72 PPI anoyance

I have been using iPhoto for several years now but I've just started to get a bit more serious about photography and find it really annoying that iPhoto 'scales' images down to a 72ppi resolution. I know that I can always go back to the original but this is so painful and I wondered if anybody knows a way of preventing iPhoto from doing this - or am I going to have to get myself a copy of Aperture 1.5?

I agree with Terence in that PS is the partner application to be used with a cataloging application like Aperture, iPhoto or iView Email Plug-In. I use iVMP as my primary image management application. It handles most RAW formats which I don't use. Many of the pros in the iVMP forum recommend converting to DNG format and proceeding from there. It's more universally supported I guess. I use iPhoto for special projects, books, calendars, etc., and iVMP for everything else.
I suppose iPHoto will slowly evolve with improved RAW support, etc. I do like it's GUI better than Aperture's. I guess it's my old, tired eyes but I find Aperture's icons and text too small. Just wish there were a way to choose the size of them. A lot of it is I've just not spent that much time with it.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've written an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB file backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Similar Messages

  • Warning: the document raster effects resolution is 72 ppi or less

    How do I address / fix the issue that leads to this WARNING when saving my Illustrator CS6 file? All embedded images are 300 ppi.

    Kristen,
    The warning has nothing to do with your images.
    It is simply a statement that tells you that you have not set Effect>Document Raster Effects Settings higher than the default screen value of 72 PPI.
    If you have no raster effects applied to your vector artwork there is no need to worry.
    If you have, you should consider which value is suitable.

  • When I create a new document in inches, with the ppi set to 300 in advanced settings, my document is still calculating at 72ppi. How do I change that?

    Here are pictures of the issue I am talking about.
    Pixel Problem - Imgur
    When I try to create a document at 6in x 4in and ppi is set to 300, when i flip to pixels it should be 1800px x 1200px. But its not, it is calculating the dimensions at 72ppi. Why?!?

    monkeyde,
    You are getting entagled in the two confusing meanings of the term pixels, namely as a unit identical to points and equalling 1/72 inch, and the basic component of raster images (and effects).
    You can read on in this very recent thread:
    Is there a way to get Illustrator to know how many pixels are in an inch?

  • How to find out ppi of pdf placed in indesign

    When I "place" a jpeg in InDesign, I can find out its PPI using the Links tab on the right hand side of the screen. However, when I place a pdf in InDesign, the ppi is not listed. How can I find out the ppi of pdf images placed in InDesign? I ask because I need to make sure the image quality is at least 300 ppi for printing purposes.

    PDF files are not images. They are usually containers for a variety of objects—text, images of various resolutions and color spaces, and, for interactive PDFs, objects like video, sounds, or buttons.
    To examine a PDF file you need to open it in Acrobat Pro. Use the Print Production tools, especially the Output Preview panel. In that panel, you can view the resolution(s), color space(s) and properties of objects in the PDF.

  • High PPI Support Multiple Monitors: How it comes that Remote Desktop implements the hight PPI support very well and win 8.1 doesnt?

    http://skovalev.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/RemoteDesktop-HighPPI-Perfect.png
    Hello all: i am using an High PPI Monitors from Dell XPS15 (3600x1800) and a Normal FullHD above it. The FullHD monitor is an external device and is set up as the primary device. Scaling is set to per Monitor DPI.
    Now the Question: how it comes, that my RemoteDesktop on the secondary (internal) screen has almost perfect implementation for this????
    BUT i am am talking only about the RemoteDekstopManager, normal one does not works with high ppi in this way... Also ModernUI has no problems with scaling
    http://skovalev.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Firfox-and-Resolution-RemoteDesktop.png
    NOTE that the resolution on the remote desktop is set to 1600x900 and there are NO scaling problems even on the 3200x1800 monitor!
    On both picutures you find the dell monitor on the bottom and the scaled original windows explorer/firefox on the bottom right. See how blurry it is? I really breaks my eyes :(
    I hope Microsoft can finally fix the high PPI Monitors issue, since the solutions seems to be already implemented

    No, i mean the Scaling Support.
    If you use multiple monitor, in windows 8.1 you can scale per monitor. If you use this option with a High PPI monitor, like ultra HD or 4K, the image on the monitors with other PPI than the main monitors appears fuzzy and blury.
    But there are also scaling problems even if you use only single monitor. This article blog describes it pretty good:
    http://www.hanselman.com/blog/LivingAHighDPIDesktopLifestyleCanBePainful.aspx
    By the way there are lot article like this describing the scaling problems, not only by users but also by professinals and IT magazines...
    BUT here it comes: watch @ my screenshots. If the remote desktops resolution is 1800x900 and the native resolution is 3600x1800, there are no scaling problems! HOW? So like you can see on my screenshots a native application on my monitor appears fuzzy while
    the same application runnin of the remote desktop has clear type!
    That means for me, that windows HAS the possibility to scale clearly, but somehow this feature is only supported by RDCM...

