240 ppi

I have a nikon d90.  when I open
my photos in raw in pscs4 they are 240 ppi.  I want to print large photos - 14x19 or larger
everything I read says I should be at least 300 ppi.  There is nowhere to change the resolution in my camera?  it seems to be a photoshop thing...is there a default in ps that's doing this?   thanks!

priscilla bee wrote:
everything I read says I should be at least 300 ppi.
That is not true. 300ppi is a good ball park figure but, as Dag indicated, the use of the output file determines the ideal size.
As an indication, web pictures only need 72ppi, inkjet prints 150-200ppi, and high quality magazine prints 300ppi and more but you should always ask the printer.

Similar Messages

  • Photoshop CS6: Why is ACR set to 240 ppi by default, and not 300 ppi?

    Does anybody have any idea as to why ACR is set to 240 ppi by default? Isn't 300 ppi the optimum setting for printing purposes? Is there a good reason, or reasons, why Adobe chose 240 ppi as the default setting?
    I'd like to know if it is advisable to change ACR's settings from this default 240 ppi to 300 ppi. I know any perceived difference, when it comes to printing images, may be negligible, but why not, if it is just a matter of simply changing it to 300 ppi permanently?
    I am uneasy about changing this, however, until I find out a lot more about it, as I want the best quality, and if there are undesirable consequences by changing ACR to 300 ppi that I am not aware about, and, therefore, why Adobe have it set it to 240 ppi, then I'll leave it at the default setting.

    Hi,
    Setting this value to 240, 300 or whatever else will not change anything. The TIF or JPEG file generated from the RAW file will just have a metadata field containing this value (actually, there are 2 fields : XResolution and YResolution, usually set to the same value). The rest of the file will remain unchanged. Two files generated from the same RAW one at 240 dpi and the other at 300 dpi will only differ by that field.
    When you load the file in PS (or when ACR transmits a raw image to the PS bitmap engine along with its metadata), the dpi value found in the metadata will only affect the default values that will be used in the File | Print dialog, Position and Size section. By default, PS will compute the printed size of the document according to the indication given in the XResolution/YResolution field. If you change the desired dimension or if you "scale to fit", the dpi resolution will change.
    The dpi value specified in ACR or in any other software is only an indication. It never affects the image itself. Actually, this dpi value has no meaning until the image is "realized". A dpi value only makes sense when the pixel are transformed into ink dots in a printer or to display pixels on a screen. Until then, this value has no meaning.
    Moreover, in Lightroom (which makes printing much more easy than in PS), it is actually recommended to not specify any dpi value. That field should usually be left blank. You specify the print target dimensions and LR will automatically compute the right dpi value.

  • Why Does Lightroom Web Module Export Images At 240 ppi?

    Firstly, please forgive my ignorance on this subject. I am in the process of getting together a website of my images and have been experimenting with preparing the images and thumbnails through Lightroom's web module. I've noticed that when opening the finished images in Elements, that they have all been converted at 240ppi. Surely, images for websites should be at 72ppi (or possibly 96ppi)? Or am I dimmer than even I thought? 

    should I simply ignore the resolution box?
    Yes indeed. You set the size unit box in the export dialog simply to pixels and then size the right number of pixels for your web use. Typical is for example 800 pixels on the long end. The resolution box is not relevant for web use. It is really only used as a hint to a final printing size.
    So I imagine the 240ppi conversion must be the Lightroom default value. Do you think?
    Very likely so. I believe Lightroom, just like Photoshop, assumes 240 for files that do not start out having the tag so that is probably what happened if this started as a scan. Many scanners do not write this tag at all, but most DSLRs write the tag into their files and it is usually 240 for older generation cameras and 300 for later ones. I don't know why they do that as it is again not relevant as people print at any size they want.

  • Exported JPEG have same size with different PPI.

    Hello, i just noticed that changing the PPI from 240 (taken with my Canon) to 100 and exporting the photos to JPEG sized as 2MP have no change at all in size. Shouldn't 100PPI be smaller in size?

