to learn a few basic facts,
> and simply change the flaming dpi tag themselves!
>
> The only important thing in an image file is the number of pixels it
> contains (let's forget color depth!). So if your image file contains
> 1984x1488 pixels it can be used to print a 6x4 at ~300dpi, a 7x5 at
> ~280 dpi, an 11x8 at ~180dpi, and I could go on ad infinitum.. All
> from EXACTLY the same file - simply by telling the printing software
> how big you wish to display it (ie simply by changing that little 'dpi
> tag'.) - the file itself is unchanged.
>
> Now, given that it is THEM who are determining how big they want to
> print or display the file, it should be THEM who should be doing this.
> If they don't know how, they are sadly incompetent. If that's the
> case, then yes, you could simply change that tag for them in almost
> any image editor or browser.
>
> But are you sure they are not telling you that your files are too
> small for what they want to print? I sincerely doubt this if it is
> just a local newsrag, but maybe they want to print a really high
> quality image at 300 dpi for a full double-page spread (O;, and you
> haven't given them a large enough file...
>
> If *that*'s the problem, you have only two options - either buy a
> higher resolution camera, or *resample* the file in an image editor to
> create more pixels, and hope they don't notice that you cheated..

Very interesting thankyou. It is a local rag, sort of. It is a voluntary
newspaper printed in 2 colour. My images are taken at the resolution you
specified but they end up reducing them to tiny pictures 2 colour anyway.
So what they print is totally different to what I take anyway.
May 27, 2005 10:05:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr. Mark wrote:
>>> My advice is to find a printer that has a clue.
>>
>> Not my printer, but I shall suggest it to the printers :-)
>
> Ah you're providing images for a local paper/news letter and it's
> their printer that is confused - is that right?

No its me that is confused and is confusing everyone else. Really sorry.
I take the pictures for local free rag for the village. I send them to the
person who does the layout for the paper using something like Quark I think.
They do the layout and send it to the printers. Its not the printers
grumbling, it is the editor who is very picky and a perfectionist who
reckons that the pictures need to be bigger even though they will be reduced
froom the big size I give them anyway.
Sorry for the lack of info in previous posts, its been a funny old week.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 10:05:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beck wrote:

> Mr. Mark wrote:
>>>> My advice is to find a printer that has a clue.
>>>
>>> Not my printer, but I shall suggest it to the printers :-)
>>
>> Ah you're providing images for a local paper/news letter and it's
>> their printer that is confused - is that right?
>
> No its me that is confused and is confusing everyone else. Really sorry.
> I take the pictures for local free rag for the village. I send them to the
> person who does the layout for the paper using something like Quark I think.
> They do the layout and send it to the printers. Its not the printers
> grumbling, it is the editor who is very picky and a perfectionist who
> reckons that the pictures need to be bigger even though they will be reduced
> froom the big size I give them anyway.
> Sorry for the lack of info in previous posts, its been a funny old week.

Don't be sorry :-) I'll try explain it another way:

Consider you're in a car travelling at 30 miles per hour. Given
ONLY this information, try answer these questions:

- How many hours will it take to get to your destination ?

- How many miles away is your destination ?

Obviously you can't answer them.. You need MORE information.

Miles per hour is obtained by dividing: miles by hours.

If I tell you you're travelling at 30 MPH and your destination
is 60 miles away.. NOW you can figure out your travelling time.
60 miles / 30 mph = 2 hours.

If I tell you you're travelling at 30 MPH and your destination
is 2 hours away, then it's easy.. 30 mph x 2h = 60 miles.

30 miles per hour by itself wasn't enough information to
solve any driving questions.

Back to your question.. 300 DPI by itself isn't enough
information to solve any printing problem.

When your printer told you your images had to be 300 DPI, HE
left something out.. because of that, you can't supply him
with what he wants. It's utterly impossible.

DPI (or in the case of digital images Pixels Per Inch, (PPI)
is calculated by dividing the number of pixels you have by the
desired print size in inches. (Note DPI and PPI are commonly
used interchangeably)..

Say you have an image that's 1000 pixels wide. If you print it
10 inches wide on paper, then you're spreading these 1000 pixels
evenly across 10 inches of paper.

That makes 1000 pixels / 10 inches = 100 pixels per inch of paper.
That's what DPI is. Image pixels / inches of paper.