  • DPI and PPI in Aperture 'Export' and 'Print' windows

    Hi,
    As mentioned in an earlier post, I just bought an Epson 3880 printer and some Epson Hot Press paper, so now I have to pay attention to PPI (term used for displays) and DPI (term  used for printers).
    In Aperture however, files being exported require DPI specs(!), while files being printed require that we specify PPI specs. How is that?
    Also, my Epson manual indicates that I can print at 5 distinct "DPI" settings, from 180 to 2880. My Aperture Print window, however, only offers 3 options with 360 "PPI" as the highest (considered Draft quality by Epson - if "DPI"), plus a 4th referred to as Custom.
    Also, I have a note jotted down a while back that says: "1440 dpi for most papers with 240 dpi files, at 2880 if 360" - whatever that meant 6 months ago at an Epson 3880 seminar, before I got the printer.
    Can you guys sort this out for me? Please?
    Thanks a lot,
    Raphael

    I'm not at my studio.  My current driver is 8.x.  The newest driver is 9.33.  My remarks here may not fit with your more current version of the driver (but that would surprise me — the printer came out about 4 years ago, iirc).
    The profiles are not, afaik, included with the driver, at least when you download it from Epson's site.
    There are two profiles for each Epson Fine Art paper — one at 1440 and one at 2880.  You should try each with every kind of print you make, and determine which is better.  IME, _for my needs_, 2880 was never worse.  I use the 2880 profiles.
    The profile is selected from the "Color Profile" drop-down at the top of the "Rendering" section of Aperture's "Print" dialog.
    (Set "Render Intent" to "Perceptual" for, in general, photographs or anything with smoothly graduated changes in color.  Set "Render Intent" to "Relative Colorimetric" for, in general, graphics or anything with smooth areas of constant color and sharp transitions between areas of color.  Generally, if "Render Intent" is "Perceptual", check "Black Point Compensation"; otherwise uncheck it.)
    Leave "Print Resolution" at "Auto".  I know of no reason to ever change this.  (I don't, in fact, know what this control does, and have never changed it.)
    When you click "Print" in Aperture's "Print" dialog, a short dialog opens asking you if you want to save any changes you made to your Preset.  I always save my changes.  Prints often need to be immediately remade — all transitions of data from electronic to physical media are problematic — and I like to return to my Preset ready to print the same Image(s) again.
    When that dialog closes, the OS print dialog opens.  Your 3880 printer should already be selected in the "Printer" drop-down.  You need to create and should save an OS Preset for your paper.  Note that on the "Color Matching" page (this dialog has pages, not tabs; direct complaints to Cupertino), all (two) options should be grayed-out.  This indicates that Aperture is handling color matching, which is what you want (for best prints and anything approaching a color-calibrated workflow).  On the "Paper Handling" page, the "Destination Paper Size" drop-down is grayed-out, but should show you the selection you made in the Aperture Print dialog.  The "Printer Settings" page has two tabs.  On the "Basic" tab, in the "Media Type" drop-down, select your paper ("Fine Art Paper ▹ Hot Press [Bright or Natural])*.  The "Ink" drop-down should be grayed-out, but show "Matte".  Matte is proper selection for Hot Press [Bright or Natural].  This dialog knows this from your color profile selection in the Aperture Print dialog.  Chose "16-bit" output and any other options your want (you can experiment; I find no difference).  I ignore the warning about print quality at the bottom area — this has never been an issue.  On the "Advanced" tab of the "Printer Settings" page, it should tell you that "Epson Driver Color Management is Off".  That's what you want.  You want Aperture to manage the color.
    Save your OS print dialog Preset.  Use it every time you print to the same paper.
    *If you cannot select your paper, you have not selected the correct paper size in the "Printer" section of Aperture's Print dialog.  Note that the "Paper Size" selection includes not only the paper size, but also whether the feed is by sheet-feeder or manual, and whether or not the print is borderless.  (I didn't design this; I assume there are reasons to have shoe-horned these options into the "Paper Size" selection.
    This is all tricky on top of being actually complex and next to being new.  It takes everyone time and mistakes (read: ink and paper) to canalize a flow that works for producing the prints they want.  I hope this gets you there a little faster.  Report back with what doesn't work.
    —Kirby.

