Help needed with cropping and sizing for Prints

[rainer]

Just can't make sense out of this.
I did what i was asked to do by my Photo developer. That is; Make sure that i have 300DPI when sizing down to a smaller size. Ok" Easy enough i thought. I used common sense and to not reduce the size too much and left it to at least 800x600 and (left the preserve aspect ratio - If that was correct?)
I cropped it for a frame of 8x10, send it off via e-mail and hoped for the best.
No luck. he informed me that the frame crop size didn't match on his end.
I don't know what else there is to do? I don't understand the size aspect very well at all. All sounds like jibberish to me.
Is there not a software that does the cropping resizing and setting the 300DPI so that the other person gets it just like that? I use FX Foto for the artistic stuff but this program is not much good doing the above for me. The other Program i tried for sizing e.t.c is Infanview.
Anyone?
Thank you.

[RJohnston]

Am not positive but believe that a 1000x800 or an 800x1000 @300ppi would be about right for an 8x10.

Just checked in Photoshop.
Using the cropping tool I set the size to 10x8 and went to crop it, it fit the borders of the image exactly...

[John at the Beach]

When you crop it for a particular size, do not use pixel size, crop it using what you want, in inches...In photoshop set the size (8x10 inches)and choose dpi and crop...You get the exact dimentions you put in...An 8x10 @ 300 dpi would be 3000x2400 pixels...Make sure you crop from the original or full res shot...

[KmH]

The aspect ratio of an image is the relationship of the long side of the image to the short side.

So an 8x10 is an aspect ratio of 5:4 (10/2=5 and 8/2=4) or in decimal form 5/4=1.25. The long side is 1.25 times the short side. Your image was 800x600 (800/600=1.33). The long side is 1.33 times the short side. 1.33 does not = 1.25 so yothe image you emailed wouldn't fit the 8x10 paper properly. If the y made the long side fit they would have to distort the short side to fill the 8x10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_Ratio

[Eero Makela]

How to Crop Your Digital Photo for Printing

[Eero Makela]

Need 8x10s without cropping chunks of my photos! - Digital Darkroom Forum

The Nikon D3 has a 5:4 crop mode however that causes the 12mb image to be only around 10mb (I forget) but then it will always be 8x10 in the final image no need to do anything.
However that is only on D3 and I would not pay $3000 for that feature

I actually print mine at 11x17 which is very close to 4x6 (2:3) only small loss on the sides of portrait

[rainer]

Ok" Thank you everyone for your in put. It is much appreciated.
I have learned since that cropping any image down to size does not affect the pixel size itself.
Pixel size is used to determine the size of an image.
Boy! Takes a little getting ones Head around all of this since i never had to deal with such things.
I also learned that some Software are not all displaying the same information and that can be difficult too. For example: One Software would display the pixel size being quiet large but the ppi being displayed and kept at the same level. Then there are other Software that will display a higher PPI and the Pixel size being displayed differently. Non of this of course helps People like me and only aids in to adding confusions.

Thanks again. Always learning more stuff.

[rainer]

Yes" Thank you for that.
It does show for an 8x10 being a 1200x1600 pixels
Where as the Software i use for cropping an 8x10 will show 1240x2847 pixels at 72 ppi. So from what i can make sense out of is: Because the ppi is 72 is why the pixel size is larger to also cater for larger prints just the same as a ppi 300 of 1200x1600.
Am i correct on this? Kind of one Software doing things back to front. Yes?

Originally Posted by Eero Makela

How to Crop Your Digital Photo for Printing

[rainer]

Now this is a nice crop of a Photo. Nice to meet you. Lol

Originally Posted by Eero Makela

Need 8x10s without cropping chunks of my photos! - Digital Darkroom Forum

The Nikon D3 has a 5:4 crop mode however that causes the 12mb image to be only around 10mb (I forget) but then it will always be 8x10 in the final image no need to do anything.
However that is only on D3 and I would not pay $3000 for that feature

I actually print mine at 11x17 which is very close to 4x6 (2:3) only small loss on the sides of portrait

[rainer]

Corrections I mean to write 8x6 and pixel size 2140x2847

Originally Posted by rainer

Yes" Thank you for that.
It does show for an 8x10 being a 1200x1600 pixels
Where as the Software i use for cropping an 8x10 will show 1240x2847 pixels at 72 ppi. So from what i can make sense out of is: Because the ppi is 72 is why the pixel size is larger to also cater for larger prints just the same as a ppi 300 of 1200x1600.
Am i correct on this? Kind of one Software doing things back to front. Yes?