    A smartphone has a certain number of pixels on its screen. If you provide an image with that exact number of pixels, then it makes not the slightest difference whether or not the image is 240 ppi or 100 ppi or some other number. The number of pixels is the important factor, not the ppi. (By the way, whatever your smartphone display is still a "digital image")

  • Actual vs Effective PPI

    I see in the info when I click on a specific link in the links panel two items I don't know how to tell them apart.  Can anyone give me a good explanation of the difference between actual and effective ppi.  Which one is important and which one you really need to pay attention to and why.  I understand that a picture needs to be at least 240 ppi for print.  I've read several articles and just don't really understand.

    Actual resolution is the resolution as you would view it in an image editor like Photoshop.
    Effective resolution is the scaled resolution. If you scale the picture smaller in InDesign, you're "squishing" the pixels into a smaller area, increasing the effective resolution. If you scale the picture larger in InDesign, you're spreading the pixels over a larger area, decreasing the effective resolution.

  • What ppi should each image have PRIOR to importing to Lightroom, for creating a BOOK for Blurb?

    I am creating a book for publication with Blurb and all of my images have an exclamation point in the upper right hand corner.  Each has a different message as to what the ppi is and what it will print at.  All of my images are 300 dpi and 1000px at their largest side. What am I doing wrong?  My understanding is for print, 300 dpi is the best HQ resolution. Will I need to resize all in Photoshop and start over and if so, what is the best size for such a project?  Thank you.
    Amanda Wyn

    Your problem is in the 1000px max, not the 300 ppi. 1000px photos are just good enough for small prints. There is no point in trying to print such small files, you need bigger than that, To find out the print dimensions just divide the number of pixels by the print resolution (the usual 300 ppi, but 240 ppi is usually enough for a quality print) . So you'll get a little more than 3.3 in if printed at 300 ppi, 4.1 in @ 240 ppi.

  • Dpi: what happens when an image is re-saved from 240 to 300 dpi?

    Hi
    When I open my images in Adobe Raw, the images are 240 ppi. What happens exactly when I change the setting to 300 ppi in the Adobe Raw. For printing many companies ask for 300 ppi. And what happen if I re-save old images again in Photoshop after processing with 300 ppi, will the picture become unsharper? I cannot see a difference. Thanks for your explanation. 

    Interesting question and I hope I understand what you're asking
    An image in and of itself has no size. It is built out of square pixels of indefinite size. They could be one micron, or the size of a city block.
    An image only has a specific length and width once the pixel size is established.
    To illustrate open any 72 PPI image. View: Rulers. Change the image to 300 PPI with resample disabled. The pixel data of the image is not altered, the only thing that changes is the ruler around the image.
    My guess is that the change from 240 to 300 in your example does not change the pixel result. What does change is the size of the file. The higher the PPI, the smaller the physical file dimensions. A 240 PPI image that is 10" by 12.5" would equal a 300 PPI image that is 8" by 10". Either one of these qualifies as a 7.2 megapixel image (2400 x 3000 = 7,200,000 pixels in the image).

  • Edit in photoshop other then 240 dpi

    If I choose edit in Photoshop the dng raw file is opening with 240 dpi in photoshop. Is it possible to change that standard to 300 dpi?

    > Could someone take a moment to explain how the PPI tag doesn't matter when editing a DNG in PS? I'm new to DNGs and it's not clear to me whether it doesn't matter because PS is actually editing at the full resolution of the file and is misreporting the actual resolution, or whether those edits at 240 PPI get somehow applied to the full resolution of the image. Seems like a dumb question, maybe.
    Another way to explain it is this: PPI is completely irrelevant for screen display of images. This is true for all image formats, not just DNG. Images display on your monitor at whatever pixel resolution your monitor is set to and the PPI tag is ignored completely because your monitor's resolution is fixed and cannot change with changing PPI values. So, an image sized at 1024x768 pixels will display at the exact same size on your monitor whether the PPI tag is set to 1 or 300 or any other number.
    Printing is different. PPI is relevant but what really counts is pixel dimensions and desired print size. PPI is a computed value based on pixel dimensions and print size, the bigger the print, the smaller the PPI value.