  • Pre-Size Your PPI for Best Print - Once Good Advice Still Good?

    In another thread someone mentinoed pre-sizing image data to prepare it for best printing.
    For a long time it's been "standard advice" to resize images so that the ppi is an even division of the printer's dpi, because some years ago occasionally one would run across printers that would produce poor results if you didn't - you might see jaggies in straight edges for example.
    Thing is, computers have (not so) quietly been getting more powerful over time, and printer makers have been competing with one another to try to make their printers produce better results than the other guys.  One way they've done this is by improving the quality of the algorithms in the printer drivers.  Use of mega storage and high accuracy math, which was once taxing on older computer systems, is now standard practice.
    So it's time to question the old rule of thumb.
    Making a few assumptions about the many variables (what printer, what OS, what version of drivers, what application being used to print) , there seem to be several questions here:
    1.  Can the image resolution be too high, causing the printer driver to make bad decisions about what ink dots to lay down where on the paper?
    2.  Does it help or matter if the image PPI is an even division of the printer's DPI?
    As I have done in the past, I set out to do some actual testing, to see if I can actually SEE anything to help answer these questions.
    I created a sharp image to be printed at 3 x 2 inches:  http://Noel.ProDigitalSoftware.com/ForumPosts/Ghirardelli.jpg
    Then I printed it at 6 different resolutions (1000, 720, 567, 300, 200, and 100 ppi) by resampling the image, labeling it, printing from Photoshop CS5, and feeding the same sheet of HP Premium Plus photo paper through my older HP 932c inkjet printer 6 times.  The printer was set to its highest quality settings, including 2400 x 1200 dpi mode.  This was the result:
    I then looked critically and as objectively as I could at the different images.  Here are my observations:
    Naked eye:
    The four highest resolution images (1000, 720, 567, and 300 ppi) all seemed to have an equivalent high level of crisp detail.
    I could not detect the inkjet dots.  Smooth objects look smooth.
    Jeweler's Loupe:
    I could see significant reduction in the finest details in the 300 ppi print vs. the three higher resolution prints, and a slight reduction in the 567 ppi vs. 720.
    At no resolution were any jaggies or evidence of aliasing visible.
    The inkjet dot pattern was plainly visible, and it does differ between the different prints.  But it was not possible to say whether one was "better".
    Things seem to have a little more texture in the 1000 ppi print vs. the 720 and 567 ppi prints.
    Macro Photo:
    Lacking a high resolution scanner, I took photographs of the 6 different prints.  Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to set up with my best lighting and lens combination, so I got some reflections off the glossy paper, and and at this resolution I can't really see the inkject dots in the photos.  I want to repeat this when I can find more time to do it better.  As I did these photos hand-held, I believe the variances between them could be slightly influencing the results.  But I'm going to post them anyway, for you to see.
    I could see ever so slightly more detail in the 720 ppi print vs. the 1000 ppi print, though from the size of the tiny dust/light reflections I think it may have just been the better focused.  Note that this observation is not supported by direct observation through the jeweler's loupe, above.
    The 1000 ppi and 567 ppi prints seems to have slightly more noise or texture than the 720 ppi print.  Again, this might be issues introduced by the photography process, though I did note a possible increase in texture in the 1000 ppi print with the jeweler's loupe as well.
    Beyond just the blurring, I could see some evidence that straight lines are not quite as straight in the lower resolutions (300 ppi and lower).  This seemed more apparent than with the jeweler's loupe examination, and I wonder whether the Photoshop downsampling process could have introduced it.
    Left to right, top to bottom:  1000, 720, 567, 300, 200, 100:
    Conclusions:
    Printing to my HP 932c inkject printer on Windows 7 x64
    300 ppi is not sufficient to coax the best possible detail out of an inkjet printer.  It appears a number in the vicinity of 720 or more is better, and this number could be much higher with modern very high resolution printers (mine's old). 
    Speed was no different in printing any of these - a modern computer can process a huge amount of data in the blink of an eye.
    When a sufficiently high resolution image is printed (in this case 567 ppi or higher) I saw virtually no evidence that a particular ppi value is superior, for example an even division of the printer's dpi, though in hindsight I realize I should have prepared a 600 ppi image (duh).  I will add a 600 ppi image before I re-photograph the results.
    It's possible ever so slightly more texture becomes visible at 1000 ppi than 720 ppi, but it might be just noise.
    Practically speaking, from looking critically at the results I could not see a reason to pre-size the image for a specific ppi value.
    I encourage you to experiment and report your results with your particular combination of gear.
    Your comments are welcome!
    -Noel

