A Question About Resolution

[Fierce Critter]

I have never had to deal with printing photos for anyone but myself.

I don't know what sort of resolution is really best to use for this sort of thing. I mean both scanning and printing.

What would you suggest? It's been a million years since I had to do graphics work for someone else. And most of my experience is in newsletter/screened images, so I really am clueless or have forgotten what I was trained in as far as high-quality photo printing.

[Msterbeau]

I have never had to deal with printing photos for anyone but myself.

I don't know what sort of resolution is really best to use for this sort of thing. I mean both scanning and printing.

What would you suggest? It's been a million years since I had to do graphics work for someone else. And most of my experience is in newsletter/screened images, so I really am clueless or have forgotten what I was trained in as far as high-quality photo printing.

Generally speaking, you want 300dpi at full size. You can get away with 200dpi for home stuff without a big hit in quality. Depends on the printer too.

[Fierce Critter]

Generally speaking, you want 300dpi at full size. You can get away with 200dpi for home stuff without a big hit in quality. Depends on the printer too.

Really? That low?

I could swear I remember being taught that photo resolution was something like 720 or 1200?

I'm printing on a HP Deskjet 932C.

[Draco1958]

Really? That low?

I could swear I remember being taught that photo resolution was something like 720 or 1200?

I'm printing on a HP Deskjet 932C.

I also have that printer. I usually scan pics at 600dpi or more otherwise when printing an 8x10, you could get pixelization. Kodak paper is great, so is HP and Epson paper. Stay away from the bargain stuff. Bought some at Gibraltar Trade Center from their Big Top area and got very bad results. I have bought offbrand from the computer shows there and got good results.

[Msterbeau]

You don't need 600 dpi. That's overkill. Scanning at that resolution is not a bad idea. You then downsample as needed. 300dpi is industry standard for print.

[Scary Guy]

Sure, maybe if you're printing a business card.

I'm not in "the industry" but I have done some flier work for a few people and it's always best to go with the max available. Then again I can be a bit of a perfectionist too. Good enough is never good enough IMO.

Scan at 600 or better if possible (depending on what the scanner can do, if it can't do at least 600 go buy a new scanner).

http://www.scantips.com

http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM

Then use your printer of choice to print, of which there are many different types http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_printer (I like the dry ink print process personally).

Then again I guess all this is task specific, and limited with funds of course.

[Fierce Critter]

My scanner does 1200 x 1200, I believe. My printer, maybe not so much, but it's decent.

Heh. But my processor would scream "MERCY" if I tried to work on a 1200x1200 document.

[Msterbeau]

Heh. But my processor would scream "MERCY" if I tried to work on a 1200x1200 document.

Exactly. 300 is all you need. More then that is just a waste of time. Go ahead and test the difference between 300 and 600 and tell me if you see a difference.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,115656-page,1/article.html

[Gauge]

im going to agree with marc, if all your doing is 8x10 printouts (or smaller even) you dont really need much more than 300. i have had an occasional photo that needs just a little more kick where 600 is ok but its really unnecesary other than for scanning in. and yea, thats pretty much standard

[Msterbeau]

Sure, maybe if you're printing a business card.

I'm not in "the industry" but I have done some flier work for a few people and it's always best to go with the max available. Then again I can be a bit of a perfectionist too. Good enough is never good enough IMO.

Scan at 600 or better if possible (depending on what the scanner can do, if it can't do at least 600 go buy a new scanner).

http://www.scantips.com

http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM

Then use your printer of choice to print, of which there are many different types http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_printer (I like the dry ink print process personally).

Then again I guess all this is task specific, and limited with funds of course.

Your own resource totally contradicts what your saying.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/TIPS/PRINT1/PRINT1A.HTM

"While I try to avoid overly-broad generalizations, I know that some of you reading this are shopping for digital cameras or printers, and could use a little guidance as to what to expect. With that in mind, I’ll stick my neck out (protected by a huge disclaimer) to say that you can probably plan on useful PPI values of 120-150 for 720 dpi printers, and somewhere around 150-180 PPI for the 1440 ones. For the special "photo" printers, expect to be at the high end of these ranges, as those devices hold more detail in highlight areas as well as in the shadows, revealing more jaggies than their lesser brethren."

150 -180 pixels per inch. (I should have used ppi not dpi above) Remember that inkjet dots per inch are not the same as pixels per inch. Don't try to relate them.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

A 600Dpi printer works out to about a 250ppi print.

[Msterbeau]

A 600Dpi printer works out to about a 250ppi print.

What you're saying is contradicted by info I've read. Including what I just posted. Then again, there seems to be a lot of contradictory info out there. I personally use 300ppi. Bottom line Camille... Experiment at a few different resolutions and see what looks best. Go with that.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

OK, say you have a 3.1megapixel camera... thats a picture resolution of 2160 pixels x 1440 pixels. Now.. divide that first number by 300. That gives a number of 7.2 inches, which is the height of the photo you are trying to print. the width works out to be 4.8 inches. You need at least one Dot per pixel or you pic is blurry. The minimum you can use for that photo to get photo quality is 720 Dpi adn you will have 300ppi.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I am missing a step in ym math... it's been along time since I supported a print house.

[odims_sphere]

You don't need 600 dpi. That's overkill. Scanning at that resolution is not a bad idea. You then downsample as needed. 300dpi is industry standard for print.

This sounds exactly the same as audio recording! I always hear "I record at 96Kh" So What? CD's are produced at 44.1 Kh everything else is just squashed down anyway.

As for pictures though I have no idea.. I'll just have to go with you on this one!

[Fierce Critter]

I appreciate all the info being provided, even if some of it is contradictory.

The person I was going to help changed her mind I guess, so it's not as important.

However, I really needed this info for my own benefit. Thanks.

[Scary Guy]

This sounds exactly the same as audio recording! I always hear "I record at 96Kh" So What? CD's are produced at 44.1 Kh everything else is just squashed down anyway.

As for pictures though I have no idea.. I'll just have to go with you on this one!

This is why vinyl records still rule. Or if you want go with DVDA (or that other audio format related to DVD that I can't remember the name to right now).

As for my contradictory info listed above. It contradicts my statement of "higher is better" sure, only if you give that part any merit.

I also like making my processor scream, mostly with SETI, and it still runs rock solid.