Welcome to FAA. I noticed your account was just set up this week.
I just asked Rich Franco this very same question in a private message because I didn't want to start another thread !
His advice is to leave the image at the resolution that comes out of the camera and not to upsize the image size or try to increase the resolution. So if 72 it is, then 72 it stays.
Another discussion thread on image resolution that is posted on the forum suggested to not offer all of print sizes that the FAA upload makes available. If you're not sure how the image will print out in a large format because of pixel size or resolution, then instead of putting sales prices in all the available fields, leaving the two highest sizes blank will make those sizes unavailable for print.
here's a different way to look at it that is better:
PPI, pixels per inch, has no real meaning until you make a print. Only Until then, you just have PIXELS, and inches are not physical, just imaginary. Don't change the resolution. if you do, the image will be resampled, and the image quality will be degraded as a result. This is not intuitive to most people. But the advice to leave your image at its original camera resolution is correct. Just make sure that your camera is set to its highest possible resolution and quality when you shoot the photo, and leave it at that resolution when you edit it. You will, of course, lose a few pixels as your crop it, of course, but this is unavoidable.
I just read your comment. I shoot with a Canon 7D, at it's highest quality and size. The file it makes is something like 28,000x24,000. (Don't quite me on that) at 72 resolution. So you're saying that I should do my post editing with out changing any size, except my cropping. I will try that the next time. I assume that FAA does their changing of resolution to meet there printers requirements. This is all starting to make sense. Am I reading your explanation correctly??
Yes. Your image does not really have physical dimensions until it is printed. Only then do inches and pixels per inch have any relevance. Until then, it's just pixels. Just offer the pixels for printers, and let the printer's software scale it appropriately to make it the size that is ordered.
I think that you may have your settings set for a jpeg quality that is too low. Your camera, I'm sure, will capture bigger files and should be, out of the camera, 180 or 240 dpi. I would advise you to shoot some RAW files and then look at those and you will see a much larger file and a better file to edit from. Let me know if you have any questions about this, I shoot Canon and I think this is just a "Menu-Settings" thing.
I do shoot RAW. My Canon 7D is about 18MP and it does produce huge files. After editing them in Photoshop I have been opening them as JPEGs at 240 dpi res with about 3800 pixels on the long side The file is about 9MP give or take. I then crop them to the size I want, i.e. 16x20, at 240dpi, for printing. I have been doing my own printing for several years.
There is an option of opening the images from the RAW conversion to different resolutions. I think you are telling me to open those files to 72 instead of the 240 as it would be a much larger file, about 25MP.
You see, I was always under the impression that print resolution was 240 or 300, preferably. That is why I was reluctant to upload files at 72. I couldn't understand how FAA could print them at that resolution.
I don't understand how FAA prints at 100 DPI either, but apparently they do.
I have also heard and read the same as you. Minimum 240 DPI for printing and 300 DPI is optimal.
If you read FAA's own printing chart, you will see that they also consider 300DPI to be optimal, but whenever I mention this chart (ON THE FAA SITE), I get told off.
My Canon 40d outputs files at 72PPI (not DPI - dots per inch is only for printing). If you go to the image size menu, in photoshop, you will see that at 72PPI, the working canvas is huge. If you change the PPI to 300, but un-check re-resampling, you will see that the file keeps the original pixels, but shrinks the canvas size. You would do this, if you were printing yourself. For FAA, I would just work with the image in whatever PPI the camera outputs and then upload to FAA.
The 72PPI coming from the camera, has nothing to do with JPEG quality settings. Lower or raising the JPEG quality in the camera, will simply affect the overall number of pixels (resolution) recorded, it will not change your camera output of 72PPI.
Every manufacturer is different. My Pentax outputs at 240PPI. It means nothing and has no affect on the resolution of the original image.
The minimum for 240 or 300 dpi for printing is for halftones, as in magazine. Digital printing, which does NOT use halftones, but accurately reproduces the pixels of your image can be printed at a much lower dpi and still look good. Halftone process "eats up" a lot of the resolution of an image. Digital printing does not.
edit: fixed my misstatement, changed higher to lower.
I think you meant to say "..... can be printed at a much LOWER dpi and still look good".