    Noel Carboni wrote:
    Jeff Schewe wrote:
    I would never suggest people actually downsample though...why waste the pixels?
    Exactly.  There was a statement in another recent thread that downsampling to be an even fraction of the print dpi was important to do.
    It might have been a misapplied extension of the advice to upsample.  It's not been all that long that we've had big enough high resolution data that even makes downsampling a possibility.
    -Noel
    I believe I was the one to make that statement, which was based on recommendations by an Epson Print expert at a seminar demoing printers. He showed to prints from the same file, one set at an even multiple of 720 and the other some random number. It was subtle but visible the difference. That was probably 5 years ago.
    In the meantime, I have made extensive tests of prints on my Epson 3800 trying many combinations of single pass, hi speed, Super fine print (2880x1440) and down to the basic level.
    Everything evened out at 720 dpi. At 360, which is where I output from ACR, I can make an 8x12 print with no resampling whatsoever. Upping that to 720 and pushing the printer hard (2880x1440, single pass on Canson Platine), I see a discernable difference in the smooth tonalities.
    As I understood you from past conversations, you employ the maximum output size from ACR which in my case, would double the file size by upsampling, and if necessary, downsample from that. I am not comfortable doing that as a default operation, but perhaps Jeff S might step in here and clarify.  After all, ACR does offer that option! But my file size now goes from ~70MP to 143 MP, cutting my storage capability by 1/2. It's not a trivial matter when two of us here can run 600 to 800 images in 1/2 day!

  • Bridge shows an image 72 ppi, but when I open the same image in Photoshop (CS5) it is showing 96 ppi???

    Just reloaded Windows 7 last week, and reinstalled CS5.  I don't remember this happening before the reinstall. Is there a setting I am missing?
    Thanks in advance!

    What this is telling you is the ppi value is missing from the metadata. Because it is in the metadata there is nothing to worry about. It can be added at any time with photoshop.
    1)Open the image in Photoshop
    2)Image>Image Size
    3)Type in the correct ppi
    4)click OK
    5)Save file to disk File>Save or if you prefer to use another name to protect the original use File>Save As then type in a name and click OK.
    The main information to protect is the pixel dimensions that pertains to the data it self. If these values change so does the data. To protect the pixel dimensions uncheck resample image if it is checked in the Image Size dialog box.

  • Preflight panel Info. shows my placed 300 ppi PDFs at much less effective resolution

    Ï'm brand new to InDesign (graphic designer who primarily works in Illustrator, some Photoshop, until now). I understand resolution and PPI but not necessarily in-depth knowledge of the related necessary workflow needed within InDesign, if that makes sense. I've spent hours and hours the last couple days trying to learn the finer points of InDesign as I work on an ad magazine for my company, but I can't for the life of me figure this particular issue out, and I'm guessing (hoping!) it's a very simple solution.
    I placed several 300 PPI PDF images in the magazine document (vector PDF's I created in Illustrator, saved as editable PDF's).
    I created a Preflight Panel in InDesign with a custom Profile, named it Print Ready, and set image resolution to 250 to ensure as I finish up this magazine design that things are press/print ready. It now shows 5 images with Image resolutions lower than the 250 minimum - all of the pdfs I placed. They all show very low PPI, 74, 109, etc. The 300 PPI pdfs were already sized to the exact proportions they needed to be in the InDesign file and for print, so there was very minimal scaling to fit the images into their frames, so I'm assuming scaling couldn't have created this issue and it has something to do with my workflow and the way I'm bringing them in.
    I'd like to point out that this magazine document was created by another designer, and I'm picking up where they've left off, adding some final images and copy. The other picture images she had in the file appear fine, no errors in Preflight Panel...even some preview stock photo's with the X's across them that appear to be very low resolution (we haven't purchased them and replaced them yet in this InDesign file), so not sure I understand why those are not showing up in my Image Resolution as errors??
    Anyhow, at some point I came across the Document Presets, which is currently set to Default - and when I click Define, I noticed it shows the PPI at 72. Does this mean that files I place are "brought in" at 72 PPI, regardless if their original PPI is higher? And if so, how do I change that?
    If not, how do resolve or correct? 
    Sorry for the very long explanation - just want to give as many details as I can, since I'm not exactly sure which details are important to figuring out the problem. Thanks in advance!!

