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.

Similar Messages

  • PPI/ LPI... now I'm really confused.

    I posted this in the Illustrator forum too.. 'cause things are pretty down to the wire.
    Pardon me, for I am new to Illustrator.
    For my class assignment,
    I must to put my art in the proper PPI vs. LPI size.
    The documents are all suposed to be at 100 percent,
    so that's not an issue.
    However, it is Photoshop that I am accustomed to using
    (Image Size) to input that kind of distinction.
    (for ppi, etc.)
    My assignment is for the file to be created in Illustrator,
    placed in InDesign, and then printed, but with examples in various
    line screen.. how should this be done?
    The only reason I ask is because I am confused...I do not see that Illustrator or InDesign lets you change ppi settings,
    (which would help me with determining what the linescreen vs. ppi is)
    In Illustrator and InDesign, I only see that you can alter the crop, layout, or color gamut, instead. (which has to be CMYK)
    Do I need to put my files in Photoshop for this?
    Thank you!!

    >The only reason I ask is because I am confused...I do not see that Illustrator or InDesign lets you change ppi settings,
    You can't resample images inside ID. You can see an image's effective resolution by selecting it and looking in the Info panel. You do have the option to lower the effective resolution of placed images when you export to PDF.
    LPI would be a function of the printer, so you would need to output separations to a Postscript printer that prints halftone screens, and set the LPI in the Output tab of the Print dialog.
    Rob

  • PPI/ LPI assignment.. I'm confused.

    Pardon me, for I am new to Illustrator.
    For my class assignment,
    I must to put my art in the proper PPI vs. LPI size.
    The documents are all suposed to be at 100 percent,
    so that's not an issue.
    However, it is Photoshop that I am accustomed to using
    (Image Size) to input that kind of distinction.
    (for ppi, etc.)
    My assignment is for the file to be created in Illustrator,
    placed in InDesign, and then printed, but with examples in various
    line screen.. how should this be done?
    The only reason I ask is because I am confused...I do not see that Illustrator or InDesign lets you change ppi settings,
    (which would help me with determining what the linescreen vs. ppi is)
    In Illustrator and InDesign, I only see that you can alter the crop, layout, or color gamut, instead. (which has to be CMYK)
    Do I need to put my files in Photoshop for this?
    Thank you!!

    PPI refers only to raster images (your Photoshop images). There is no "PPI" per se for an InDesign or Illustrator *document*. An InDesign or Illustrator document can contain any number of raster images, each of which can have a different PPI.
    For example: Place a 300ppi image in InDesign (or Illustrator) at 100%. Duplicate it. Scale it to 200%. Now your document contains two raster images, one at 300ppi, one at 150ppi. There is no document-level ppi that affects both images.
    Now, depending upon whether you use certain features in the program, there may be *some* raster images in the document for which the ppi is determined by document-level settings. Those are raster images which the page program generates on-the-fly, for things like drop shadows and other raster effects. Those effects get "nailed down" to your pre-determined resolution when you print or export.
    LPI only comes into play when you print. It is a printer setting. It determines how course or fine the array of halftone dots is when printed.
    For acceptable output results, there is a practical balance between the ppi of the images on your page and the lpi at which it will be printed. Essentially, the higher the lpi, the higher ppi your images should be.
    That's easiest to understand if you consider a single image pixel. If that pixel is so large that it will span across several halftone dots, then it is possible that the pattern of halftone dots will be able to suggest the square shape of the single pixel. That results in the blocky pixelated appearance when ppi is too low for the halftone ruling (lpi).
    The general rule of thumb is: Adequate ppi is 1 to 2 times the intended lpi. Again, consider a single pixel. Halftone dots are generally round. If a particluar pixel has to be rendered by a single halftone dot, you are not going to be able to see the square shape of the pixel. (How can a single round dot accurately "render" a square?)
    Disregarding other printing factors (dot gain, absorbancy of paper, etc.) a 1:1 ratio between ppi and lpi can look a little "dull" or "soft" when compared side-by-side to higher ratios. But this is also affected by whether the image was properly sharpened. And, there are some raster images for which that does not matter, the typical soft drop shadow being an example. As long as the shadow's pixels can't be individually discerned, why would you need a higher lpi/ppi ratio than 1:1? The subtle softness of 1:1 doesn't hurt a thing in the case of soft drop shadows. (It amuses me when users think that 300ppi is required for the Document Raster Effects Resolution, just because the file will be offset printed at 150 lpi.)
    On the other hand, if the drop shadow overlays a photo, I set the shadow settings to the ppi of the photo.
    1:2 builds in a little "wiggle room" in case you do any on-page transformations of the image. That is, you can do a little stretching or shrinking of the image and still stay between the 1:1 and 1:2 bounds. Because 150 lpi is a very common halftone ruling, you'll often hear it said that "all raster images should be 300ppi." That's largely ka-ka, but that's where it comes from.
    In my experience, 1:1.5 is virtually indistinguishable from 1:2. But I sharpen my images before placing them, and do not do on-page transformations.
    > My assignment is for the file to be created in Illustrator,
    placed in InDesign, and then printed, but with examples in various
    line screen.. how should this be done?
    What will be the content of the Illustrator file? If the Illustrator file contains only a raster image, why would you be using Illustrator at all? Why would you not just place the raster image directly in InD? If the Illustrator contains vector artwork (what Illustrator is primarily for), then ppi is not an issue.
    JET

