Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos

SS wrote:
> I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
> done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e. quite
> large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
> large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever the
> ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
> want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
> visible on such a small print
>
>
Send the file as is and let the printer do the resizing. Or, you can
figure out how to resize them to 200 dpi for 4x6 prints as that is about
the best most photo machines print. Unless the time to upload is a real
problem, I would just send the file without resizing.
 >> Stay informed about: Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos 

"SS" <xsx2000x DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rSC7h.17827$Xh3.13727@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
> done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e.
> quite
> large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
> large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever
> the
> ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
> want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
> visible on such a small print
>
>

Strange as it may seem, the number of pixels required to give a 6 x 4 print
proportion, have to be proportional to 6 x 4.

1280 x 960 does not acheive this.

The only difficult maths involved is to multiply the number of inches on the
long side by the required Ppi figure (300) and then to multiply the number
of inches on the short side by that same number.

The answer comes out at 1800 x 1200 pixels.

Roy G
 >> Stay informed about: Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos 

"SS" <xsx2000x RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rSC7h.17827$Xh3.13727@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
> done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e.
> quite
> large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
> large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever
> the
> ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
> want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
> visible on such a small print
>
>

Strange as it may seem, the number of pixels required to give a 6 x 4 print
proportion, have to be proportional to 6 x 4.

1280 x 960 does not acheive this.

The only difficult maths involved is to multiply the number of inches on the
long side by the required Ppi figure (300) and then to multiply the number
of inches on the short side by that same number.

The answer comes out at 1800 x 1200 pixels.

Roy G
 >> Stay informed about: Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos 

"SS" <xsx2000x.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rSC7h.17827$Xh3.13727@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
> done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e.
> quite
> large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
> large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever
> the
> ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
> want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
> visible on such a small print
>
>

Strange as it may seem, the number of pixels required to give a 6 x 4 print
proportion, have to be proportional to 6 x 4.

1280 x 960 does not acheive this.

The only difficult maths involved is to multiply the number of inches on the
long side by the required Ppi figure (300) and then to multiply the number
of inches on the short side by that same number.

The answer comes out at 1800 x 1200 pixels.

Roy G
 >> Stay informed about: Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos 

"SS" <xsx2000x.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rSC7h.17827$Xh3.13727@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
> done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e.
> quite
> large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
> large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever
> the
> ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
> want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
> visible on such a small print
>
>

Strange as it may seem, the number of pixels required to give a 6 x 4 print
proportion, have to be proportional to 6 x 4.

1280 x 960 does not acheive this.

The only difficult maths involved is to multiply the number of inches on the
long side by the required Ppi figure (300) and then to multiply the number
of inches on the short side by that same number.

The answer comes out at 1800 x 1200 pixels.

Roy G
 >> Stay informed about: Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos 

"SS" <xsx2000x DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rSC7h.17827$Xh3.13727@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
> done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e.
> quite
> large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
> large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever
> the
> ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
> want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
> visible on such a small print
>
>

Strange as it may seem, the number of pixels required to give a 6 x 4 print
proportion, have to be proportional to 6 x 4.

1280 x 960 does not acheive this.

The only difficult maths involved is to multiply the number of inches on the
long side by the required Ppi figure (300) and then to multiply the number
of inches on the short side by that same number.

The answer comes out at 1800 x 1200 pixels.

Roy G
 >> Stay informed about: Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos 

Ï "SS" <xsx2000x.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:rSC7h.17827$Xh3.13727@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
> done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e.
quite
> large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
> large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever
the
> ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
> want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
> visible on such a small print

Why not go to a local lab in your town and have them printed there?Where I
live you can take your memory card (any type) or a cd to a machine and
choose via touch screen size, picture, number of reprints etc.by yourself
and even know how much it costs before printing out the receipt and handing
it to a clerk.



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
 >> Stay informed about: Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos 

Ï "SS" <xsx2000x.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:rSC7h.17827$Xh3.13727@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
> done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e.
quite
> large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
> large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever
the
> ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
> want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
> visible on such a small print

Why not go to a local lab in your town and have them printed there?Where I
live you can take your memory card (any type) or a cd to a machine and
choose via touch screen size, picture, number of reprints etc.by yourself
and even know how much it costs before printing out the receipt and handing
it to a clerk.



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
 >> Stay informed about: Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos 

Ï "SS" <xsx2000x.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:rSC7h.17827$Xh3.13727@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
> done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e.
quite
> large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
> large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever
the
> ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
> want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
> visible on such a small print

Why not go to a local lab in your town and have them printed there?Where I
live you can take your memory card (any type) or a cd to a machine and
choose via touch screen size, picture, number of reprints etc.by yourself
and even know how much it costs before printing out the receipt and handing
it to a clerk.



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
 >> Stay informed about: Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos 

Ï "SS" <xsx2000x RemoveThis @yahoo.com> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:rSC7h.17827$Xh3.13727@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
> done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e.
quite
> large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
> large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever
the
> ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
> want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
> visible on such a small print

Why not go to a local lab in your town and have them printed there?Where I
live you can take your memory card (any type) or a cd to a machine and
choose via touch screen size, picture, number of reprints etc.by yourself
and even know how much it costs before printing out the receipt and handing
it to a clerk.



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
 >> Stay informed about: Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos 

Ï "SS" <xsx2000x.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:rSC7h.17827$Xh3.13727@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
> done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e.
quite
> large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
> large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever
the
> ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
> want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
> visible on such a small print

Why not go to a local lab in your town and have them printed there?Where I
live you can take your memory card (any type) or a cd to a machine and
choose via touch screen size, picture, number of reprints etc.by yourself
and even know how much it costs before printing out the receipt and handing
it to a clerk.



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
 >> Stay informed about: Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos 

SS wrote:
> I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
> done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e. quite
> large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
> large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever the
> ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
> want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
> visible on such a small print

You will want to resize to about 300 ppi, which would work out of 1800
x 1200.

Whereas 1280 x 960 would make an ok print it would not be as sharp as
1800 x 1200. Going past 1800 x 1200 will show little if any
improvment.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos 

SS wrote:
> I'm going to get 150 of my photo files printed at Asda as I can get them
> done for 5p each at that quantity. Most of my files are at 7 mpx i.e. quite
> large. The prints are 6" x 4" therefore is it actually worth sinding these
> large files or should I re-size to say 1280 x 960 (1.3 mpx) or whatever the
> ratio is to give 6 x 4. Digital prints do show a lot of detail and I don't
> want to lose that but I can't see all the detail on a 7 mpx file being
> visible on such a small print

You will want to resize to about 300 ppi, which would work out of 1800
x 1200.

Whereas 1280 x 960 would make an ok print it would not be as sharp as
1800 x 1200. Going past 1800 x 1200 will show little if any
improvment.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Optimum Resolution for Printing Photos