  • Strange PPI problem on export

    I am running LR 1.2 and PS CS3, all latest updates. When I export a raw as a jpg at whatever ppi, 300, 240, etc. I see it in bridge at that ppi according to the metadata panel. And the thumbnail also shows ppi. Does not matter if constrain size is checked or not. When I open these files by double click into photoshop it shows 72 ppi.
    I also discovered that I can move a file at one of the above ppi's to another folder and it immediately becomes 72 ppi.
    I am not sure if the problem is in LR or in bridge, but it is clear something is not right. I cannot find any preferences or settings that might cause this, yet it is very consistent.
    I can export a psd or tiff file and the ppi is correct. Say at 240 ppi, it shows as 240 in bridge and opens in PS at 240 as it should.
    I know this is a really strange problem. Does anyone have an idea what might be going on? Thanks for any help.

    Do you have "minimize metadata" checked in the export dialog? If so, uncheck it if you want the resolution tag to be written to jpegs. The resolution tag is useless but I know some clients like to see it for whatever reason.

  • PPI Confusion

    Hi there. I'm still fairly new to all of this and trying to navigate my around the digital world. I'm using LR 2 on a Mac and PS CS 4, as well. Due to an earlier bug with an old version of Capture One I had been exporting my RAW files as 16-bit Tiffs and then finishing up my edits on those files before making a final Jpg. But those Tiff files are huge and so I started playing around with exporting a dupe RAW file to work on in Photoshop. What I don't understand, though, is that the default ppi setting is 240. Does that matter? If I want the option of creating larger prints, I'd like to go with at least 300 as my ppi setting. Can I just change that in PS and then save it out with my other changes in PS as a Jpg, or am I interpolating the pixels in this case and therefor, harming the file? Love to get an answere here. Many thanks.

    While it is possible to change the PPI setting to whatever you want it to be, it really isn't going to change the actual physical dimensions of your image.  If you change the PPI setting to 300 in Photoshop, then look at the image size, Photoshop will simply report how big the image will print at that setting.  Changing the PPI setting does not alter the image at all.  It is simply an indicator of how big the image will be at that setting.
    As an example, if I take a "typical" 6 MP image at 240 PPI, Photoshop will report the image size as roughly 8x12 inches (give or take a little).  If I change the setting to 300 PPI, that same image will print at roughly 10x7 if I don't resample the image.  You can resample the image and let Photoshop physically make the image larger, but it won't necessarily make the image better in quality because Photoshop is creating pixels that were not part of the original image.
    Bottom line, if you want high quality larger images, you need a camera that will take images with more megapixels.

  • PPI setting in LR3 external editing option

    what is the use and significance of the ppi setting (default 240) in the external editing section in LR3? what is the recommended value / how can it be derived?
    Thanks,

    Actually, I would disagree...
    A raw file will have "native" pixel dimension (x number of pixels by x number of pixels) but not have a pixel resolution and dimension until you specify it. Since you are opening an image from Lightroom, where really only the pixel density matters, into Photoshop where resolution and dimension do matter, I would suggest setting a resolution that gives you the most useful PPI resolution for your needs. 240 PPI will give you a larger set of dimensions while being under the suggested resolution needed for halftone reproduction (which is 300 PPI). Printing to a pro quality inkjet printer is often done at 360 PPI (or above). A higher PPI will result in the image dimensions being smaller...
    So, you need to decide what purposes you open images into Photoshop and settle on a resolution settings that is useful for your purpose.

  • Resolution problem

    How can I improve the resolution of files?  When clients upload files, they get a resolution warning for prints larger than 5x7.  Never had this problem with Photoshop Elements.  I have increased the file size to largest/100 on export.

