Photogrpher took my artist promo pics @ 72dpi HELP

[boku]

[font color=\'#000000\']Tell the photographer you want the original files. He gave you 800x600 72dpi downsamples. They are only good for posting on websites. Your lab is right. The files he gave you are not what came out of the camera.

Beware - he may be a an idiot.[/font]

[RockyMountainMommy]

[font color=\'#000000\']I used to own a Fuji s602Z (which I think was a piece of crap, btw). When downloaded, the pics were at 72 dpi, regardless of which setting (fine, medium, whatever).

My production manager at the newspaper I work for complained about it. I spoke with a fuji rep who said (this was some time ago, so I don't remember clearly) I could change it in photoshop to 300dpi with no loss or change at all in resolution, that 72 dpi had nothing to do with the *image* quality of the photos, but with the *printing quality*, and that changing the dpi would not affect the photos in *any way*, other than in how they actually print.

Not sure if this makes sense.

For all I know, the rep has his head up his butt.

It does sound, though, like the photographer shot in a lower quality setting (800 x 600 instead of something larger).[/font]

[howard smith]

[font color=\'#000000\']I save the jpegs from my Sony (72 dpi) with GenuineFractals, then open them to whatever dpi-dimensions I want.  Works fine.[/font]

[miss-leslie]

[font color=\'#000000\']OK.  The photographer sent me another pic file.  It's still 72dpi and after the above replies, I took a look at the Pixel Dimensions - they are 3024x2016.  Actually, this is the exact same file I started with originally.

However, my husband's modified pic in Photoshop shows the dimensions now at 1820x1936.  The pic has been resized and is now b&w instead of color.  Does that make a difference or did he inadvertently change something?

Here's the real questions:  Is this modified 1820x1936, 72dpi pic ok to go to the printer? Or do we need to up the dpi to 300? Or do we need to go back to the original pic, make modifications, keeping the pixel dimensions and upping the dpi (or does that matter at all?)?

I appreciate ALL of the replies so much - I owe you guys one if you ever need a band down in Texas.

 ::[/font]

[Pupfish]

[font color=\'#000000\']72 dpi spec in itself describes only how the file was saved. But it is not meaningless to the printer, since if he tries to print it like that the final dimensions of the shot will be much larger than you want, with less apparent detail The difference between that and 300 dpi is simply that the pixels are spread out over a larger area. Everything else being equal.

What you need to do before sending these images to this particular printer to open a copy of the files in PS, select Image>Image Size, reset the dialog box from 72 to 300 dpi with the Resample Box unchecked. (at least that's how to do it under the PS 5/Windows that's on this machine I'm working on now. Other versions may vary slightly). Always a good idea to then use the Save As dialog box rather than overwriting your master file if you are trying a photoshop conversion for the first time.

It might be mentioned that 1820x1936 isn't going to give you an 8x10 at 300 dpi. More like a 6 x 6.45.

But since it also seems likely that hubby cropped the image and lost those pixels, you might have to resample the image if you must have publicity still that's 8x10 at 300 dpi. Won't be as sharp as if the photographer had taken a vertical in the first place but, oh well...

I should think these days any photographer or printer worth their salt should have been able to perform the conversion for you.[/font]

[miss-leslie]

[font color=\'#000000\']I am not a photographer.  I have been searching the web to try and figure out who is right - my photographer or the printer. . . .

My photographer took pics of me on a digital camera (sorry - I have no clue what kind).  He gave them to me on CD - the resolution was 72dpi.

My husband made adjustments in Photoshop and then put the pic in an Adobe Illustrator file (these are promotional 8x10glossy black and white pictures for a musician [me]) to give to the printers.  And the printer insists that the resolution should be 300dpi minimum for the pictures to turn out of good quality.

The photographer says he uses 72dpi all of the time (he kept saying they were plenty large enough - 800xsomething) and that everything should be fine.  Test prints on a laser and inkjet (although the inkjet looks better to me) turn out great.  Onscreen it looks pretty nice, too, but I know my eye is not trained to catch the right details.  The printer insists that once the pics go to his machines, I won't be happy with them.

I'm extremely upset and don't know what to do.  I read the digital pictures page and found it very informative.  I know now from my search that my pics are low res.  But is there any way these are going to turn out ok?  Do I pay for the press check to take a gamble or go somewhere else or redo the photo shoot?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Lost in Texas[/font]

[miss-leslie]

[font color=\'#000000\']Thank you, Bob.  I appreciate the response, especially considering the topic was non-technical and from a non-photographer.  I've just been going back and forth between 2 parties who I felt had part of the information to get this resolved, but no one had all of it.

My photographer is very nice and we came out with some great shots.  But I believe he is a "beginning professional", if there is such a thing?  Maybe not an idiot, but "still learning", as they say?

Many, MANY thanks. Now to hope he still has the original files, but surely . . .

Leslie[/font]

[Wayne Jacobsen]

[font color=\'#000000\']At the risk of complicating this (and I don't think I have a substantive disagreement with Boku), "72 dpi" is, by itself, meaningless.  What's important is the size of the file, in pixels.  You can check this in many photoediting packages.  For example, your computer may have Microsoft Photo Editor.  If so, open one of the original, undeited shots using that program.  click file>properties.  A box will display (among other things) the size in pixels.  Something around 2000 by 3000 would be a good size.  

