how to set ppi settings on a digital camera NOT dpi

JustPassingBy

usignuolo wrote: »

The printers by the way say they will not even open anything which is less than 300 ppi and 5mbs in size.

What do they mean by the 'mbs' in 5mbs? You have used the same abbreviation in your first post. What do you mean by it?

Sending a file which says it has a dpi of 300 is easy enough but the mb conditon is a bit of a puzzler, so it would beneficial to know the size (cm x cm) of the image they intend to print

darich

Scrilla wrote: »

Yuk! A lot of people seem to confuse ppi and dpi. There are loads of sites that try to explain it such as here.

In short, you would need a camera with more megapixels to achieve 300ppi. Alternatively, the printed size (not screen size) of the image needs to shrink to achieve 300ppi. The third alternative is to have the image printed at the size wanted (doing some manipulation to compensate for the lower ppi), but it won't come very nicely in magazine print.

I'm not an expert by any means, but that is at least how I understand it without trying to go into jargon.

Camera resolution has nothing to do with ppi or dpi. They are completely different things and not related.

Using the OP's camera resolution of 2048 x 1536 translates to approx 7inches x 5inches at 300dpi.
The same resolution at 200dpi gives approx 10inches x 7.5inches.

My 12.8mp camera has a resolution of something like 4368 x 2912 and can be printed at 300dpi or 200dpi just like the OP's camera. The difference is, because I have more megapixels my camera will show more detail and can be printed larger without loss of quality because it has captured the extra detail.

Resolution is not connected to dpi or ppi.

usignuolo

OK what the printers guidelines say is :" preferred file size at least 5100x3300 or larger pixels per inch which is based on a 12 MB Jpeg. Images must be exactly 300 ppi to be uploaded."

I have now found a further comment on their website which basically says if your camera is not capable of 10megapixels forget it.

I thought there was more to it than the megapixels on your camera. My Sony Cybershot is less than that but has a Zeiss lens and I have produced some excellent shots which have printed very well up to A4 (one figured on a book cover). The Canon has more megapixels but not such a good lens and prints well up to postcard size. They seem to want a default size of A3 although I know they would not be using them at anything like that size.

Basically then I need a much larger megapixel capacity camera and even then I would not be able to set the ppi in the camera setting but would need to manipulate the image in something like Photoshop. I just wanted to do my friend a favour and here I am losing the will to live. I think I will just say forget it.

timbim_2

You should be able to upscale the image in paintshop to contain the required number of pixels at the right resolution. Just don't expect the quality to increase!

You're right about lens quality having a lot to do with image quality. A better lens will mean that you can actually see more pixels in an image, but the sensor will 'see' however many pixels it's billed at. A bit pathetic I know, but it's the way it is. If they go on to print the image small, they'll have to downscale the pixels, so it should recover the original image fairly accurately.

Scrilla

usignuolo wrote: »

They seem to want a default size of A3 although I know they would not be using them at anything like that size.

Basically then I need a much larger megapixel capacity camera and even then I would not be able to set the ppi in the camera setting but would need to manipulate the image in something like Photoshop. I just wanted to do my friend a favour and here I am losing the will to live. I think I will just say forget it.

Send them the digital image and tell them you understand the image can only printed at 9.3 x 7.0 ins (for the 2816x2112 image) at best at 300 ppi. If they can use it, they will use it (and will manipulate the image themselves as needed). If they can't, tell your friend knowing you've done your bit to try to help and it's down to the printers. I know perhaps you'll be disappointed to have been unable to help your friend, but you've done as much of the hard work as you can and there's no point continually bashing your head against the wall if the printers won't be a bit more flexible.

JustPassingBy

usignuolo wrote: »

Basically then I need a much larger megapixel capacity camera and even then I would not be able to set the ppi in the camera setting but would need to manipulate the image in something like Photoshop. I just wanted to do my friend a favour and here I am losing the will to live. I think I will just say forget it.

When up against such experts what you need to do is resort to cunning; it is cheaper than buying a new camera.

Obtain a good quality 9"x6" print of your 2816x2112 image. Scan it at a resolution which produces an image close to 5100x3300. Change the dpi (ppi) to 300 in software. Check the image properties and send.

darich

JustPassingBy wrote: »

When up against such experts what you need to do is resort to cunning; it is cheaper than buying a new camera.

Obtain a good quality 9"x6" print of your 2816x2112 image. Scan it at a resolution which produces an image close to 5100x3300. Change the dpi (ppi) to 300 in software. Check the image properties and send.

So how does this improve the quality?

Detail cannot be manufactured from nothing so what the camera captured at the start is all you have to work with. There are numerous ways to enlarge the image but every single way will result in quality loss.

If the agency says the image is not detailed enough then no amount of manipulation is going to manufacture detail to fool the experts as you suggest.

Basically the arguements about ppi v dpi v 300 v 180 are irrelvant. The original camera isn't even 6mp. Most agencies (I know this wasn't submitted to an agency but it shows the quality required) will not accept images from compacts regardless of resolution. For example Alamy will not accept images from Canon Powershot SD 940 IS which is 12.1 megapixels.

darich

JustPassingBy wrote: »

The screen size is smaller because he has removed some pixels from the image - not because the ppi (dpi) has changed.

Incorrect.
No pixels have been removed.
The image has reduced in size because the ppi has changed.
If the image is 2400 x 1200 (for round numbers) and the ppi is 100 then on the screen, the image will be 24inches by 12inches.
By changing the ppi to 200 that becomes 12inches x 6inches.
By changing the ppi to 300 that becomes 8inches x 4inches.

The image size has changed on the screen but at no time have pixels been removed.
The fill size is also unaltered by these changes as long as the image is not resampled.

I just tried to be certain. my 5123x3410 image at 300 ppi was resaved at 72ppi without being resampled and the file size was unchanged - both images are 9.2mb.

boyse7en

Hi,
Can you give a link to the publisher's website and I'll have a look.

I'm art editor for a monthly magazine and work with hundreds digital images sent from a variety of sources/photographers and I don't think any of them would ever be at 5100x3300px. That is huge. I don't think that even my pro photographers, working with £2000+ cameras produce images to that size regularly.

Don't worry about setting the dpi on your camera (I'm pretty sure you can't specify it there, and you don't need it until the photo is being output) just set it to maximum resolution and best quality.

Don't even think of printing and rescanning. It will result in a far worse quality image than you start with, whatever the dpi you end up with

JustPassingBy

darich wrote: »

So how does this improve the quality?

It doesn't, but it will make the publisher happy. Whether the printed quality loss is noticeable is a different matter. Nobody knows the printed image dimensions so surely it's not possible to be definite about it.

Detail cannot be manufactured from nothing so what the camera captured at the start is all you have to work with. There are numerous ways to enlarge the image but every single way will result in quality loss.

Agreed.

If the agency says the image is not detailed enough then no amount of manipulation is going to manufacture detail to fool the experts as you suggest.

The publisher did not say the image was not detailed enough.

For example Alamy will not accept images from Canon Powershot SD 940 IS which is 12.1 megapixels.

If all their printing is done at about 17"x8" you'd expect that. For 6"x4" it's a tad excessive.