72ppi image from photographer??

[Kanvas Keepsakes]

Thanks for the tips guys!  Very much appreciated.  So would going from 72 to 300 be considered an extremely large upsample to use PRP with?

[mouse]

Thanks for the tips guys!  Very much appreciated.  So would going from 72 to 300 be considered an extremely large upsample to use PRP with?

Going from 72(ppi) to 300(ppi) would involve NO resampling (up-sampling) whatever as long as the dimensions of the images retain the ratio of 72:300. 

Apparently you still haven't digested the concept.  Please go back and re-read this entire thread.

[digitaldog]

So would going from 72 to 300 be considered an extremely large upsample to use PRP with?

No, up-sampling is something different. That's adding (creating out of thin air) more pixels. Resample is add or subtract pixels. Doesn't matter if that document is 72 or 300. Work with pixels! That's what's really there in the document.

1000x1000 is the same document if set at 72 or 300. IF set to 72, the 'size' if output that way would be 13.8 inches. If 300, the 'size' would be 3.3 inches. In both cases, we started with and ended with a 1000x1000 pixel document.

[Kanvas Keepsakes]

Thank you Andrew. I just clicked on your link to your site. Good informative stuff!

[Jim Pascoe]

It brings up the question of why so many people in publishing ask me for pictures in "300 dpi".  I always feel a bit awkward in asking them how big they want them - they should be the experts not me.  Unless I'm mistaken 300 dpi is meaningless on it's own.  They seem completely unprepared for the question.

Jim

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It brings up the question of why so many people in publishing ask me for pictures in "300 dpi"...

I've been perplexed as well. One of possible answers is that it has become a code word for "high resolution," "printable" images. In other words, YOU are supposed to know or guess how big they want to print it and multiply it by 300 ppi to find the right file dimensions.

[digitaldog]

It brings up the question of why so many people in publishing ask me for pictures in "300 dpi".  I always feel a bit awkward in asking them how big they want them - they should be the experts not me.  Unless I'm mistaken 300 dpi is meaningless on it's own.  They seem completely unprepared for the question.

Yes it's rather meaningless but something has to appear in the tag. We usually see a 'defaut' of either 72 or 300, both really old values that were based initially on needs that don't fit all purposes in the modern digital world. For example, at one time, 72 was the value for the very old Macintosh display output. Some still think that's a pertinent value today but of course it's not. As for 300, I believe it was due to the large majority of output to a halftone dot using a 2X quality factor with a 150LPI screen. You'd never use that for newsprint. But for a lot of pretty good color repro work, where a linescreen was commonly 150LPI, applying the 2X QF gave you a value of 300. Is that necessary today? Well yes, if you're using a 150LPI screen and a 2X quality factor. You decide 1.5X is OK, the value would of course change. There is no one or two correct values, you first have to define the output device!

[Jim Pascoe]

Yes it's rather meaningless but something has to appear in the tag. We usually see a 'defaut' of either 72 or 300, both really old values that were based initially on needs that don't fit all purposes in the modern digital world. For example, at one time, 72 was the value for the very old Macintosh display output. Some still think that's a pertinent value today but of course it's not. As for 300, I believe it was due to the large majority of output to a halftone dot using a 2X quality factor with a 150LPI screen. You'd never use that for newsprint. But for a lot of pretty good color repro work, where a linescreen was commonly 150LPI, applying the 2X QF gave you a value of 300. Is that necessary today? Well yes, if you're using a 150LPI screen and a 2X quality factor. You decide 1.5X is OK, the value would of course change. There is no one or two correct values, you first have to define the output device!

Hi Andrew.  The problem with the requests I get are where they say "could you e-mail me the picture at 300dpi".  So starts the questioning about what it will be used for etc.

[hjulenissen]

The problem with the requests I get are where they say "could you e-mail me the picture at 300dpi". 

"Sure, could you e-mail me the physical dimensions of the planned print so that I can calculate what meaningless ratio of downsampling to apply to my image so that meaningless meta data in the file will satisfy your requirements"

Or

"I take it that 300dp is a code for 'high-resolution'. I'll mail the image in its native resolution and await your response."

-h

[digitaldog]

Hi Andrew.  The problem with the requests I get are where they say "could you e-mail me the picture at 300dpi".  So starts the questioning about what it will be used for etc.

Be fun just to send them a document with 300 pixels by 300 pixels with the 300 DPI tag.

[Jim Pascoe]

Be fun just to send them a document with 300 pixels by 300 pixels with the 300 DPI tag.

That would be cruel.....

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So, AdoramaPix has a currently-running contest which specifies as one of the submission rules:

Every entrant must submit one image –  jpeg 300 dpi

Luckily, they have a comment section, so I said:

I can not believe that professional photo sites still resort to such an incredibly lame, totally useless and meaningless description of file size as "300 dpi" !? It means nothing, people! Besides, the "d" in "dpi" refers to "dots," as in "dots per inch" and is related only to printers, describing how many dots the printer head will spurt per inch, i.e., it does not describe the file size. If you insist on using it, then it should be "300 ppi" or "pixels per inch." But even that does not say anything about file size, as you have to add how many inches there will be (remember the "per inch" part?). So, you can say, for example, 300 ppi for an 8" x 10" printout. Which then translates to 2400 x 3000 pixels file, the only way to meaningfully express file size. In other words, why not just simply say what is the minimum acceptable file size in pixels to begin with?

They answered (emphasis mine):

We are not concerned about the file size, that is why it is not stated. If it were an issue we would have stated it. We just ask that it be 300 dpi for printing purposes- since top 12 will be printed. Only the top 12 need to be concerned about size. If it's too small we'll ask for a larger size.

Then one guy joined the debate (emphasis mine):

Yes but at this point we all know that "300 dpi" is just another way of saying "high res image" - otherwise we are just being pedantic

And the AdoramaPix staff concluded:

We have a lot of people ---hobbyists to professionals entering contest. If we were to be more specific with size, we would get a lot more questions on how to size the images properly to meet the requirements. So that is why we keep it more general and only ask that for our printing purposes (top 12) the image be at 300 dpi. If they are not, we will ask them to submit a larger file.

So, there you go. We've been just ignorant of what "everybody else knows" already. Or pedantic 

[digitaldog]

So, there you go. We've been just ignorant of what "everybody else knows" already. Or pedantic 

Hilarious really. They can't be serious (or consider themselves to be professional printers). Where can I go to ask them about sending a 300x300 pixel file at 300 DPI? I'd love to hear what they have to say.

[Nigel Johnson]

Or even a 1x1 pixel image at 300x300 ppi