[RJohnston]

You do NOT want to crop at 72 ppi (pixels per inch) for printing.
PPI is the resolution or the amount of detail in a picture. 72 is find for displaying an image on a website, etc... But for printing the results will not be so fine. Id use no less than 250 or 300 ppi for images which will be printed.

[rainer]

Thank you for your input. It is appreciated.

I had done some research on this and had lenghtly e-mail correspondence with the Support Staff of the FXFOTO Software. He kept arguing that cropping a photo down to a size of 8x10 is not cropping?!! Yet they have the size on their Software stating 8x10 and so on where one drags the suqare rope to that particular size.
Everyone refers to it as cropping. I do understand that it implies cropping of a pixel size in inches or in cm. But" It is still cropping to me.......
I also have found since that DPI and PPI are two different things.
DPI (Dot Per Inch) for Printer dots per square inch designated and used for Printer settings. PPI Pixel per square inch refering to your Photo image.
Many people share confusion on this as i did. But" too many out there are writing big essay's on it. Keep it simple is the best way as you have done here.
I have also been explained and there is also some write up supporting this.
That" ..>
The total pixel size is what is important and that the 72 ppi or 300ppi are just a useless number.
It's been suggested that Developers should provide People with the information on what total pixel size is needed instead of feeding everyone with a DPI that is dedicated to the setting of their Printers. As long as they get the total pixel amount that is needed to do the print is from what i have been reading is what matters matters.
I will add a link to it later to share this information with everyone here. I think it is worth the read. I myself have to read it again just to make sure that what i wrote here is correct. It is a challenging read as it basicaly disproves or tries to disprove what people have been tought is wrong.
This may open up a can of Worms here. But then again; Healthy debates are always good.

Originally Posted by RJohnston

You do NOT want to crop at 72 ppi (pixels per inch) for printing.
PPI is the resolution or the amount of detail in a picture. 72 is find for displaying an image on a website, etc... But for printing the results will not be so fine. Id use no less than 250 or 300 ppi for images which will be printed.

[RJohnston]

Originally Posted by rainer

Thank you for your input. It is appreciated.

I had done some research on this and had lengthy e-mail correspondence with the Support Staff of the FXFOTO Software. He kept arguing that cropping a photo down to a size of 8x10 is not cropping?!! Yet they have the size on their Software stating 8x10 and so on where one drags the square rope to that particular size.
Everyone refers to it as cropping. I do understand that it implies cropping of a pixel size in inches or in cm. But" It is still cropping to me........

When you crop, you do not change "pixel size" it remains the same, but there are fewer pixels in the file. It removes the ones on the outside of the image in the area you cut off...

Cropping no matter what anyone says, is when you cut anything out of an image to fit it into a specific size.... To communicate, everyone must use the same definitions. Many learn words who never look them up in a dictionary, they just begin using them.

This can be confusing in a discussion if someone is talking about reducing the size of an entire image to 8x10... and the other person is thinking about cutting the size by cropping.

If you want to create an 8x10 and retain all that is in the image, you can. As an example: I use a zoom, and make all images by zooming to contain only what I want in that image.

When I want an 8x10 basically can reduce the size in the Photoshop. Click Image, image size and look in the section called DOCUMENT SIZE. By clicking on the triangle to the right of "Width" you can change the setting to inches. Then, simply change the size in inches in the box to 8x10...

NOW, lets say your camera format does not fit into an 8x10, and it would have to be cropped. Except for Portraits, we can be creative, take artistic license. Uncheck "constrain proportions" then change the box to 8x10 and everything fits, if you like it. In a landscape, no one but you may know the dimension was changed. In a portrait, it would distort the size or shape of the head so is a no no. (Make sure you check constrain proportions when you finish, otherwise it will change all future images.)

Then, change the size in the by setting the full dimensions to 8x10 inches and 300 pixels per inch.... (Then save this with a DIFFERENT file name, to protect the original.)

This reduces the total size of the "file" for transfer or printing, but still contains the entire image, thus it is not cropped.

It is all about definitions, not everyone understands the definitions.. There is a lot of confusion about what PPI (pixels per inch) means which gives resolution and DPI (Dots per inch) means which results in a good or poor print.

