|
Related Topics:
| Printing photos? ? ? - Recently I purchased a new camera, and it included a free (after those wretched rebates) picture printer -- a Lexmark Polaroid P310. But as far as I can tell, all it prints is unedited photos directly from the camera. And I don't seem to be able to..
Printing Photos - OK now you have taken that perfect picture. What is the best way to print it. I was thinking about the Epson 1800 but how do the pro shops work and can you recommend a good one to use. Thanks
how come need so high dpi for printing photos? - A 15" monitor at 1024x768 is about 85 pixels per inch. Viewing a photo on the monitor at that looks great, right? So how come if you print out a photo with the same size, density 85 dpi), the print..
Wonder how many quit printing their photos - Ever since I went digital about two + years ago, I stopped printing my photos - too many pics, too much work printing + arranging them in albums, and, finally - they look much better on a 19" screen anyway ! I am still saving them at maximum quality
Printing photos on Linux - So, I am getting a decent Epson photo printer that I mentioned Earlier. My question is, what programs to use to print photos under linux. I normally just use xv and soe custom scripts for photo editing. What I would like now is to be able to print..
|
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jan 02, 2007
Posts: 68
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:55 am
Post subject: Printing photos question
Archived from groups: rec>photo>digital (more info?)
|
|
|
I'm being asked to sell the pics I've been taken at our Western Riding
Club shows, apparently they're good enough people are actually *asking*
to pay money for 'em (cool!)
I show the pics on the club website (cawri.com), at 640x480, which
provides a decent 4x6 print, and encourage folks to print those images
for free.
Now, I've been printing my own photos for years. I just take the
biggest copy I have, and print that at whatever resolution I need,
ignoring ppi, which appears to be at 72ppi on my current images
according to ThumbsPlus. I got decent photos at 8x10, even with my older
cameras, back to 1.5MP. I've been getting excellent photos with 5MP
cameras and above, at 8x10.
Now, I'm looking at something that's explaining resolution vs print
size, and saying for my 6MP camera the max I can print is 10x6 @300ppi.
Hmmm.
My concern is, I'm thinking of providing the digital files rather than
printing them (that was a big pain last time I did it). I was thinking
of providing and charging for the files based on the biggest image it
would print...
So for example, at 72ppi, I could provide a 1024x768 image intended to
print an 8x10.
At 300ppi, I'd have to provide a full-sized 10MP image (3888x2592).
I don't quite understand the difference, since it appears I've been
happily printing at the lower ppi for years without loss of quality -
pictures I've printed have won photo contests, even!
Can someone help explain this discrepancy? I could use some advice as
to the best way to provide digital images to my prospective customers,
that gives them the resolution to print to the size they want, and no
bigger.
Or is there a better way I should be doing this?
Appreciate any advice!
jmc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Sep 14, 2005
Posts: 720
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:55 am
Post subject: Re: Printing photos question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"jmc" <NOnewsgroupsSPAM.RemoveThis@NOjodiBODY.HOMEus> wrote in message
news:5mria0Feoj4jU1@mid.individual.net...
> I'm being asked to sell the pics I've been taken at our Western Riding
> Club shows, apparently they're good enough people are actually *asking* to
> pay money for 'em (cool!)
>
> I show the pics on the club website (cawri.com), at 640x480, which
> provides a decent 4x6 print, and encourage folks to print those images for
> free.
>
> Now, I've been printing my own photos for years. I just take the biggest
> copy I have, and print that at whatever resolution I need, ignoring ppi,
> which appears to be at 72ppi on my current images according to ThumbsPlus.
> I got decent photos at 8x10, even with my older cameras, back to 1.5MP.
> I've been getting excellent photos with 5MP cameras and above, at 8x10.
>
> Now, I'm looking at something that's explaining resolution vs print size,
> and saying for my 6MP camera the max I can print is 10x6 @300ppi. Hmmm.
>
> My concern is, I'm thinking of providing the digital files rather than
> printing them (that was a big pain last time I did it). I was thinking of
> providing and charging for the files based on the biggest image it would
> print...
>
> So for example, at 72ppi, I could provide a 1024x768 image intended to
> print an 8x10.
>
> At 300ppi, I'd have to provide a full-sized 10MP image (3888x2592).
>
> I don't quite understand the difference, since it appears I've been
> happily printing at the lower ppi for years without loss of quality -
> pictures I've printed have won photo contests, even!
>
> Can someone help explain this discrepancy? I could use some advice as to
> the best way to provide digital images to my prospective customers, that
> gives them the resolution to print to the size they want, and no bigger.
>
> Or is there a better way I should be doing this?
>
> Appreciate any advice!
>
> jmc
Sorry but I do not see any problem with what you are already doing, if it
works then keep using the same method.
If it ain't broken then there is nothing to fix.
Cheers.
Pete |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 04, 2005
Posts: 370
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:07 am
Post subject: Re: Printing photos question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 05, 2007
Posts: 59
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Printing photos question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
jmc wrote:
> I'm being asked to sell the pics I've been taken at our Western Riding
> Club shows, apparently they're good enough people are actually *asking*
> to pay money for 'em (cool!)