    I've checked the resolution in Photoshop just as a double-check and it shows resolution as 300 PPI. When you say "because they can be mixed" do you mean because elements and graphics with the PDF can be of varying resolutions? I hadn't thought of that, if that's what you meant. I do have some items within my pdf that might be lower resolution.
    If these show up in my Preflight Panel as an issue, does this mean they would be flagged also with the Printer? In trying to find a resolution I read several forum discussions about how Printers often run your document through a Preflight process and will send it back when there are low resolution images in the document.
    Is there some other way to be sure these images are in the InDesign document as 300 PPI so I can know they will in fact print correctly?
    PS - Peter - thanks for the super quick response! And I saw your the highlighted "Exceptional Contributor" on the right sidebar for the InDesign forum - clearly well-deserved! Congrats

  • Illustrator wont copy & paste at 300 ppi regardless of settings

    I just recently reformated my computer and I've been having an issue with copy and paste from Illustrator to Photoshop. Before I could copy a 2"x2" vector box from Illustrator into photoshop making a new document and the size and resolution would match. That is the new document would say 2"x2" at 300 ppi in photoshop and the preset would read "clipboard". I would then hit ok and paste and it would match perfectly. Now since I've reformated, photoshop always creates a new document with the wrong size regardless of the settings I enter in Illustrator or photoshop. I have document raster and effects set at 300 ppi in Illustrator and I have the new document set at 300 in photoshop, but it always transfers the 2"x2" box at 72 dpi regardless of settings. Again this used to work before so I'm assuming there is some setting I forgot about. Does anyone know? The main issue is the clipboard preset is not matching the document size, its almost as if Illustartor is telling photoshop it's a different resolution when it's not. Copying to 72 ppi seems to have no issue, which makes me think Illustrator just isn't sending it out at 300 ppi, but I don't know why as I have the document set at 300 ppi. I confirmed this as I can make a 2"x2" box in photoshop and paste into Illustrator and it reads as 2"x2" at 300 ppi in Illustrator, but if I copy from Illustrator back to photoshop it pastes it at 72 ppi. Changing the settings to 300 ppi in Illustrator seems to have no effect. Might be a bug. Should I try reinstalling?

    Unfortunately, it's a known bug.
    http://forums.adobe.com/message/6052251
    You can try putting in a bug report - perhaps they will be more motivated to fix it when more people complain.
    http://www.adobe.com/go/wish

  • Original and effective ppi

    Hey everyone! I would like to ask for some urgent help on Indesign + PDF print document subject.
    I prepared a document for offset print (business cards 8,5cm width x 5,5cm height) and it turned out that the pictures were very rastered on the Proof. Like, you could see the raster dots on it.
    I checked out my Indesign document again and I found out that the original ppi of the images was 762 and the effective ppi over 1000. I then realised that on Photoshop, I setted by mistake the pictures´s resolution for 300 pixel per cm instead of pixel per inchs!!
    I changed that and they have now:
    300 pixel per inch resolution
    4cm width x 5cm height
    and the pixel dimensions are: 472 px width x 591 pixel (height).
    In the Indesign document, it appears now:
    300 original ppi
    between 300 and 400 effective ppi
    472 px x 591 px dimensions
    My question is, do you guys think I solved the problem that way or should I still change something before I sent it again to print?
    The real dimensions of the pictures on the business card should be about 4cm width x 5cm height, so I decided to have them on Photoshop with that dimensions and 300 pixel per inch resolution, so that I don´t have to scale them much on Indesign. Did I do it right?
    Thank you!

    The original psd file has, more precisely:
    Image size: 14,8 cm width x 21 cm height
    Resolution: 762 px / inch ( = 300px/cm )
    Pixel dimensions: 4440 x 6300
    Then, I changed the Resolution from 762 px / inch to 300 px / inch, and checked in the "resample image" option, which converted the Pixel dimensions into: 1748 x 1418
    (Image size remained the same)
    This file has good detail quality, it looks sharp.
    Then, I drag the layer from this file to a new one, with the image size I need :
    Image size: 4cm x 5cm
    Resolution: 300 px / inch
    Pixel dimensions: 472 x 591
    Which makes me think of another question: Are these Pixel dimensions enough for print? Is this psd file good enough to place in Indesign and for print?