If your printer says: "I want to print your image 10 inches
wide.. I need 300 DPI", then what you need to provide can be
simply calculated:

10 inches times 300 DPI = 3000 Pixels.

You just CAN'T have DPI without inches. The 'I' in DPI stands
for inches.

If you look at the software you're using to see the 72 DPI
setting, you'll also see that inches is also listed. If
you grab a calculator, you'll see that DPI is *always* the
total number of pixels divided by the number of inches.

If you increase the DPI, the inches get smaller.. If you
decrease the DPI, your inches get bigger. It's simple math.

The DPI (or PPI) setting has nothing to do with the pixels or
quality of the image.. It's only the PROPOSED print size. It's
only there to be read by your printing software..

So.. go back to your publisher and ask him how *big* he plans to
print the images. Once you know that, then divide the number
of pixels in your image by the proposed print size. If the
answer is 300 or greater, you're OK.

For instance.. If he says he'll be printing at 8 x 4, then
at 300 DPI you have to give him an image that's 2400 x 1200.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 10:22:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beck wrote:
> Mr. Mark wrote:
>
>>>>My advice is to find a printer that has a clue.
>>>
>>>Not my printer, but I shall suggest it to the printers :-)
>>
>>Ah you're providing images for a local paper/news letter and it's
>>their printer that is confused - is that right?
>
>
> No its me that is confused and is confusing everyone else. Really sorry.
> I take the pictures for local free rag for the village. I send them to the
> person who does the layout for the paper using something like Quark I think.
> They do the layout and send it to the printers. Its not the printers
> grumbling, it is the editor who is very picky and a perfectionist who
> reckons that the pictures need to be bigger even though they will be reduced
> froom the big size I give them anyway.
> Sorry for the lack of info in previous posts, its been a funny old week.

Hi Beck...

Let me take a shot at making the lightbulb go on... maybe for
you; perhaps even for your editor friend...

I'm old, quite experienced, yet severely stroke-damaged, so
maybe that's a blessing in that I can try to explain simply.

A picture has NO size. Period. If we look at a beautiful
landscape and take a picture of it, how big is it? Is it the
size of the reality we took a picture of? Perhaps a mile?
Or perhaps the size of the sensor? About a third of an inch?
Can't be both; can't be either. There is no size - until it's
printed, and even then only the paper has size, not the picture.

So, when your software says the picture is perhaps 20 inches
wide, and 72 pixels per inch, it means nothing. Nothing.
The very very same identical report could just as easily
report that the it's 2 inches wide at 720 pixels per inch.
Or even 200 inches wide at 7.2 pixels per inch. You see,
it's meaningless. What IS happening is that either the
pixels per inch slot in the picture header says 72 pixels per
inch- or far more likely it's left blank (it IS meaningless,
after all) and windows is filling it in with it's default
monitor resolution (windows uses it to decide how to display
fonts on your desktop, but that's all)

So, can we agree that pixels per inch is for all purposes
just pie in the sky? Smoke? Nothing at all.

Where we DO want to use the word pixels (but NOT per inch)
is describing how many pixels make up the whole photo.
Like your c-720 is 3.1 megaPIXELS, if I recall. Which of
course is so many (2000?) wide and so many pixels deep.

So - when your editor asks how many pixels per inch your
photo is... you have to look a little confused, and ask
him how big he's going to print it. Then, and only then,
we can give it a physical size, so we can sort of answer.

For instance, if he says he's going to print it two inches
wide, then we can now divide your 2000 pixel wide picture
by 2 (inches) and tell him it will print at 1000 Dots per
inch. (the correct answer is dots per inch, or dpi)

If he had said 5 inches wide, we'd do 2000 divided by 5,
and answer 400 dots per inch.

Both of these print qualities by the way are better than
perfect.

Hope some of this helps, let me know if you'd like more,
and apologies for the loooong post to the others :) 

Take care.

Ken
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:04:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> They do the layout and send it to the printers. Its not the printers
> grumbling, it is the editor who is very picky and a perfectionist who
> reckons that the pictures need to be bigger even though they will be
reduced
> froom the big size I give them anyway.

300 DPI doesn't make the images bigger. It is merely a file tag that tells
an output device how to print the image. Since the images are likely being
resized right in Quark, the DPI tag is totally irrelevent. BTW, setting the
DPI tag to 300 will make the images output smaller. Also, if you're using
Photoshop to change the DPI, make sure you UNCHECK the "resample image"
check box on the Image Size dialog or you'll end up with huge files
containing extrapolated data. You really don't want that. :) 

> No its me that is confused and is confusing everyone else.