  • Very confused about ppi, resolution, and image size...

    I have read so much on these things and even posted along these lines here and there, but remain totally confused.
    Say the size of my pictures is around 2000 x 3000. Once I download them to PSE, the resolution is 72ppi. Is this default and could I/should I change this?
    I generally do four things with my pictures.
    First I edit them.
    Next I email to family members.
    Then I order prints (99% are 5x7 or smaller)
    Finally I store them (on computer with CD backup).
    Now, space is a bigger concern than quality since I print small prints generally. So what would be my best options for saving my files, but getting very nice prints?
    Right now, once I edit, I save my files in .jpg, baseline "optimized" at 72ppi. Only following the computer defaults though, not because I think this is best. Would I be better off saving in TIFF or is this not necessary?
    Any links with further info would be appreciated also.
    Thank you,
    Amy

    Amy,
    1. I just took a picture today, and when I look in Image>resize>image size the dimensions are as follows:
    W=2288px H=1712px W=31.778" H=23.778" @72px/in. resolution
    When I change resolution to 325 px/in., W=7.04" H=5.268"
    As the resolution is increased, the dimensions decrease. This is what is called an inverse relation.
    Why did I change to 325px/in? Because for printing it is desirable to have a resolution of 240-300 px/in, or so. Also, note that this resolution gives me almost a perfect 5x7 size format, and one can crop off the excess readily. If one desires 4x6 size, one can crop to that dimension.
    2. I enhance the pictures next, leaving sharpening for the last step
    3. I save primarily in PSD and/or JPEG. Both PSD and TIFF allow one to retain layers, are lossless, and thus one avoids degradation with sequential editing. JPEG is is a compression format which conserves disk space (in comparison to PSD and TIFF), and is most likely required for your e-mail and your photo finisher. I save some of the JPEG files. I usually elect baseline optimized, and the JPEG allows me to elect quality 8, which is good for my purpose and results in a manageable file size.
    4. Right after I download my picture files from the camera, I burn them to a CD (i.e. before I do anything else), and right after I finish the final edits I burn them to CD as well. This is my "film", if you will. If the computer fails or if I should accidentally delete a file from disk, I still have it available.
    I am sure that others will post, but that is my current work flow.
    Ken

  • 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 can I change resolution from 72 ppi to 144 ppi?

    Adobe's CS allows me to change the resolution of an image from 72 ppi to 144 ppi (Image | Image Size). Does iPhoto have a similar capability? Terence Delvin has previously posted how to resize an image to a specified dimension (iPhoto 8 | Installing | Resize), but I also need to change the resolution. iPhoto is so wonderful it's a shame to have to export a file and open it in CS if this is all I wish to do. Thanks, in advance.