  • Illustrator and ppi?

    Hey all.  I am trying to make images for an iPhone app and the specs I'm reading say the screen is 320x480 with a ppi of 163.  The iPhone 4 of course is double those numbers but for the sake of example I'll use the original specs.  I'm not too familiar with how vector graphics work and I'm having trouble with this.  If I make an image at 320x480 and export it from Illustrator at 163 ppi, the image output becomes 724x1087.  If I export it at 72 ppi it will turn out with the proper starting resolution of 320x480.  The images are all exported as .png files and they look more or less okay except I will get edges cut off of the right and/or bottom of a lot of the images.  I have to make the artboards bigger than the images to compensate for the cutoff.
    So basically there are two questions here: what's going on with the ppi and how to I keep the images from cutting the edges during export?  Dunno if the two are related but the ones at a higher ppi seem to retain their edges while the lower ppi cuts them off.

    PPI is irrelevant. All you want to do is work with pixels. To do that, export at 72 ppi or use Save for Web.

  • Why does ppi matter for web images?

    Hello
    When placing an image in my (web/pixel) project the resolution is dependent from the set ppi.
    When I create a new document for web, then logically only the pixels matter. Nonetheless there's a ppi field, why? And depending what value it has, placed pictures (file > place or drag&drop from Windows' explorer) get resized instead of the wanted 1:1 resolution.
    1 pixel should remain 1 pixel when working with in pixels.
    Try it out:
    Create a new document with Full HD resolution (1920x1080 pixels), set ppi to 10.
    Import a Full HD picture (Blu-Ray screenshot whatever) and it's mini-sized.
    My screen resolution is 59 ppi (I use my 39" TV as monitor) and this is set in the Photoshop preferences (in case I do some print stuff that I get a 1:1 view if wanted). If there was any logic behind the pixel-ppi-placing thing, then this set standard monitor ppi should bring me a 100% sized picture... but it doesn't. Only when the ppi is set to the fantasy value of 72 I get a 100% sized placing.
    This can be disturbing and is very annoying when starting a new project by opening an image that does not come with 72 ppi by default (my Canon camera makes 180 ppi JPEG photos)  and placing new pictures in this project. They get opened in wrong sizes, in my case largely upscaled, with no way to correct it but guess-scaling it down.
    Bug?
    Pls pls fix it.
    Ppi has nothing lost in pixels-only projects.
    The only way that works is to open all single images in Photoshop as tabs, and then drag&drop from within Ps. -.-
    Regards
    Mopsi
    Example screenshot: http://www.m-i-u.de/images-i83580bxvogj.jpg
    The yellow framed layer is a image from my camera, opened in Photoshop CS6 extended. 3264x2448 pixels (180 ppi).
    The green framed layer is a screenshot from a movie, drag&drop from the explorer. 1920x1080 (normally) unwanted upscaled here.
    The red framed layer is a screensot as well, but drag&dropped from a tab within Photoshop. It remains in its original resolution of 1920x1080.