It's not you. It's the editor. Whack him with a dead fish. :) 

> Sorry for the lack of info in previous posts, its been a funny old week.

I know how those go. :) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:11:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> A picture has NO size. Period. If we look at a beautiful
> landscape and take a picture of it, how big is it? Is it the
> size of the reality we took a picture of? Perhaps a mile?
> Or perhaps the size of the sensor? About a third of an inch?
> Can't be both; can't be either. There is no size - until it's
> printed, and even then only the paper has size, not the picture.
<snip rest of elegant explanation>

Ken, that was well stated.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
May 27, 2005 11:30:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Weitzel wrote:

> Let me take a shot at making the lightbulb go on... maybe for
> you; perhaps even for your editor friend...
>
> I'm old, quite experienced, yet severely stroke-damaged, so
> maybe that's a blessing in that I can try to explain simply.
>
> A picture has NO size. Period. If we look at a beautiful
> landscape and take a picture of it, how big is it? Is it the
> size of the reality we took a picture of? Perhaps a mile?
> Or perhaps the size of the sensor? About a third of an inch?
> Can't be both; can't be either. There is no size - until it's
> printed, and even then only the paper has size, not the picture.
>
> So, when your software says the picture is perhaps 20 inches
> wide, and 72 pixels per inch, it means nothing. Nothing.
> The very very same identical report could just as easily
> report that the it's 2 inches wide at 720 pixels per inch.
> Or even 200 inches wide at 7.2 pixels per inch. You see,
> it's meaningless. What IS happening is that either the
> pixels per inch slot in the picture header says 72 pixels per
> inch- or far more likely it's left blank (it IS meaningless,
> after all) and windows is filling it in with it's default
> monitor resolution (windows uses it to decide how to display
> fonts on your desktop, but that's all)
>
> So, can we agree that pixels per inch is for all purposes
> just pie in the sky? Smoke? Nothing at all.
>
> Where we DO want to use the word pixels (but NOT per inch)
> is describing how many pixels make up the whole photo.
> Like your c-720 is 3.1 megaPIXELS, if I recall. Which of
> course is so many (2000?) wide and so many pixels deep.
>
> So - when your editor asks how many pixels per inch your
> photo is... you have to look a little confused, and ask
> him how big he's going to print it. Then, and only then,
> we can give it a physical size, so we can sort of answer.
>
> For instance, if he says he's going to print it two inches
> wide, then we can now divide your 2000 pixel wide picture
> by 2 (inches) and tell him it will print at 1000 Dots per
> inch. (the correct answer is dots per inch, or dpi)
>
> If he had said 5 inches wide, we'd do 2000 divided by 5,
> and answer 400 dots per inch.
>
> Both of these print qualities by the way are better than
> perfect.
>
> Hope some of this helps, let me know if you'd like more,
> and apologies for the loooong post to the others :) 

Hi Ken, Thanks very much for the well explained reply. It still confuses me
somewhat (sorry I have trouble taken in new info) but what I can gather from
what you are saying is that it really is not going to matter because the
pictures are going to be reduced to a small size... I think :-)
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:30:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beck wrote:

> Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
>
>>Let me take a shot at making the lightbulb go on... maybe for
>>you; perhaps even for your editor friend...
>>
>>I'm old, quite experienced, yet severely stroke-damaged, so
>>maybe that's a blessing in that I can try to explain simply.
>>
>>A picture has NO size. Period. If we look at a beautiful
>>landscape and take a picture of it, how big is it? Is it the
>>size of the reality we took a picture of? Perhaps a mile?
>>Or perhaps the size of the sensor? About a third of an inch?
>>Can't be both; can't be either. There is no size - until it's
>>printed, and even then only the paper has size, not the picture.
>>
>>So, when your software says the picture is perhaps 20 inches
>>wide, and 72 pixels per inch, it means nothing. Nothing.
>>The very very same identical report could just as easily
>>report that the it's 2 inches wide at 720 pixels per inch.
>>Or even 200 inches wide at 7.2 pixels per inch. You see,
>>it's meaningless. What IS happening is that either the
>>pixels per inch slot in the picture header says 72 pixels per
>>inch- or far more likely it's left blank (it IS meaningless,
>>after all) and windows is filling it in with it's default
>>monitor resolution (windows uses it to decide how to display
>>fonts on your desktop, but that's all)
>>
>>So, can we agree that pixels per inch is for all purposes
>>just pie in the sky? Smoke? Nothing at all.
>>
>>Where we DO want to use the word pixels (but NOT per inch)
>>is describing how many pixels make up the whole photo.
>>Like your c-720 is 3.1 megaPIXELS, if I recall. Which of
>>course is so many (2000?) wide and so many pixels deep.
>>
>>So - when your editor asks how many pixels per inch your
>>photo is... you have to look a little confused, and ask
>>him how big he's going to print it. Then, and only then,
>>we can give it a physical size, so we can sort of answer.
>>
>>For instance, if he says he's going to print it two inches
>>wide, then we can now divide your 2000 pixel wide picture
>>by 2 (inches) and tell him it will print at 1000 Dots per
>>inch. (the correct answer is dots per inch, or dpi)
>>
>>If he had said 5 inches wide, we'd do 2000 divided by 5,
>>and answer 400 dots per inch.
>>
>>Both of these print qualities by the way are better than
>>perfect.
>>
>>Hope some of this helps, let me know if you'd like more,
>>and apologies for the loooong post to the others :) 
>
>
> Hi Ken, Thanks very much for the well explained reply. It still confuses me
> somewhat (sorry I have trouble taken in new info) but what I can gather from
> what you are saying is that it really is not going to matter because the
> pictures are going to be reduced to a small size... I think :-)
>

Hi again...

That's true, but not where I was trying to go... let's try
this way.

Your c-720 3.x megapixel camera will produce beautiful
8 x 10 prints. No one except the most professional among
us will disagree; and even they will surely agree that
it will produce fantastic 5 x 7's. So anything smaller is
a bonus - even better (so to speak, for now anyway :) 

What I REALLY want you to do is ignore that darned 72 dpi
that your software shows. It mean nothing at all.

Pay no attention to it; just ask the editor for the rest of
the information (like Jim suggested, as well). How big does
he want to print it? Then take your 2000 pixels wide,
divide it by the inches wide he wants to print it, and tell
him that number for an answer. He will say that's fantastic.

And don't worry if it takes a while to sink in; wait until
you reach my stage in life and can't even remember the old
stuff :) 

Ken
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:30:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Hi Ken, Thanks very much for the well explained reply. It still confuses
me
> somewhat (sorry I have trouble taken in new info) but what I can gather
from
> what you are saying is that it really is not going to matter because the
> pictures are going to be reduced to a small size... I think :-)

I see that your max resolution for the camera is 1984x1488.

The way you figure the DPI of the print is this - width of image in pixels
divided by width of printed image.

1984 pixels (dots) / 3 inches = 661.33 pixels (dots) per inch

In other words, what Ken is saying is that the DPI is determined by the
final print size, not by some arbitrary and useless number tag in the jpg
file.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
May 27, 2005 11:33:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend wrote:

> Don't be sorry :-) I'll try explain it another way:
>
> Consider you're in a car travelling at 30 miles per hour. Given
> ONLY this information, try answer these questions:
>
> - How many hours will it take to get to your destination ?
>
> - How many miles away is your destination ?
>
> Obviously you can't answer them.. You need MORE information.
>
> Miles per hour is obtained by dividing: miles by hours.
>
> If I tell you you're travelling at 30 MPH and your destination
> is 60 miles away.. NOW you can figure out your travelling time.
> 60 miles / 30 mph = 2 hours.
>
> If I tell you you're travelling at 30 MPH and your destination
> is 2 hours away, then it's easy.. 30 mph x 2h = 60 miles.
>
> 30 miles per hour by itself wasn't enough information to
> solve any driving questions.