    You cannot improve the resolution but you can increase the pixel dimension.
    Resolution comes into play when we print an image to a certain size. Since we need at least 240 ppi (and better 300 pi) for a quality print, you can calculate the needed pixel dimension by multiplying print size in inches (long side or short side - but only one of them) with the necessary print resolution (300).
    For example: For a print of 15" x 10" you would need a pixel dimension of 4500 x 3000 pixels (Print resolution 300);
    At 240 ppi print resolution the same print size would result in a pixel dimension of 3600 x 2400 pixels.
    You can set the pixel dimension in the Export Dialog / Image Sizing. Select one of the edges (Short Edge or Long Edge) and specify the size in inches and the resolution (best 300 ppi). You need to specify only one side; the other side will automatically fall according to the side ratio. So if - in the above example - you specify 15" and a resolution of 300 ppi for the the Long Edge, the Short Edge will automatically be 2400 pixels if the ratio of the sides is 1.5 : 1.
    I said initially that you cannot improve / increase the resolution. This is so because as long as an image is a digital image only, i.e. on the computer, or on the web, etc. it has only pixel dimension. Resolution comes into play only when we have also a size in inches (or cm), i.e. a physical dimension. Digital images don't have a physical dimension, only printed images have one.
    Thus you need to increase the pixel dimension of your images so much that your clients can print it with the required resolution for a specific print size.
    The question you have to ask yourself (and maybe your clients) is: What is the maximal print size that my clients should be able to make. This maximal print size (multiplied by the print resolution) will determine the pixel dimension you need to choose when exporting the image.

  • Upping Resolution, CS4, ...Quick Follow Up Question

    Recently learned here how to up the size and resolution on a project in CS4 where the document size, in inches, was tiny to begin with. I'm now working with a .tif image that's got the document size I want (approx. 20" X 27") and I'm assuming I just change the "Resolution" box from 72 to 300 to max it out. Is this correct?
    Thanks.

    >I have a digital image file measuring 1472 X 1978 pixels which I want to use as a base to create a digital painting over - completely displacing the aforementioned base image.
    What Ramón said in Post #17. Just set desired final output dimensions and use 360 ppi if you want absolute highest quality and can tolerate working with the large resultant file size. However 20x27 at 360 ppi is a large file and many computers will experience painting slowdowns.
    Due to typical viewing distances personally I use 300-360 ppi for small prints, 240-300 ppi for 8x10 and 240 ppi for 11x14; 180 ppi for large posters. If I was creating a painting I would do some test painting/printing to establish what ppi density worked best on my hardware and chosen painting style before I invested lots of hours painting.
    As to post #18, I do not believe that usage of
    giclée is gradually becoming obsolete at all. It appears to me that its usage as a term used to describe artistic high-end inkjet printing on various quality media has been
    growing (however my mountain world although full of artists is a pretty small pond).

  • Is there a way to prevent LR from reducing size (pixels) of files transfered to Photoshop as a psd file for editing?

    The subject line says it all.  I have discovered that LR reduces the size of files transferred to Photoshop for further editing when compared to the same RAW file processed in ACR in Photoshop.  For example, a psd file created by LR from a 36 MB RAW file will typically result in a 100 MB psd file.  The same RAW file processed similarly in Photoshop will result in a file around 300 MB.  This makes a huge difference when the files are converted to JPEGs for printing.  The smaller LR psd files result in JPEGs typically under 500 KB where the Photoshop JPEGs are typically around 1.5 MB.   

    Whew!  I didn't think this would turn into such a long discussion!.     OK - my error,  spatial data not color.  But that is loosing focus on my question.  My objective is to get the best print possible from the final JPEG file used for printing..  As previously noted, for a given RAW file w/similar adjustments but with one processed in LR and the other in PS , a print made from the larger of two resulting JPEG files, the larger JPEG file resulting from only  PS ACR processing (i.e., no LR) will result in a better print.  Elie-d appears to have answered my basic question. If LR will always pass a 103 MB file then I assume there is no way to change this size.  In case anyone is interested here is some additional info for consideration.  Both LR & PS using 8 bit mode and 240 ppi..  Procedure in LR: 1) download RAW files from camera CD; 2) make adjustments to photo;  3) using Edit in External Processor, photo transferred to PS in PSD format, 8 bit. 4) file size around 100 MB (103 MB per elie-d).  Procedure in PS:  1) download RAW file to hard drive with Nikon View2; 2) open file in PS - auto opens in ACR; 3) apply essentially the same adjustments (e.g., exposure, highlight, shadow, etc) ) as applied in LR;  4) file opened in PS editor;  5) resulting PSD file size with no further processing (i.e., no layers, etc.) is 310 MB).  The resulting JPEG file created from the LR PSD is typically less than 200 KB whereas the JPEG from the PS PSD will generally be around 1.5 MB.   As an academic question it would still be interesting to know why one gets different size PSD files from LR and PS and what, if any, affect this has on print quality.  As for now I will not use LR to process RAW files.  I prefer the larger PSD & JPEG files I get using just PS            