If you use fewer pixels, say 72 vs 300 in the smaller number of pixels you are actually losing resolution. If you have your own printer, try this. Take an image that has 300 Pixels Per Inch, and print it at 72 Dots Per Inch, say a 4x6 if you have a small printer. Then, print the same 300 PPI image at 300 Dots per inch, note the drastic difference. They are the same final size, but the 300 PPI image printed at 300 DPI certainly looks better.

Then, take the same 300 PPI image, change it to 72 Pixels per inch, and print it at 300 Dots Per Inch, note the difference.

Try another experiment, take the 300 Pixels per inch file and print it at 1200 Dots per inch and notice the difference. I believe you will like this image even better than all the others.

Printers who make commercial prints print at 300 Dots per inch instead of 1200 or even 2400 Dots per inch to save money it uses less ink or dye and takes less time. They believe that 300 DPI makes an acceptable image, BUT, the images printed in National Geographic Magazine are printed with a higher DPI so they look much better than images printed in other magazines.

Which do YOU prefer, if you like prints printed at higher DPI, get a good printer and print your best prints youself at a higher DPI. It will cost you more than at 300 DPI, BUT, Printers are making a profit on what they charge you. Put that profit they make towards a good printer and better quality ink. Print only your BEST or Exhibition quality images, and send the rest to a commercial printer.

In Dots per inch a PRINTING term that has been used ever since printing began. Printers understand it, as I went to school to learn printing with a Press in the 40's we had ONLY that term in both Photography and Printing of photographs and Printing Presses. Pixels Per Inch PPI did not come into existence until Digital Photography and Scanning of Photographs. So since the beginning of Commercial Photo Printing they used DPI, as those doing the work were used to Printing Presses.

Problems come when we do not print our own images. When I began in 1937 doing my own Developing and Printing, we experimented a LOT. We would make at least three, sometimes a dozen or even more prints at various settings to see the result in all the changes.

When I went to New York Institute of Photography and learned color printing, we made a dozen prints using various filter settings to see results. You learn a lot from experimenting. Today all Photographers need to Experiment, experiment, experiment if they really want to learn what their equipment will do. They need to experiment with Photoshop and a printer, to learn what will produce the best results.

You might print this and save it for reference.
Read it several times and practice to really learn.

[rainer]

Here is the link i spoke of. It is better at explaining it than i.
http://www.dpiphoto.eu/dpi.htm

[rainer]

Thank you for that. I have saved it and will read it later. I did add a link on one of my posts.
Have a look and tell me what you think? Cheers" Ray
http://www.dpiphoto.eu/dpi.htm

[RJohnston]

Originally Posted by rainer

Thank you for that. I have saved it and will read it later. I did add a link on one of my posts.
Have a look and tell me what you think? Cheers" Ray
http://www.dpiphoto.eu/dpi.htm

To confuse the issue even more, he has errors in his article, he needs to proofread the content.

" From the moment you are going to print there is the matter of size, given in inches or centimeters. Only then you can speak of pixels per inch (ppi, regrettably ususally called dpi)."

In the computer if you change Pixels per inch from 300 to 1200 pixels per inch, you will see the SIZE of the file grow dramatically. So PPI does have a lot to do with a file on the computer. If you changed it to 72 per inch, it reduces the file dramatically in the computer. It appears even he is still confused about the relationship.

You can always speak of pixels per inch in a file, that is where they are relevant.... If you look at a file in Photoshop, directly from your camera, depending on the camera it will vary in PPI. He mentions DPI in Photoshop, I can not find anywhere in Photoshop where it mentions DPI.... ONLY when you get to setup PRINTING software or printer controls do you see a mention of DPI. Which as it should be, I never print lower than 600 DPI and many times set it higher.

Lets say a phone camera produces images at 50 or 72 PPI and a Nikon D200 (My current camera) produces 300 PPI in a raw file.that resolution is specified by NIKON as a resolution unit of 1 inch or 300 Pixels Per Inch... That gives the D200 much better resolution than a phone camera... I believe Nikon would be more correct, they made the camera. So in Photography is always spoken of as Pixels per inch in a photograph and Printers speak of resolution on paper as Dots Per Inch in a printer software...

You _never_ print pixels on a printer they only print dots which [u]represent the pixels.]/u]

DOTS PER INCH, has no bearing upon the number of pixels per inch, they are both different measurements, used for different reasons...... Originally computer printers printed mechanically with rods hitting the paper. They printed "dots" on the paper to make up an image. Then, they switched to different heads which "spray" DOTS on the paper instead, but all printers put DOTS on the paper..