Although it sounds like the photographer may have made a mistake, its possible that your husband modified the shots in Photoshop.  Its all too easy to unknowlingly do that.[/font]

[boku]

[font color=\'#000000\']True, 72 dpi is irrelevant, but the minute anyone starts talking 800xsomething... we all know this was a shot prepared for viewing from the CD to a Web browser.[/font]

[boku]

[font color=\'#000000\']

OK.  The photographer sent me another pic file.  It's still 72dpi and after the above replies, I took a look at the Pixel Dimensions - they are 3024x2016.  Actually, this is the exact same file I started with originally.

However, my husband's modified pic in Photoshop shows the dimensions now at 1820x1936.  The pic has been resized and is now b&w instead of color.  Does that make a difference or did he inadvertently change something?

Here's the real questions:  Is this modified 1820x1936, 72dpi pic ok to go to the printer? Or do we need to up the dpi to 300? Or do we need to go back to the original pic, make modifications, keeping the pixel dimensions and upping the dpi (or does that matter at all?)?

I appreciate ALL of the replies so much - I owe you guys one if you ever need a band down in Texas.

 ::

As long as you send the printer a file with sufficient pixels to support the final print size, then the actual tagged DPI is not real meaningful (although the lab may still be sticky about this, but they CAN work around it). You can always change the DPI to 300 if need be. The image will not change.

You have another issue: did you husband crop the picture or resize it? The original aspect ratio is 1:1.5 (very rectangular). The new aspect ratio is nearly 1:1 (nearly square). What has happened?

Are you trying to make an image fit on the upper portion of an 8x10 theatrical glossy? If so, the cropping is probably appropriate, so long as you can live with what was cut out of the picture.

I say this because "1820x1936" will yield about a 6" x 6.5" image at 300 DPI. The printer can alter the DPI a bit to size it exactly for your needs, but the proportions will remain the same.

I make theatrical 8x10s. The image size I use is 7.5" x 8.75" with a 1/4" margin on top and sides. That leaves space at the bottom for the lettering. At 300DPI, the resolution works out to 2250x2625. I crop to the correct proportions and res-up or res-down as needed to suit. For example:



Hope that helps![/font]

[miss-leslie]

[font color=\'#000000\']Nice shot!

You are correct about the cropping - actually the original shot was pretty weird.  I was sitting down on the floor and the photographer was standing on a chair.  My body ended up at an angle on the picture.  In order to crop it straight on, my husband first rotated the image 45 degrees counter-clockwise, then used the rubber stamp feature to extend the background.  It turned out great!  And then I took it to the printers and started all of this hullaballoo.  I think they are focused on dpi (which I think has to do with the settings on their machines?).  They never checked the pixel dimensions or asked about it.

I measured the picture and it's 8x8.5".  My husband thinks it looks better at 96dpi as opposed to 300dpi but I don't really notice a difference.

Thanks again, Bob for all of the help.[/font]

[Lin Evans]

[font color=\'#000000\']

My husband thinks it looks better at 96dpi as opposed to 300dpi but I don't really notice a difference.

Though this has been covered, I'm not sure it's yet clear so let me add my .02 ....

The "only" thing which is important is the file size in pixels (horizontal by vertical). Print density has absolutely nothing to do with anything and is only important to the print device. Display density (how many pixels per inch) depends on your graphics card, settings and the size you wish to see the image on display. So things like 96 ppi (not dpi) and 300 dpi don't even belong in the same frame of reference.

A digital camera captures an image at full resolution, whatever that may be depending on the sensor itself. At a given capture resolution (file dimension) of so many pixels wide by so many pixels tall, there is but a single size which can be printed at a fixed "print density" of so many "dpi". If the print device wants 300 dots per inch, then you divide the horizontal number of pixels and the vertical number of pixels by 300 and that gives you the one and only dimensions the file can be printed at for 300 dpi. Let's say we have a 2 megapixel capture which is 1600 pixels by 1200 pixels (horizontal by vertical). Then dividing 1600 pixels across by 300 dots per inch desired print density yields 5.33 inches wide. Dividing 1200 pixels (the height) by 300 dots per inch yields 4.00 inches. So the "only" size print possible at 300 dpi for this file is 5.33 inches by 4.00 inches.

But you don't want a 5.33 by 4.00 inch print you want an 8x10. To get this you then must "add" pixels to get to an appropriate matrix size to yield an 8x10 print. Multiply 10 by 300 and you get 3000 pixels. Multiply 8 by 300 and you get 2400. So the "interpolation" algorithm must increase the file size to 3000 by 2400 pixels to get an 8x10 print at 300 dpi.

You'll notice this has nothing to do with the 72 dpi (actually ppi) display pixel density or the 96 ppi display density. If you display the 1600 pixels at 96 pixels per inch on the screen, the image will be 16.66 inches in width (1600/96=16.66). It will be 12.5 inches tall (1200/96=12.5). These number simply represent how many pixels your display card shows within one inch of screen space. Notice that nothing has been "done" to the file, but if you "ask" the computer to display this file within a prescribed space which is less than 16.66 inches by 12.5 inches and keep the 96 dots or "pixels" per inch density, then the computer must downsample the file matrix to an appropriate display size by temprorarily "removing" pixels.

You want to send the full sized file to the printer. Don't interpolate or downsample it, let them take care of that on their end when they print. Printers (the machine, not the person) have their own print drivers  which RIP (provide interpolation or downsampling) the file appropriately for the desired print size.

Just have the photographer give you the images he took, let your husband make any necessary improvements then save them at the full resolution size and don't worry about the 72dpi or 96dpi or 300dip - it's not important at this stage.

Best regards,

Lin[/font]