I did not know this, but would explain how FAA is able to do it and not get returns. This is good to know though as my cameras are only 10MP and 16MP (crop sensors) and at 300DPI would not have enough pixels to produce poster size prints. At 100 DPI, I should be able to print up to 36". (depending on the quality of the image - sharpness, motion blur, noise, exposure)
I think the original question however, was more about the native PPI from the camera. Which as I mentioned above, really does not matter. My 40d spits out "highest setting" JPEGS at 72PPI, but the working canvas in Photoshop is about 47inches. If I adjust the PPI higher, without re-sampling, it does not change original pixel count and my canvas simply shrinks to match.
If the OP works on and uploads his images in the native 72PPI, it will not mean they have less quality, as the resolution is in the overall pixel count, not PPI.
@ Bob I would definitely choose the 240 not the 72 for resolution. You have a camera that should produce nice large files. It's my understanding that the the largest file your camera can produce will give you the best quality for printing. I wouldn't choose a resolution that is higher than what your camera produces however because that would enlarge your photo and reduce quality. Hope that helps. :-)
My 40d ( a good prosumer camera) outputs "highest setting" JPEGS and displays them in Photoshop at 72PPI. Every camera is different. The PPI coming from the camera DOES NOT MATTER. The only thing that matter is the PIXEL COUNT and the quality of the shot.
For example, if my camera outputs an image of 3000x4000 pixels (to make the math easy), it opens in Photoshop and displays at a default 72PPI. This means that the image/canvas size is on the long side 4000 pixels, divided by 72 pixels per inch. = 55 inch canvas.
NONE OF THE ABOVE MATTERS AND WILL NOT AFFECT THE IMAGE IF UPLOADED TO FAA IN THIS FORMAT.
"I wouldn't choose a resolution that is higher than what your camera produces however because that would enlarge your photo and reduce quality. Hope that helps. :-)"
This is only true, under one circumstance and if it happens, then the user did not know what they were doing.
Take my 3000x4000 pixel image (native pixels). It opens in Photoshop at a default 72PPI and produces a 55 inch canvas. If for some reason (not sure why) I would want to increase the PPI to work on the image, I would open "IMAGE SIZE" in Photoshop, change the PPI box to 300 (say) and then UNCHECK "RE-SAMPLING".
Here is the math - What this does is takes the long side 4000 pixels divided by 300 pixels per inch, to produce a 13 inch (approx) canvas. HOWEVER, you will see at the top that the native pixel count has not changed and remains at 3000x4000. This is the proper way to increase PPI, without degrading the image quality. There is no change to the original pixel count.
However, if I went through the same procedure and "forgot" to uncheck the "re-sample" box, this is what would happen. It would take the long side of 4000 pixels and multiply by 300 pixels per inch and it would MAINTAIN the canvas size of 55 inches and in order to do this, would INCREASE the pixel count to 12000 pixels on the long side.
That image was taken with my Pentax K-01 and it opens in Photoshop at a native 240PPI. I just leave it and upload the way it is.
I could have changed it to 72PPI with "RE-SAMPLING" turned off and it would maintain the same native pixel count and would look no different to you on the screen, nor would it print any differently with FAA's printers. The print shops deal in DPI not PPI and they do not care if the image is uploaded at 72PPI, 180DPI, 240PPI, 300PPI, as long as you do not mess with the original pixel count and either subtract or add artificial pixels to the image.
Thanks Tiny I'm going to do some more research online to make sure I understand the concept. I don't generally resize for FAA, I crop and I was referring to when you crop an image, I always set my crop tool to "no restriction" and I don't alter the ppi. This way if I'm right in my thinking I'm not making the photo larger so it actually makes it smaller. When I select my print options in FAA if I have cropped my photo and it comes out to be around 8 X 10 or so after cropping for example I don't offer it much larger than an 11 X 14. But I'm going to do my homework too and report back with what I find ;-)
Excellent article Lara!!!! It does a much better job of explaining it, than I did.
Definitely one that needs to be saved to the helpful hints page, as this is a misconception, I keep seeing over and over again, throughout the threads. I gave up debating it, as I was always shot down pretty quick.