If you look at an image printed at 100 dots per inch under a magnifying glass you coud actually count the number of dots and you see them as round dots on paper not square as pixels would be. If printed at 300, it would be more difficult to see. If printed at 1200 or 4800 dots per inch, then they blend more and you would need a microscope to see them.

It takes many DOTS to equal one Pixel in the image, horrizontally and vertically.
You can set the file in Photoshop to PPI to 300 to give good resolution. BUT, if you have the printer set to "spray" only 72 dots per inch the image will look weak or faded. Set the printer to 300 dots per inch (in the printer) and you get stronger or more saturated colors. Set the printer to 1200 DOTS per inch and you get very saturated colors on the print. When you view images on the screen, we see them with light behind them. On a print they are seen with reflected light so the greater number of DOTS per inch, the brighter they look. My printer can be set to 4800 dots per inch...

He may have written the article from memory. When writing, I recheck my facts in documentation for the Computer, Photoshop, my Nikon, and anything else I feel is relevant. He has other errors in the article also.
Not all articles you find on the Internet are accurate as you found.

[rainer]

Thank you my Fiend"
You have been in the game for many years and ought to know what you are saying.
I too thought of the numbers per pixel per square inch being relevent.
When i was told that it was not and then given this link>> It just threw me right off my logic to it. Yours makes better sense to me and logical also.
One would have to be able to set their pixel size to reflect quality in pixel per inch size. Boy! I'd say more people will be more confused as i was even more when i read his article.
Thank you for your patience.
By the way" I have a Nikon D90. I am looking at the specs and can't find anything about the PPI for the Camera. Guess i can check and look at the properties later through Gimp Software.
Have a good one"
Ray

Originally Posted by RJohnston

To confuse the issue even more, he has errors in his article, he needs to proofread the content.

" From the moment you are going to print there is the matter of size, given in inches or centimeters. Only then you can speak of pixels per inch (ppi, regrettably ususally called dpi)."

In the computer if you change Pixels per inch from 300 to 1200 pixels per inch, you will see the SIZE of the file grow dramatically. So PPI does have a lot to do with a file on the computer. If you changed it to 72 per inch, it reduces the file dramatically in the computer. It appears even he is still confused about the relationship.

You can always speak of pixels per inch in a file, that is where they are relevant.... If you look at a file in Photoshop, directly from your camera, depending on the camera it will vary in PPI. He mentions DPI in Photoshop, I can not find anywhere in Photoshop where it mentions DPI.... ONLY when you get to setup PRINTING software or printer controls do you see a mention of DPI. Which as it should be, I never print lower than 600 DPI and many times set it higher.

Lets say a phone camera produces images at 50 or 72 PPI and a Nikon D200 (My current camera) produces 300 PPI in a raw file.that resolution is specified by NIKON as a resolution unit of 1 inch or 300 Pixels Per Inch... That gives the D200 much better resolution than a phone camera... I believe Nikon would be more correct, they made the camera. So in Photography is always spoken of as Pixels per inch in a photograph and Printers speak of resolution on paper as Dots Per Inch in a printer software...

You _never_ print pixels on a printer they only print dots which [u]represent the pixels.]/u]

DOTS PER INCH, has no bearing upon the number of pixels per inch, they are both different measurements, used for different reasons...... Originally computer printers printed mechanically with rods hitting the paper. They printed "dots" on the paper to make up an image. Then, they switched to different heads which "spray" DOTS on the paper instead, but all printers put DOTS on the paper..

If you look at an image printed at 100 dots per inch under a magnifying glass you coud actually count the number of dots and you see them as round dots on paper not square as pixels would be. If printed at 300, it would be more difficult to see. If printed at 1200 or 4800 dots per inch, then they blend more and you would need a microscope to see them.

It takes many DOTS to equal one Pixel in the image, horrizontally and vertically.
You can set the file in Photoshop to PPI to 300 to give good resolution. BUT, if you have the printer set to "spray" only 72 dots per inch the image will look weak or faded. Set the printer to 300 dots per inch (in the printer) and you get stronger or more saturated colors. Set the printer to 1200 DOTS per inch and you get very saturated colors on the print. When you view images on the screen, we see them with light behind them. On a print they are seen with reflected light so the greater number of DOTS per inch, the brighter they look. My printer can be set to 4800 dots per inch...

