Pixel counts for DIgital print quality

Newer members often state that they think their question is too basic, or stupid, or whatever, to be posted. Nothing could be further further from the truth in any section at DSLRUsers.com, but especially here. Don't feel intimidated. The only stupid question is the one that remains unasked. We were all beginners at one stage, and even the most experienced amongst us will admit to learning new stuff on a daily basis. Ask away! Please also refer to the forum rules and the portal page

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is. Please also check the portal page for more information on this.

Pixel counts for DIgital print quality

Postby dooda on Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:01 am

I read that a rule for largest good quality digital prints you divide the vertical and horizontal pixel counts by 200. I don't understand what this means exactly. Do you add them together and then divide by 200? Is it 6.1 million divided by 200? I'm not even sure about what the vert and horizontal pixel counts are exactly. Does anyone have any advice here? Can you up the pixel count in photo shop and go by that pixel count or is the quality inherently connected to the sensor pix counts? Thanks for the advice.
love's first sighs are wisdom's last

Dave
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elton/
User avatar
dooda
Party Animal
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada

Postby the foto fanatic on Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:07 am

The pixel size of a D70 image is 3008 pixels X 2000 pixels.
Using that "divide by 200" rule of thumb, the resultant maximum print size would be 15 inches by 10 inches.

I can't comment on the accuracy of this rule, though.
User avatar
the foto fanatic
Moderator
 
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: Teneriffe, Brisbane

Postby dooda on Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:42 am

Thanks.

So I might do some experimenting here as I'd like to make some prints at 12x18, I'll save the file at 3600 x 2400 or so? Does anyone know what kind of pic quality loss this may amount to?
love's first sighs are wisdom's last

Dave
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elton/
User avatar
dooda
Party Animal
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada

Postby Nnnnsic on Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:52 am

Dividing by 200 results in a 200 dpi image, and no, if you up the pixel count in Photoshop while trying to maintain a set dpi, you'll be creating pixels that don't exist and will actually lose quality, or rather, quality integrity.
Producer & Editor @ GadgetGuy.com.au
Contributor for fine magazines such as PC Authority and Popular Science.
User avatar
Nnnnsic
I'm a jazz singer... so I know what I'm doing
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 12:29 am
Location: Cubicle No. 42... somewhere in Bondi, NSW

Postby the foto fanatic on Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:14 pm

dooda wrote:Thanks.

So I might do some experimenting here as I'd like to make some prints at 12x18, I'll save the file at 3600 x 2400 or so? Does anyone know what kind of pic quality loss this may amount to?


dooda

The 3002 x 2000 pixel size referred to earlier is a 3:2 format.

If you choose to print 18in x 12in, that is also 3:2 format. You wouldn't need to do any resizing of your image. Your printer should be able to print it as is.

If you use a specialist printing software program like Qimage, you'll have no worries at all. You can get trial version at:

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/

I'd recommend that you try it.
User avatar
the foto fanatic
Moderator
 
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: Teneriffe, Brisbane

Postby dooda on Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:51 pm

Cricket,

Thanks for the link but I don't have a printer, I was going to take them to a shop and print them there.

What I'm a little nervous about is the different qualities that I'm printing.

Also, if I take the pic in Jpeg, and then save as TIFF, does it make any difference or do I need to shoot in Raw and then save to TIFF to make the quality really excellent?
love's first sighs are wisdom's last

Dave
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elton/
User avatar
dooda
Party Animal
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada

Postby Nnnnsic on Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:43 pm

Jpeg is a lossy format so you've already lost quality in the image if you go to a tiff with it... but don't worry... you probably won't even notice it.

NEF, as I understand it, is virtually loseless and you can go back to a tiff with no problems... in fact, that's the way to go.
Producer & Editor @ GadgetGuy.com.au
Contributor for fine magazines such as PC Authority and Popular Science.
User avatar
Nnnnsic
I'm a jazz singer... so I know what I'm doing
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 12:29 am
Location: Cubicle No. 42... somewhere in Bondi, NSW

Postby the foto fanatic on Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:49 pm

dooda wrote:Cricket,
Also, if I take the pic in Jpeg, and then save as TIFF, does it make any difference or do I need to shoot in Raw and then save to TIFF to make the quality really excellent?


Saving in TIFF is lossless, but the files are large.

If you take your pic as JPEG, then save it as a TIFF file, you won't lose anything from the JPEG. However, this would be pointless as the JPEG format IS lossy, and so you would have already reduced the quality of your image in your camera.

If you take pix as RAW files and convert to TIFF for printing you would have your best quality. I assume from what you have asked that you are unable to have RAW files printed.

I take all my photos in RAW, so that I have the optimum image for any Post-Processing work. However, my print program (Qimage) won't print from RAW files (yet), so I convert to JPEG maximum as the last step prior to printing. I have no problems with the results.

So, to summarise everything I've said - if you take JPEG max files, either straight from your camera, or after conversion from RAW format, to the printer you are unlikely to be really disappointed with the results. :)
Trevor
User avatar
the foto fanatic
Moderator
 
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: Teneriffe, Brisbane

Postby MattC on Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:01 pm

I shoot RAW, then save as TIF in NC after any needed adjustments prior to any work in PS. JPEG does not get a look in unless the image is to be emailed or displayed on the web.
I always try to print at 300dpi, but will go as low as 240dpi if needed.
I am still evaluating pxl Smartscale for enlarging. So far, I have had quite acceptable results for print up to 300% with pxl. I had a go at Genuine Fractals, but hated it for its interface and the amount of stuffing around that I had to do.

Cheers

Matt
MattC
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1061
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:59 pm
Location: Pilbara WA

Postby dooda on Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:38 pm

Thankyou very Much Cricket and Matt.

I printed a copy at 8x12 and I must say it totally sucked. Huge Artefacts in the sky where it goes from light blue to dark blue, plus I over sharpened it somehow. Anyways, I'm back to the drawing board with this. I might have to start looking at shooting in Raw (don't really want to deal with the space issue and time in PP but hey, those are the breaks I guess.
love's first sighs are wisdom's last

Dave
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elton/
User avatar
dooda
Party Animal
 
Posts: 1591
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada


Return to Absolute Beginners Questions