    I'm wrong and your right. I just did some testing and Photoshop does indeed interpolate the lower resolution 600x400 72DPI image is  up size to match the higher resolution document document size during the place process. I just assumed Photoshop would preserve image quality and not interpolate the image.    As you have shown it does interpolate the image which greatly lowers the image quality of re-sized low resolution image.
    This shows you should not use Photoshop to merge images into a composite if they have greatly different resolutions.  I don't have a problem there for I never use "save for web" to save images to be displayed on displays from the web or my machine.  I use Fit Image and save as, or a Image Processor script that uses Fit Image to re-size and uses save as.  The leave all my images files resolution setting unchanged.   For some reason Save for Web changes all jpeg files it saves resolution  setting to 72 DPI even if they are 8MP images for high resolution displays..
    During testing I also tried using Photoshop's script Load Files into Stack instead of using Place.  That script works the way I assumed Photoshop Place would work.  Images layer are not interpolated they remain the correct number of pixels and the image quality is not is not changed.. The image layer are normal layers but can be converted to smart object layers however the object would be normal layer not an image file.
    When you use Place you get
    It also possible to undo Photoshop's Place scaling with a simple calculation.  Divide the image layer's original dpi by the document's dpi here there are three layer that did not start at 300dpi. two started out as 74dpi image file the other a 500dpi image file.  72/300=.24 = 24% the other 500/300=1.66666 = 166.66%
    all you need do is change the associated layer's image transform width and height scale from 100% to the calculated percents
    The only time I set document to 72DPI resolution is in Photoshop Scripts so I can calculate a font size  for a charter sting so it will fit the canvas size.  Photoshop Text Tools seem to be tied to 72DPI resolution.  Once I add the text layer I restore the document DPI resolution back to its original setting.
    So when it comes to Photoshop all files use in a project should have identical DPI resolution for best result when making composites.    My image files are either RAW files which have no DPI for they are not RGB image files. Or RGB Image files that have a high DPI resolution. I process images for print. Image files DPI resolution is meaningless when if comes to Display Screens.  All that matters is the number of pixels a display can display and the number of pixels in the image. Even images I re-size for display screens DPI are high for I do not use "Save for Web". I see no good reason to strip metadata and change resolution to 72DPI.  I tend not to interpolate image except the ones I save to be displayed on a display.  I change Print size by changing the DPI setting without resample.  My Epson 4800 inkjet printer has no problem printing high resolution pixel I see no reason resample my camera 16MP image down in size just to print at 300dpi.  If I want to a single 6"x4" print I see nothing wrong printing it at 816DPI.  My eyes can not resolve down there the printer can.  However when Printing on Roll Paper many 6"x4"  the composite document I create via a script has a 300DPI resolution and the image layers are resized to be 6" x 4".

  • Changing ppi changes pixel dimensions but not document size?

    I have an image that is W=4.375 H=6.124 at 355 ppi the pixel dimensions area under Img > Image Size indicates it is W=1553 px H=2174
    When I change the resolution to 72 px it is only changing the pixel dimensions and not the document size. I'm confuesed.
    1. What is the difference between pixel dimensions and document size?
    2. Is the document the same physical size regardless if I make it 200 ppi, 150 ppi or 72?
    Thanks.

    Let me see if I understand all of this:
    - If I change the resolution the print dimension will stay the same, though what is it actually doing to the image if I increase the resolution, though it still is the same print dimension? I am guessing you can not just add pixels to a given size image and expect it to print better.
    - If I change the dimensions, the resolution will change because there will be either more pixels for a smaller area or fewer pixels for a larger area, depending on how I size it.
    Thanks.

  • Increasing ppi from 72 to 300?

    I'm by no means a graphic designer, but my job is having me create a 3' x 2' poster (300 ppi) using Photoshop CS3. I am trying to place a few logos on the poster but am having difficulties. My logos are currently about 20 inches wide, and I would like to keep them this width. However, the resolution is 72 ppi. Obviously when I change it to 300 ppi, Photoshop automatically decreases the image size. Is it possible to make the logos 300 ppi and keep the original document sizes?
    Or, alternatively, I would like to print this poster on canvas with a local printing company. Is it possible for me to create a smaller version of the 3' x 2' poster (perhaps with a smaller ppi?) without losing too much of the clarity, which the printing company could then blow up to 3'x2'?

    300 ppi for a 2 x 3 ft poster is way way over kill.
    You dont need 300ppi unless you are going to view this poster from a normal reading distance of 12 inches from your eyes, and even then you dont need 300ppi. 200-300 will suffice for 12 inch reading distance. Remember that when printing, each pixel is formed by many ink dots. The dpi is much larger (may be 1200 or more) than the ppi.
    Posters are normally viewed from a much further distance (3-4 feet) and 100 ppi is very good. Check with your printer as to what they recommend, but be aware that many printers dont always understand what they are doing. The type of paper that is being used is also important. Is this high gloss coated stock or cheaper paper. Ink bleeds on cheaper paper and you cant get the same resolution as coated stock, so your higher resolution images dont even matter.
    Forget the ppi setting in PS. The important information is you w x h in pixels. You can print any image at any size you want.
    I would set my canvas for 2400 x 3600 pixels which implies 100ppi when printing at 24 x 36. If you want over kill go to 3600 x 5400 pixels which implies 150 ppi.
    Your logs are 1440 x 1440 pixels which will be either 14.4 inches or 9.6 inches. If these are too small than you either redesign them or up sample them. Your choice.
    Ed
    reference ppi vs dpi
    http://www.scantips.com/basics3b.html

Maybe you are looking for