I am so glad I never learned to drive ;-)

> Back to your question.. 300 DPI by itself isn't enough
> information to solve any printing problem.
>
> When your printer told you your images had to be 300 DPI, HE
> left something out.. because of that, you can't supply him
> with what he wants. It's utterly impossible.
>
> DPI (or in the case of digital images Pixels Per Inch, (PPI)
> is calculated by dividing the number of pixels you have by the
> desired print size in inches. (Note DPI and PPI are commonly
> used interchangeably)..
>
> Say you have an image that's 1000 pixels wide. If you print it
> 10 inches wide on paper, then you're spreading these 1000 pixels
> evenly across 10 inches of paper.
>
> That makes 1000 pixels / 10 inches = 100 pixels per inch of paper.
> That's what DPI is. Image pixels / inches of paper.
>
> If your printer says: "I want to print your image 10 inches
> wide.. I need 300 DPI", then what you need to provide can be
> simply calculated:
>
> 10 inches times 300 DPI = 3000 Pixels.
>
> You just CAN'T have DPI without inches. The 'I' in DPI stands
> for inches.
>
> If you look at the software you're using to see the 72 DPI
> setting, you'll also see that inches is also listed. If
> you grab a calculator, you'll see that DPI is *always* the
> total number of pixels divided by the number of inches.
>
> If you increase the DPI, the inches get smaller.. If you
> decrease the DPI, your inches get bigger. It's simple math.
>
> The DPI (or PPI) setting has nothing to do with the pixels or
> quality of the image.. It's only the PROPOSED print size. It's
> only there to be read by your printing software..
>
> So.. go back to your publisher and ask him how *big* he plans to
> print the images. Once you know that, then divide the number
> of pixels in your image by the proposed print size. If the
> answer is 300 or greater, you're OK.
>
> For instance.. If he says he'll be printing at 8 x 4, then
> at 300 DPI you have to give him an image that's 2400 x 1200.

Very informative thankyou although I still do find it a bit confusing. At
the end of the day, if they are going to print them down from full colour to
2 colour and reduce the actual picture size to around 3x2 or 4x3inches then
really it is not going to matter much?
I am not sure where they are getting the idea that its not enough given the
small sizes and the two tone they will apply to the pictures especially when
the pictures are taken at the fullest resolution.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:33:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Very informative thankyou although I still do find it a bit confusing. At
> the end of the day, if they are going to print them down from full colour
to
> 2 colour and reduce the actual picture size to around 3x2 or 4x3inches
then
> really it is not going to matter much?
> I am not sure where they are getting the idea that its not enough given
the
> small sizes and the two tone they will apply to the pictures especially
when
> the pictures are taken at the fullest resolution.

See, the thing is, chaning the DPI does not change the *resolution* of the
image. The image is what it is. It contains all the information it is
going to contain. The resolution of the image is determined by your image
sensor - it's either 2 mega pixels, 5 mega pixels, or what ever is right for
your camera. If you're shooting at the highest resolution, then there is
nothing else you can do. If the editor guy isn't happy, maybe he doesn't
have anti-aliasing turned on. Even a 2 mega pixel image shoud be plenty of
data for a 4x3 inch news print image.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:40:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beck wrote:
> I am not technical when it comes to digital imagery.
>
> I am using an Olympus C720 to take pictures for a local voluntary newspaper.
> The pictures are coming out at 72dpi and the printers would like bigger if
> possible, up to 300dpi.
>
> But this all means nothing to me and I am unsure whether I can change the
> dpi.
> Id there anything I can do to increase the dpi or is that set in the camera
> and cannot be changed?
>
>
It seems as if you have the camera set to take low resolution pictures.
You can change this in the camera's menu options. The images may still
come out at 72 dpi but they will be sufficiently large that the printer,
when opening at 300 dpi will be satisfied.

These cameras came new with a 16 Meg card. That's about 6 pictures at
maximum (TIFF) resolution so if you can take more than about 10 photos
on a 16 meg card, you most certainly are not shooting at high
resolution. Do you have the manual? It tells you how to set it up.
Otherwise I can post precise instructions.

--
Douglas...
It's traditional, painter's use it, Rembrandt used it.
Now you can put your photos on it too!
http://www.canvasphotos.com.au
May 27, 2005 11:40:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ryadia@Home wrote:
> Beck wrote:
>> I am not technical when it comes to digital imagery.
>>
>> I am using an Olympus C720 to take pictures for a local voluntary
>> newspaper. The pictures are coming out at 72dpi and the printers
>> would like bigger if possible, up to 300dpi.
>>
>> But this all means nothing to me and I am unsure whether I can
>> change the dpi.
>> Id there anything I can do to increase the dpi or is that set in the
>> camera and cannot be changed?
>>
>>
> It seems as if you have the camera set to take low resolution
> pictures. You can change this in the camera's menu options. The
> images may still come out at 72 dpi but they will be sufficiently
> large that the printer, when opening at 300 dpi will be satisfied.
>
> These cameras came new with a 16 Meg card. That's about 6 pictures at
> maximum (TIFF) resolution so if you can take more than about 10 photos
> on a 16 meg card, you most certainly are not shooting at high
> resolution. Do you have the manual? It tells you how to set it up.
> Otherwise I can post precise instructions.