Resizing is not a bad thing..... Re-sampling is :)
I should clarify that: Re-sampling is a bad thing if you are increases the number of pixels, (interpolation). However, if you are looking to create a web display image of 500px wide, then by all means re-sample, but make sure you choose "bicubic sharper" when downsizing.
If you absolutely must re-sample larger (don't do this for FAA), do the interpolation in increments. For example, increase the size by 10% and keep doing that until you reach what you want. There are also dedicated software programs, that can allow you to add (interpolate) pixels up to (their claim) 600%. The software is "Perfect Resize 7 (used to be Genuine Fractals). Be careful how you use this though.
PS for Bob you may want to check the quality you have your camera set to and make sure you have everything set to the largest and highest quality settings if they are only coming out of your camera at 72. Mine usually come out of my camera at 240 when I shoot raw.
A camera that outputs at 72PPI is no different than one that outputs at 240PPI
For example. - back to the DSLR that outputs a 3000px x 4000px. image at highest quality.
3000 x 4000 at 72PPI has the same "resolution" as 3000 x 4000 at 240PPI. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE SIZE OF THE WORKING CANVAS WHEN YOU OPEN THE IMAGE IN PHOTOSHOP.
The camera that outputs at 72PPI will open in Photoshop with a default canvas of approx 55 inches on the long side
The camera that outputs at 240PPI will open in Photoshop with a default canvas of aprox 17 inches on the long side
BOTH ARE THE SAME NATIVE RESOLUTION AND HAVE THE SAME PIXEL COUNT.
a 16MP camera from two different manufactures, both set at highest JPEG quality could output at different default PPI settings. They would both have the same pixel count (width and height) and would have the same resolution.
The only time the three letter abbreviation matters is when you go to print and that is DPI NOT PPI.
Thanks Tiny but you do agree that it's best to set your camera to it's highest quality settings don't you? Perhaps my confusion is because I have a Nikon and Bob has a Canon and the PPI is different even though they are both set to the highest quality. :-)
I am going to go back and make sure to read all the above posts more carefully, but wanted to mention that I have several different point and shoot digital cameras, ge, canon, sony, nikon, patasonic and so on (IF I were smart enough I would have taken all that money to spend on one good camera!). Different cameras put out images at different resolutions: images come out of my cameras at 400dpi - out of another at 72dpi but at a huge "inch" measurement, like 50-60 inches!
Everyone on FAA says do not resize, but I normally interpret this as actually meaning do not enlarge - am I right or wrong about that?
I have a difficult time bringing myself to upload a 72dpi image here, particularly in that other POD sites I belong to want "huge resolution" images and actually say the bigger the better.
RATHER than post a 72dpi image that came off my camera at 40x60 inches, what I do is REDUCE the inch measurement and increase the dpi IN MULTIPLES OF 72 (normally to 360) in order to minimize any pixel breakup due to resampling. I would like to inquire whether I am on the right track with this or not. If this is wrong thinking on my part, I will desist this practice and concentrate on taking my pictures with a camera that puts out at 400 dpi and not plan to change anything about the image size.
On the subject, still, of post processing, I have another question having to do with file format - though I believe I have seen something about this on another thread to the effect that every time you save a JPEG image something in it degrades.
In fact, a few years ago, someone ordered a print of mine on redbubble of a scene from nearby Sawgrass Park. Believe it or not, someone at Redbubble actually called me to say that there would be a problem printing this person's order because of, as she said, too much "JPEG artifaction." I had never heard of this term before. She said if I still had access to the original file, could I please upload that - I said I didn't, but that Sawgrass Park is like five minutes from me and I knew just where I was standing when I snapped that shot - how about I run over there and take another picture, and she said "great."
So that's what I did. The result was not precisely from the same angle, and the shadowing of leaves and branches on the bank of the stream was not exactly identical, but it was still a lovely shot - and RB communicated with the print buyer to ascertain whether the new picture would be acceptable, and it was. Frankly I call that going above and beyond the call of duty as far as customer service is concerned, because the buyer was happy with the print that was finally received, and I learned a bit about not doing multiple SAVES when i am working on an image. The RB representative told me the same thing, that something degrades every time I save a JPEG.
Therefore, since then, what I plan on is doing all of my processing of an image in one sitting - no matter how many layers or filters I use - I get it done and collapsed and do only one SAVE. If I do have to save something in mid process, I will save it as a PNG or a POS or maybe anything else other than a JPEG, and I save that file format for the final product.