  • How do I export jpgs as tifs with the original resolution ?

    Hi,
    I am very new to Lightroom 5 (I only installed it today (on Windows 8.1) :-)) but I have read Victoria Bampton's Quick Start Guide and have read a number of forum posts over the last few weeks to get an idea about how the program generally works.
    I am embarking on a project to scan and archive my family's photos and videos, and I will be using Lightroom to manage the collection.  To start the project, I have just imported over 10,000 digital photos taken by a variety of cameras (36 of them, according to Lightroom !)  over the last 12 years or so into a new Lightroom catalogue.   These are all currently JPEG files, but I want to keep TIFF files in the collection because my research has led me to the conclusion that TIFF is a better long-term archival format.
    I started by doing an Export of a small number of photos to save the .jpg files as .tif files, but when reviewing the results, I noticed that the image's resolution was changed during the export.  For example, one original jpg is only 96ppi but the exported tif is 240ppi.  Another jpg is 180ppi and the tif is 240ppi.  At least, that's what the metadata seems to be telling me (via the Details tab of the Properties dialog in Windows), so I assume it's true...
    I understand that the 240ppi that I am seeing in the .tif file metadata was specified in the Image Sizing section of the Export dialog, so that's not the issue.  
    I would prefer it if the .tif file has the exact same resolution (ppi) as the original .jpg, but I am unable to work out how to do it.   It would be great if the resolution setting in the Export dialog was controlled by the Resize to Fit checkbox, like the other settings in the section, but it doesn't appear to be (it's enabled even if the Resize to Fit checkbox is unticked).
    I then thought about using the Library Filters to filter by the Horizontal Resolution metadata, so that I could select all the photos with the same resolution and export just those with the Resolution setting in the Export dialog set to the right number, and then repeat that process for each different group of original photos with a different resolution.  Unfortunately, I have not been able to work out how to filter by the horizontal resolution metadata field - it doesn't seem to be available in the dropdown list of fields shown when I click on the up-down arrow next to the "Date" or "Camera" (etc.) columns in the Library Filter pane.
    Finally, here's my question (or three):  
    Is there a way to export .jpgs to .tif files while keeping the original resolution ?  
    Alternatively, is there a way to select groups of photos by their horizontal or vertical resolution (so just those photos could be exported in a group with the right resolution specified) ?
    Or is there any other way to do what I want (convert jpg to tif with the same resolution and keeping all the metadata) ?
    Thanks for reading all the way through to the end.
    John.

    These are all currently JPEG files, but I want to keep TIFF files in the collection because my research has led me to the conclusion that TIFF is a better long-term archival format.
    I'm not sure why you say this. In terms of long-term archival format, I think the two are equal, I am not aware of other reasons to do this, and thus in my opinion, the task of globally turning all your JPGs into TIFFs seems unnecessary. You don't gain anything by doing this. But you sure will spend a lot of time and take up a lot of disk space doing this.
    I would prefer it if the .tif file has the exact same resolution (ppi) as the original .jpg, but I am unable to work out how to do it.
    Again, I think you have embarked upon an unnecessary task. The ppi in the file is essentially meaningless. A photo that has (for example) 3000x2000 pixels saved at 240 ppi is the exact same photo as the same photo 3000x2000 saved at 180ppi, not a single pixel has changed. You are placing a meaning and importance to this ppi number that just doesn't exist.
    To answer your questions at the bottom, I would advise you to not do the things you are talking about, it seems to me that you have greatly misunderstood things.

Maybe you are looking for