Posted by Jack Garrett on December 13, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Last night, Tony was showing me how to do a soft proof and everything was going great until it came time to resize the image. I have a digital rebel and I shoot raw and jpeg in highest rez. We were using a jpeg image and when we went to resize, photoshop shows this as a 72 dpi image at some huge size like 32x50. I want to get a 13x19 or maybe 18x24 size print at 300 dpi...is this possible without losing detail. I've seen some of Eriks rebel images at 24X30 and they look great.....help, please!!! Does photoshop actually figure out the dpi when you hit the resize tab?
Posted by Mel Ladewig on December 13, 2007 at 1:39 PM
The resize tab has several options on it.
If you want to change the image size without changing the number of pixels, uncheck the Resample Image box.
But it sounds like you want to get a bigger print out of the image.
What I would do is first uncheck the Resample Image box and define the new image size. You should see the value of Resolution change, but not the pixel dimensions.
Click OK.
Then go into the Resize function and check the Resample Image box and define the resolution to be 300. You might have to experiment between the resample modes of bicubic and bicubic smoother to see what works best. Follow up with any final print prep including sharpening.
Mel-
Posted by John Mumaw on December 13, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Mel's advice is right on. Here's what's happening...
Most image editing software's ppi (not dpi) numbers from a digital camera image are an arbitrary (and meaningless) figure. Since the image has no implied or intended "inch" size, the only thing that indicates resolution is the pixel dimensions of the image. What's important is the number of pixels.
The reason you're seeing this 72 ppi number is that the EXIF data in the image header provides room to store a suggested print size and the corresponding ppi value. The numbers are arbitrary, unless you print the image using software that has been instructed to specifically look at these EXIF numbers and to generate a print of that size.
Many commercial printers now ask that you send in the unresampled file and let their own print drivers do the work, as the ever more sophisticated RIP software they now use can often do a better job at resampling than Photoshop. This has been my experience anyway.
Posted by Jack Garrett on December 13, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Mel,
Let's say I resize the image to 18x24. Then I set the res to 300 and use the bicubic smoother. Will I still get a good image or am I trying to make the image larger than what the data can handle? Hope I am saying that right. I was told that on a 10MP camera, you should be able to get 18x24 and even larger with no problem.
Posted by John Mumaw on December 13, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Will I still get a good image or am I trying to make the image larger than what the data can handle? I was told that on a 10MP camera, you should be able to get 18x24 and even larger with no problem.
That's really image dependent. If you used RAW, a tripod, excellent field technique and processing, then you certainly can get a good 18 x 24 enlargement from your camera (although you'll have to do some cropping to arrive at that particular aspect ratio).
I once had a 20 x 30 enlargement made from El-Co Color Labs (http://www.elcocolor.com/poster_special.htm) and let them do the resampling with a 6MP Canon 10D file, and I was astonished with the results.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on December 13, 2007 at 10:33 PM
You should be fine. It depends on your tastes, the quality of the capture and the content of the image, but you should be fine. Like John, I've done a 20X30 off a 8MP file and it looks good. Lots of folks have printed bigger than this off of 35mm digital.
Posted by Bill Brennan on December 14, 2007 at 9:39 PM
You have received good information. If you captured a good image, your print at the size you want, should be good also.
Discussion
6 repliesIf you want to change the image size without changing the number of pixels, uncheck the Resample Image box.
But it sounds like you want to get a bigger print out of the image.
What I would do is first uncheck the Resample Image box and define the new image size. You should see the value of Resolution change, but not the pixel dimensions.
Click OK.
Then go into the Resize function and check the Resample Image box and define the resolution to be 300. You might have to experiment between the resample modes of bicubic and bicubic smoother to see what works best. Follow up with any final print prep including sharpening.
Mel-
Most image editing software's ppi (not dpi) numbers from a digital camera image are an arbitrary (and meaningless) figure. Since the image has no implied or intended "inch" size, the only thing that indicates resolution is the pixel dimensions of the image. What's important is the number of pixels.
The reason you're seeing this 72 ppi number is that the EXIF data in the image header provides room to store a suggested print size and the corresponding ppi value. The numbers are arbitrary, unless you print the image using software that has been instructed to specifically look at these EXIF numbers and to generate a print of that size.
Many commercial printers now ask that you send in the unresampled file and let their own print drivers do the work, as the ever more sophisticated RIP software they now use can often do a better job at resampling than Photoshop. This has been my experience anyway.
Let's say I resize the image to 18x24. Then I set the res to 300 and use the bicubic smoother. Will I still get a good image or am I trying to make the image larger than what the data can handle? Hope I am saying that right. I was told that on a 10MP camera, you should be able to get 18x24 and even larger with no problem.
That's really image dependent. If you used RAW, a tripod, excellent field technique and processing, then you certainly can get a good 18 x 24 enlargement from your camera (although you'll have to do some cropping to arrive at that particular aspect ratio).
I once had a 20 x 30 enlargement made from El-Co Color Labs (http://www.elcocolor.com/poster_special.htm) and let them do the resampling with a 6MP Canon 10D file, and I was astonished with the results.