They are taken at the highest resolution which is 1984x1488
May 28, 2005 12:18:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr. Mark wrote:
>> Very informative thankyou although I still do find it a bit
>> confusing. At the end of the day, if they are going to print them
>> down from full colour to 2 colour and reduce the actual picture size
>> to around 3x2 or 4x3inches then really it is not going to matter
>> much?
>> I am not sure where they are getting the idea that its not enough
>> given the small sizes and the two tone they will apply to the
>> pictures especially when the pictures are taken at the fullest
>> resolution.
>
> See, the thing is, chaning the DPI does not change the *resolution*
> of the image. The image is what it is. It contains all the
> information it is going to contain. The resolution of the image is
> determined by your image sensor - it's either 2 mega pixels, 5 mega
> pixels, or what ever is right for your camera. If you're shooting at
> the highest resolution, then there is nothing else you can do. If
> the editor guy isn't happy, maybe he doesn't have anti-aliasing
> turned on. Even a 2 mega pixel image shoud be plenty of data for a
> 4x3 inch news print image.

Thats what I am thinking, especially when it is scaled down to two-tone and
not even full colour
May 28, 2005 12:21:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Weitzel wrote:
> Your c-720 3.x megapixel camera will produce beautiful
> 8 x 10 prints. No one except the most professional among
> us will disagree; and even they will surely agree that
> it will produce fantastic 5 x 7's. So anything smaller is
> a bonus - even better (so to speak, for now anyway :) 
>
> What I REALLY want you to do is ignore that darned 72 dpi
> that your software shows. It mean nothing at all.

I don't even know that is what my software shows. I don't even look, this
is what I am told by the editor. All I do when I take the pictures is to
transfer them to PC and email them away, I do nothing else, no resizing or
manipulation and I let them do the work.

> Pay no attention to it; just ask the editor for the rest of
> the information (like Jim suggested, as well). How big does
> he want to print it? Then take your 2000 pixels wide,
> divide it by the inches wide he wants to print it, and tell
> him that number for an answer. He will say that's fantastic.
>
> And don't worry if it takes a while to sink in; wait until
> you reach my stage in life and can't even remember the old
> stuff :) 

I have been trying to learn for a year now and it is a struggle. I haven't
even got to the manual settings. lol
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 12:21:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beck wrote:
> Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
>>Your c-720 3.x megapixel camera will produce beautiful
>>8 x 10 prints. No one except the most professional among
>>us will disagree; and even they will surely agree that
>>it will produce fantastic 5 x 7's. So anything smaller is
>>a bonus - even better (so to speak, for now anyway :) 
>>
>>What I REALLY want you to do is ignore that darned 72 dpi
>>that your software shows. It mean nothing at all.
>
>
> I don't even know that is what my software shows. I don't even look, this
> is what I am told by the editor. All I do when I take the pictures is to
> transfer them to PC and email them away, I do nothing else, no resizing or
> manipulation and I let them do the work.
>
>
>>Pay no attention to it; just ask the editor for the rest of
>>the information (like Jim suggested, as well). How big does
>>he want to print it? Then take your 2000 pixels wide,
>>divide it by the inches wide he wants to print it, and tell
>>him that number for an answer. He will say that's fantastic.
>>
>>And don't worry if it takes a while to sink in; wait until
>>you reach my stage in life and can't even remember the old
>>stuff :) 
>
>
> I have been trying to learn for a year now and it is a struggle. I haven't
> even got to the manual settings. lol

Hi...

Darn, he should be complimenting you on the quality you're
sending him. Something's wrong, somewhere.

Which triggers a memory in my old brain. My grand daughter
still uses a c-70 something; which I handed down to her.
Can't find it at the moment, and don't want to snoop too
much in her room for fear of being disowned; but I'll ask
her to let me see it when she gets home from school.

My faint memory is that when you take .tif's with it, it
also simultaneously produces a thumbnail picture. Much,
much smaller, intended to be used only for a thumbnail.
I think the file extension might have been .thm or .tmb
or something like that. Regardless, it will be tiny, whereas
the .tif will be huuuuuggge. :) 

It's not possible that you're sending him the thumbnail
rather than the picture, is it? Or are you taking jpg's.