So. What I would like to see feedback about are these two points - multiplying my 72dpi images by multiples of 72 and whether reducing the so-called inch measurement is an acceptable form of "resizing," and - doing only one save (or only one in JPEG format) on an image results in a better file for printing than one that has been reworked and gone through multiple saves.
Thanks Tiny - never need to apologize for being honest - I appreciate the info. So I will not alter the size/ppi/resolution of any image for uploading to FAA. I DO however need to reduce the size of images for sharing in other venues - I have had complaints about images I email to someone opening so big they can see only part of an eyeball on screen and have to scroll around to get an idea of what the rest of the picture is about - lol.
If any of the 13 cameras you have,(LOL) can shoot RAW, then that's the best possible scenario. Do your work and then save it as a PNG or PSD and call it "Master" and from there, duplicate it, reduce it to 8 bits and save it as a jpeg and then upload that file. If you have images that are being sold, a lot, then you should upload a new vserion. See below:
"JPEGs lose quality every time they are opened, edited and saved."
"True. If a JPEG image is opened, edited, and saved again it results in additional image degradation. It is very important to minimize the number of editing sessions between the initial and final version of a JPEG image. If you must perform editing functions in several sessions or in several different programs, you should use an image format that is not lossy (TIFF, BMP, PNG) for the intermediate editing sessions before saving the final version. Repeated saving within the same editing session won't introduce additional damage. It is only when the image is closed, re-opened, edited and saved again."
And as far as sending images as emails and they're really just for viewing, not printing, I always just go to Image size, make them 72 dpi and about 8" on the long side and they will open up fine. If you are using Windows, it's even easier! Just open the folder with the image/s you want to send(have your email program open) and just click on the image and you'll see at the top, next to slide show, print,etc, "email" this will grab the image/s and attach them to your email and ask whether you want the original size or "best for emailing", choose that last one and you're done!
Bob, sorry, we seemed to have hijacked your thread! But it's related, sorta,kinda!
I would add one more thing to what Rich is saying. Whenever downsizing and re-sampling, choose "bi-cubic sharper" in the drop down menu, beside the "re-sampling" check box.
To use both Rich's and my example.
If you took that 3000x4000 image and wanted to create a display for web or email, this is the process I would use.
1. Make the PPI 72, make sure that "constrain proportions" is checked and then change the pixels at the top, to 500, on the long side. The short side will automatically adjust to keep the same ratio, since you have the "constrain proportions" box checked. This will automatically adjust the "size" (inches). 500pixels at 72PPI, will work out to a 7inch image, on the long side.
2. Make sure that "re-sampling" is checked and that you have chosen "bi-cubic sharper" in the drop down box. (Most web applications/sites, will specify a maximum pixel width or height, not the actual size in inches.). I like 500 pixels width when sending an email or uploading for display online (facebook for example), but some sites, will allow you to go wider. The wider you go, the more risk of the entire image not showing on the screen, without having to scroll horizontally.
The size in inches, does not matter when being viewed online or in the email. It is the pixel width or height that needs to be set. If the person you are emailing to, decided to print the image, then it would print to 7inches, on the long side.
EDIT - If you look at what FAA displays, in your profile, that is 900pixels wide. 500-600 pixels is a good size for email and facebook. :)
At the risk of repeating myself. I use two high-end Canon cameras. I do have my cameras set at the HIGHEST, BEST QUALITY. I shoot RAW, the images come out of the camera 72ppi. Tiny calls it the "native" resolution. After editing, I save them as 240ppi JPEG files, as my printer is an Epson, and it prints better at that resolution.
I print my own work on my own wide printer, up to a 13x19. For larger work I e-mail 300ppi files to a very good online print shop.
I've got an old Epson 2200 13 x 19" printer, which I use for images and also everyday printing, that does really good stuff. My friend here in town, has the big Epson 9900, which is 44" wide! When making big prints on that we usually use 300 dpi, because that's what Epson likes. Anything more than that and it's wasted. On really big prints, 40"x 60" I use 180 and the image still looks great!