He may have written the article from memory. When writing, I recheck my facts in documentation for the Computer, Photoshop, my Nikon, and anything else I feel is relevant. He has other errors in the article also.
Not all articles you find on the Internet are accurate as you found.

[rainer]

Yes! It does make total sense. So" Lets say an the full blown image was that with a 72 ppi.
If i was to crop a section out from a whole image lets say to an 8x10........then there will be fewer pixel squares with 72 ppi in each of them. Because fewer pixel squares have now become more visible i there for need to increase the pixels in each square inch of that image.
So" I understand that ppi becomes important when cropping down to a particular section of an image to achieve a particular size.
That is how it all makes sense to me.

[mjp321]

Originally Posted by RJohnston

Lets say a phone camera produces images at 50 or 72 PPI and a Nikon D200 (My current camera) produces 300 PPI in a raw file.that resolution is specified by NIKON as a resolution unit of 1 inch or 300 Pixels Per Inch... That gives the D200 much better resolution than a phone camera... I believe Nikon would be more correct, they made the camera. So in Photography is always spoken of as Pixels per inch in a photograph and Printers speak of resolution on paper as Dots Per Inch in a printer software...

Sorry to dredge up this thread, but I'm still confused on the PPI subject. I just looked at a jpeg (largest size) taken with my Canon dSLR (I normally work with raw files, though) and in Photoshop it says that the resolution is 72 PPI. So, am I to take it that the resolution of my dSLR camera is the same as a phone camera?

On the link that was provided in this thread (where the guy constantly used DPI when referring to PPI), he said that the number in the PPI box (under Image Size in Photoshop) was meaningless. But then I believe you said that you do indeed get better resolution with a higher number - say 300 PPI.

Every time I read something on this subject, people keep contradicting one another. Some say that a photo that has a resolution of 72 PPI will give you worthless prints, or at least worthless beyond 4x6. Then this guy comes along and says that the PPI number is meaningless. That it's only the pixel dimensions that matter.

To cap this all off, I recently had Mpix develop some 35mm film for me and had them scan the negatives. On their site (under film services), they say that they scan at 72 DPI. Of course, they must mean PPI (right?), so even these large companies are getting the terminology wrong. In Photoshop, when I open their scanned images, the PPI is indeed listed as 72. But, if 72 PPI gives such poor results, why is Mpix scanning my negatives at 72 PPI instead of something like 300 PPI? Do they want me to have poor quality prints? Or if it's just a meaningless number, like the guy in the link was trying to say, why even mention that fact at all on Mpix's website?

To tell you the truth, I thought my dSLR gave a resolution of 240 PPI, because when working with raw files, that's how the resulting tiffs and jpegs turned out. It was probably just a setting that I had in ACR that was giving me that resolution(?). Anyway, with all this discussion of PPI, I decided to take a look at a jpeg from my Canon dSLR and was surprised to see 72 in the PPI box.

[verdesardog]

There are two distinctly different things that you are talking about, Document size (physical deminsion) and Pixel Dimensions (Number of pixels). They are inter-related, if you change one while keeping the other the same you will be changing the Resolution, Pixels per Inch or PPI.

Look at the image size info in photoshop there is pixel dimension (pixel width and pixel height) and Document Size (physical width and height). What gives you the resolution (ppi) is the total pixel count in association to physical size.

If you keep the pixel count the same but change the document size you will change pixels per inch (ppi), if you keep the document size the same while changing the pixel count you will change the ppi.

Pixel dimsion, document size and resolution are all inter-related and dependant on each other. You can change the document size without changing the pixel dimension, you can change the pixel dimension without changing the document size but in both cases the resolution will change.

PPI and DPI are both a measure of density, ppi could be considered as electronic density while dpi is physical density. The relationship with ppi to dpi needs to be considered when printing. For optimum printing you want to put as many dots of ink on the paper as you can per pixel of picture file. If your printer prints at 1200 dpi and uses 6 colors of ink your photo will print optimally at 200 ppi so that your printer can use all dots of ink per pixel of file. (6 drops of ink X 200 ppi = 1200 dpi).

Anyway don't get PPI and DPI mixed up, they are NOT interchangable, PPI is the density of your file and DPI is the density of your printer. When you send your files out to be printed your PPI has to be optimum for the printers DPI. Your lab should tell you what PPI they desire for printing. When they do, give them that PPI @ the document size you want printed. A file to be printed 4x7 will need much fewer total pixels than a file to be printed at 8x10, but they need to both have the same PPI.

Is this as clear as mud now?