Ken
May 28, 2005 12:47:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Weitzel wrote:

> Darn, he should be complimenting you on the quality you're
> sending him. Something's wrong, somewhere.
>
> Which triggers a memory in my old brain. My grand daughter
> still uses a c-70 something; which I handed down to her.
> Can't find it at the moment, and don't want to snoop too
> much in her room for fear of being disowned; but I'll ask
> her to let me see it when she gets home from school.
>
> My faint memory is that when you take .tif's with it, it
> also simultaneously produces a thumbnail picture. Much,
> much smaller, intended to be used only for a thumbnail.
> I think the file extension might have been .thm or .tmb
> or something like that. Regardless, it will be tiny, whereas
> the .tif will be huuuuuggge. :) 
>
> It's not possible that you're sending him the thumbnail
> rather than the picture, is it? Or are you taking jpg's.

I take JPEG images only. The camera does allow for Tiffs, but they are so
big and can only fit about 10 pictures on the card. I cannot afford more
cards at the moment.
I could do a few tiffs and see how that goes. When I have a photo project
to do for the paper its really only like 3-4 pictures at a time, except for
maybe a big event like the carnival in a few months where I will end up
taking maybe 50 pics or more. So for the smaller events I could do tiffs
and see if that pleases them better.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 12:47:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beck wrote:

> Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
>
>>Darn, he should be complimenting you on the quality you're
>>sending him. Something's wrong, somewhere.
>>
>>Which triggers a memory in my old brain. My grand daughter
>>still uses a c-70 something; which I handed down to her.
>>Can't find it at the moment, and don't want to snoop too
>>much in her room for fear of being disowned; but I'll ask
>>her to let me see it when she gets home from school.
>>
>>My faint memory is that when you take .tif's with it, it
>>also simultaneously produces a thumbnail picture. Much,
>>much smaller, intended to be used only for a thumbnail.
>>I think the file extension might have been .thm or .tmb
>>or something like that. Regardless, it will be tiny, whereas
>>the .tif will be huuuuuggge. :) 
>>
>>It's not possible that you're sending him the thumbnail
>>rather than the picture, is it? Or are you taking jpg's.
>
>
> I take JPEG images only. The camera does allow for Tiffs, but they are so
> big and can only fit about 10 pictures on the card. I cannot afford more
> cards at the moment.
> I could do a few tiffs and see how that goes. When I have a photo project
> to do for the paper its really only like 3-4 pictures at a time, except for
> maybe a big event like the carnival in a few months where I will end up
> taking maybe 50 pics or more. So for the smaller events I could do tiffs
> and see if that pleases them better.

Hi...

Nope, don't do tiff's; not worthwhile for what you're doing
with them.

If you still have one of the jpeg's that you've taken; and
if it's not personal or private, why don't you send one to
me? I'd like to see how nice it is and if anything that
hasn't occurred to us has gone wrong somewhere.

Ken
May 28, 2005 3:04:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Weitzel wrote:

> If you still have one of the jpeg's that you've taken; and
> if it's not personal or private, why don't you send one to
> me? I'd like to see how nice it is and if anything that
> hasn't occurred to us has gone wrong somewhere.

Thanks, I have sent you an email.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 3:04:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Beck wrote:
> Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
>
>>If you still have one of the jpeg's that you've taken; and
>>if it's not personal or private, why don't you send one to
>>me? I'd like to see how nice it is and if anything that
>>hasn't occurred to us has gone wrong somewhere.
>
>
> Thanks, I have sent you an email.

Hi Beck...

Got it, touched it just a bit, and sent it back...

For the others who have offered the benefit of their
knowledge, experience, and wisdom - it's perfect.

There's no reason in the world that it couldn't be
printed beautifully at 8 x 10, so absolutely no reason
a newspaper couldn't print a small version. None.

Take care.

Ken
May 28, 2005 4:12:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Weitzel wrote:

> Got it, touched it just a bit, and sent it back...
>
> For the others who have offered the benefit of their
> knowledge, experience, and wisdom - it's perfect.
>
> There's no reason in the world that it couldn't be
> printed beautifully at 8 x 10, so absolutely no reason
> a newspaper couldn't print a small version. None.

Thankyou for the vote of confidence, its good to see someone appreciates
them ;-)
!