Getting back to your original question, 72 vs 240, I still don't understand why your RAW files are opening up in Camera RAW at 72! My little point and shoot opens up at 180 ppi and both the Canon 1Ds and 1Ds MKIII open at 240, which is the "native" resolution that Tiny mentioned. So, my image from the 1DsMKIII is 4096 x 6144 pixels, 17.067" x 25.60" and @240 ppi and opens up in Photoshop at 144MB @ 16 bits. Does that sound right to you?
It really doesn't matter, just don't know if it's in the "preferences" of ACR or the settings in your camera.
I use Reliable Photo for my larger stuff. They do excellent work. I recently sold a 20x30 of the "Mule Ears at Dusk" I simply uploaded a 20x30 image that I had cropped myself (at 240) and it turned out excellent. I have used them for several years.
I am 78 years old, but not necessarily computer illiterate, however I do know that I have tried to teach myself all of this stuff, and maybe I am missing something along the way.
I shoot my images in both RAW and JPEG. Dual images, so to speak. Just to be safe. I don't want any senior moments. Anyway, those figures I got when I open up the JPEG file. 5184p x 3456p at 72 res. I just assumed that the RAW opened up the same. When I am done editing it opens up in PS as a JPEG to those dimensions, except I can vary the resolution. At 240 it is 8-bits.
BTW, I read a couple of years ago that the desktop printers by Epson performed better at 240. Before that I used 300 as you. Honestly, I really can't see any difference in the prints.
If you uploaded your image to FAA in these two ways, it would make no difference to the print quality.
1. 4096 x 6144 @ 72PPI
2. 4096 x 6144 @ 240PPI
It would not matter either way. All that matters is that both files, contain all the original (native) pixels.
So it does not matter if your camera outputs at 72PPI (like my Canon 40D, which is not a low level camera), or Bob's camera. It is making sure the output is the most overall pixels, the camera is capable of generating. PPI means nothing, except for viewing size in Photoshop.
EDIT - Bob's camera is outputting this - 5184p x 3456p at 72 res. which means he is opening an image in Photoshop with a canvas of 72inches on the long side. If he works with that image, just the way it is and uploads it to FAA, it will be just as good as if he was to change the PPI (not re-sample) to 240 and upload the same 5184x3456 image. The only difference would be his working canvas size in Photoshop, which would change to 21.6 inches.
Your image at at 4096 x 6144 outputted at 240PPI, opens in photoshop with a canvas of 25.6 inches on the long side. However, if for some reason your camera manufacturer set it to output at 72PPI, you would still have the same number of pixels, there would be no quality difference and the only change would be the canvas size photoshop opened your image with. This would change to 85.3inches.
guess what i am saying is.... it does not matter what PPI your camera outputs at.
EDIT 2 - If we were talking about DPI, then this would be a totaly different conversation. Then the 72 and 240 do matter, to the final printed output. However, the number of pixels would not change in the image, just the printing size.
4096 x 6144 @ 72 "DPI" would print - 85.3 inches on the long side
4096 x 6144 @ 240 "DPI" would print - 25.6 inches on the long side.
Ok, let's try this. When you get a chance, either go shoot new image or upload a RAW file that you haven't processed through ACR and see what comes out. In the box at the bottom of ACR, there is a window and that should give you the file size and ppi,etc. You can click on that window and it will show what other sizes you can use, up or down. According to what I've read, you CAN go 1 level up, using this process and not have any issues, give it a try!
I was interested in what you had to say in your last post to Rich.
Not knowing what to do as I am new when I started my FAA page, I uploaded my image of "Mule Ears at Dusk". The size is 7200p x 4800p at 240 resolution. It is the same image that I had sent to Reliable Photo for them to print me a 20x30, which turned out excellent and I sold. BTW, it was smaller than the FAA limit of 25MB.
Now what I did yesterday, I went and ordered a 20x30 from FAA, just as I would if I was a customer. I paid 42.00 for it but I wanted to see what the quality that FAA put out. I received an acknowledgement and it is being printed. So stay tuned......
Frankly, I don't see why it should be any different than the one I got from Reliable Photo.
If you change the PPI, it will not change your pixel count. They will remain at 5184 x 3456. All it will do is make the canvas size smaller. The resolution is the overall pixel count, which will not change. Changing the PPI of your image, using that info bar, will not improve the "resolution" or quality of the image in any way.