>
> I show the pics on the club website (cawri.com), at 640x480, which
> provides a decent 4x6 print, and encourage folks to print those images
> for free.
>
> Now, I've been printing my own photos for years. I just take the
> biggest copy I have, and print that at whatever resolution I need,
> ignoring ppi, which appears to be at 72ppi on my current images
> according to ThumbsPlus. I got decent photos at 8x10, even with my older
> cameras, back to 1.5MP. I've been getting excellent photos with 5MP
> cameras and above, at 8x10.
>
> Now, I'm looking at something that's explaining resolution vs print
> size, and saying for my 6MP camera the max I can print is 10x6 @300ppi.
> Hmmm.
>
> My concern is, I'm thinking of providing the digital files rather than
> printing them (that was a big pain last time I did it). I was thinking
> of providing and charging for the files based on the biggest image it
> would print...
>
> So for example, at 72ppi, I could provide a 1024x768 image intended to
> print an 8x10.
>
> At 300ppi, I'd have to provide a full-sized 10MP image (3888x2592).
>
> I don't quite understand the difference, since it appears I've been
> happily printing at the lower ppi for years without loss of quality -
> pictures I've printed have won photo contests, even!
>
> Can someone help explain this discrepancy? I could use some advice as
> to the best way to provide digital images to my prospective customers,
> that gives them the resolution to print to the size they want, and no
> bigger.
>
> Or is there a better way I should be doing this?
>
> Appreciate any advice!
>
> jmc
Most folks find a print at less than 150 ppi too soft. When
they buy a print they have already seen, they can't
complain. If you sell the file, you'll get lots of
complaints, not only of the lack of sharpness but also about
other problems, like bad color, when they get prints made at
drug stores and the like. >> Stay informed about: Printing photos question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 25, 2007
Posts: 7
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Printing photos question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 27, 2008
Posts: 63
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Printing photos question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
jmc wrote:
> Now, I've been printing my own photos for years. I just take the
> biggest copy I have, and print that at whatever resolution I need,
> ignoring ppi, which appears to be at 72ppi on my current images
> according to ThumbsPlus. [...]
> I don't quite understand the difference, since it appears I've
> been happily printing at the lower ppi for years without loss of
> quality - pictures I've printed have won photo contests, even!
No you haven't. You have taken pictures with a certain amount of pixels
and printing them at a certain physical size. That gives an effective
ppi that has absolutely nothing to do with whatever ppi is stated in
the meta-data for the image.
It's a common mistake: The ppi stated in the image is just a suggestion
for the print-resolution (and size, when we combine it with the amount
of pixels). Suggestion being the important word here. You have
overruled it when you have been printing. Continue doing that and all
will continue to be fine.
--
Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/ >> Stay informed about: Printing photos question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 24, 2007
Posts: 73
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Printing photos question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 24, 2005
Posts: 2795
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:53 am
Post subject: Re: Printing photos question [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
jmc wrote:
> I'm being asked to sell the pics I've been taken at our Western Riding
> Club shows, apparently they're good enough people are actually *asking*
> to pay money for 'em (cool!)
>
> I show the pics on the club website (cawri.com), at 640x480, which
> provides a decent 4x6 print, and encourage folks to print those images
> for free.
>
> Now, I've been printing my own photos for years. I just take the
> biggest copy I have, and print that at whatever resolution I need,
> ignoring ppi, which appears to be at 72ppi on my current images
> according to ThumbsPlus. I got decent photos at 8x10, even with my older
> cameras, back to 1.5MP. I've been getting excellent photos with 5MP
> cameras and above, at 8x10.
>
> Now, I'm looking at something that's explaining resolution vs print
> size, and saying for my 6MP camera the max I can print is 10x6 @300ppi.
> Hmmm.
>
> My concern is, I'm thinking of providing the digital files rather than
> printing them (that was a big pain last time I did it). I was thinking
> of providing and charging for the files based on the biggest image it
> would print...
>
> So for example, at 72ppi, I could provide a 1024x768 image intended to
> print an 8x10.
>
> At 300ppi, I'd have to provide a full-sized 10MP image (3888x2592).
>
> I don't quite understand the difference, since it appears I've been
> happily printing at the lower ppi for years without loss of quality -
> pictures I've printed have won photo contests, even!
>
> Can someone help explain this discrepancy? I could use some advice as
> to the best way to provide digital images to my prospective customers,
> that gives them the resolution to print to the size they want, and no
> bigger.
>
> Or is there a better way I should be doing this?
>
> Appreciate any advice!
>
> jmc
The 72ppi you see usually refers to the most common video display
setting for resolution, and has NOTHING to do with the printing of an
image. If you have a good monitor, you can change that setting to 96,
or even 100 or more, and watch Thumbsplus display that new number.
As for printing, the 'dream number' is 300 pixels/inch, but this is
often more than is necessary for a good image. Something between 150
and 250 pixels/inch is usually more than adequate for 4x6, and some
pictures printed at 8x10 look just fine as low as 150 pixels/inch. I
would shoot for 200 as a good figure, and just forget about that 72
figure since it has nothing to do with printing. >> Stay informed about: Printing photos question |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