I have no other way of trying to explain, but you will see what I mean, when you try it. :)
Tiny, I agree with you. That is why the images that I uploaded originally, were at the ppi or dpi, call it what you want. I didn't change anything, and I am going to continue that way, and see what happens.
BTW, the 40D is a great camera. I had two of them for a couple of years and thought they were the 'cat's meow'. Then the 7D came out and wow, the difference between night and day. It blew me away, and I bought two of them.
My manual, and another book on the 7D, shows no info on having the image at 16 bit. Only in Canon Raw, at the bottom of the window, I can alter that to change from 8 bit to 16 bit. (excuse my typo in my previous message where I said 60). But of course, that just governs the way the image will open up in PS. And I have always kept it at 8 bit and 72 resolution.
I just set my camera to the same as your's and got this: 5616 x 3744 pixels, 52" x 78" @ 72 ppi, when I open it up directly in Photoshop. The other file is RAW and opens in ACR as 240 ppi and 16 bits, which I think is really 14 bits, from what I remember.
I do ALL my editing with the larger 16 bit file and then,when done, call it a "Master", duplicate it, save the original "master", as a PSD and then take the new duplicate and make that the image for prints and stuff, @ 8 bits.
From what I know, it's much better to work from the 16 bit image, when making adjustments and fixing things, since there is much more info in that big file,
I have a fairly inexpensive digital camera, a GE Power Pro X500 16MP with 15x zoom, and images upload to my computer from it saying they are 72dpi and something like 50x60 "inches" similar to what other posters have reported but, as someone else said, there is no reason a modern camera should produce only 72dpi - particularly when other cameras I have come out at three or four hundred.
On the subject of size, the manual for this camera only says "The size setting refers to the image resolution in pixels. A higher image resolution allows you to print that image in larger sizes without degrading the image quality. The bigger the number of recorded pixels is, the better the image quality becomes. As the number of recorded pixels becomes smaller, you will be able to record more images on a memory card." Well, I know that much already, and I would rather store fewer high-quality images on my memory card than dozens of crappy ones.
Under the above-quoted sentences from the manual, there is a screen shot of (presumably) the proper menu screen with little icons across the bottom, and the one that is highlighted is a little rectangle with "16M" noted in the corner and the notation "Size: High quality printing." The other icons following the highlighted one range down to a rectangle that has "0.3M" - but I cannot seem to navigate on my own camera to that screen. CAN ANYBODY PLEASE tell me HOW to get to the controls in the camera menu to make this adjustment - or at least tell me where in the manual I have overlooked the instructions to do so.
It's a myth that "other cameras I have come out at three or four hundred" ... as said above: Cameras shoot pixels, and only pixels. The DPI output is just a number ... it could be any number, it doesn't make a difference. The in-camera DPI only relates pixels to absolute units (inches). Camera producers use a higher pixel number because that makes their camera more impressive, because "normal" people have no idea why there is a dpi number to begin with.
All digital cameras capture information at 72 dots per inch. The 72 DPI was chosen because digital play back happened originally on TV and TV sets play back at 72 DPI.
I don't know your camera, but I'd say that to change your camera settings to activate the little rectangle that says "0.3M" you'll have to change the setting from LARGE = High quality = file size 13M to SMALL(er) = Low(er) quality = file size 0,3M.
I know about the myth and dpi is just a number - i'm just saying when i download an image from a camera and go into image size that's what it says in dpi and inches - just numbers on the screen but it's all i have to go on. and yes i do have a number of cameras and some of them have different numbers on the screen indicating a measurement of some sort of the image size.
and yes i know i will have to change the setting but was hoping for someone among the how many thousands of faa members who have cameras there might be one or two who are familiar with "GE Power Pro X500 16MP with 15x zoom" and who either has actually been successful and can tell me how to navigate the in-camera menu to get to the icon in order to accomplish that or can tell me once and for all it can't be done and i am stuck with what i've got - which is the number 72 in the space that says dpi in the box supposed to indicate image size. if as i am told faa prints at 100 dpi and i am not supposed to enlarge an image in post processing i sense a discrepancy and do not know how to deal with it.