    BPWMorro wrote:
    Seriously, it is a photo competition where digital images are displayed through a computer/digital projector setup. The organization's requirements (not mine) are 1024 pixels on the longest side and maximum 144 ppi. Adobe resizes like this in both the CS and also Elements and when the file is then saved it keeps the 144 ppi and its size decreases (for example, from 3.22MB to only 751KB). I just would like to make my life simpler and use iPhoto to accomplish the resize.
    OK I see. I am still confused as to their requirement of 144 ppi as the 1024 on the longest size will resize down for you.
    I don't think iPhoto can change the ppi but you can resize down. Pick the photo, go to File -> Export... and then under size pick custom. On the pull down if you pick "dimension" then type in 1024 in the box under that, it will automatically output a new version of your photo with 1024 as the max size and you get a nice smaller file.
    However, the PPI setting remains the same since this is a print setting and when displayed on a monitor or digital projector, it will display at exactly 1024 by whatever the other side is, assuming the program displaying it displays at 100%.
    Let me poke around a bit more and see if I can come up with something.
    Perhaps a simple exif editor (rather than having to open it in Elements or CS) that you can quickly change the PPI setting of the exported image. I'll have to look and see what is available.
    Patrick

  • Tints vs. transparency; printing indesign file - so confused now

    Hello!
    I'm still learning indesign so i'm definitely not a pro. I've been working on an assignment which consists of creating compositions in indesign. The indesign file basically has text, lines and colored areas.
    I've just realized that I am only allowed to use a couple of colors and their tints. This whole time i've been using color and working with its transparency. Is that remotely the same thing? I am not sure how to get the exact same color i've produced when working with the transparency of a color as a tint. (I'm not suppose to be using transparency yet... XD) Please help.
    Also, once the above is figured out, what is the correct way to export this file as a pdf? Finally, I also need to export all 12 compositions as a 72dpi jpeg to upload online-- how do i do that? The file in indesign is a cmyk file and i'm pretty sure it exports as a cmyk pdf which is okay since i'm printing the pdf. The jpeg part really throws me off though.
    So far, this is what i'm 100% sure on:
    Indesign:
    File> Adobe PDF presets> High Quality Print> give the file a name and save
    then
    this is where i get confused - do I changed the standard options and compability options as well? what about the compression? i've basically printed so many variations of the project playing with the above (from what i've read) and have reached a point in which i'm no longer sure what the correct colors of my file are once exported as a pdf.
    Please help me. Thank you in advance!!!
    (forgot to mention i'm working with indesign CS5.5 and adobe acrobat pro x)

    Hello!
    Thank you for your kind and helpful replies. I was away celebrating Thanksgiving. Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving, rest of the week!
    @ Peter
    Thank you for your explanation of what offset printing is. It really helped me visualize the process. Is this something used only when it comes to printing large quantities of work then? (I'm assuming large files as well)
    @ Dov
    Thanks for explaining your answer in simpler terms. I now understand what you meant. If i'm understanding things correctly, it's not good to use tints over other colors/objects yet it's alright to use them when they are on white backgrounds. Also, it's best not to use tints when it comes to overprinting; transparency is best.
    @ Will
    Thanks for your information! I'm a bit confused now to be honest; pdfx-4 is not recommended when overprinting with transparency?
    @ Dov
    If I'm understanding correctly, what you and Will are saying is that it's best not to import pdfs that are saved as pdfx-4? I really enjoyed reading all the extra info. It's all quite exciting! (trying to wrap my head around this)
    Thanks guys!!
    I decided to export the indesing file under Adobe Pdf Presets> High Quality Print. I didn't change any of the standard settings. With regards to the jpgs, I used the advice recommended - File > Export, choose JPEG, 72 ppi. I do have one large question though...
    This is what one of the compositions looks like in indesign:
    This is what it looks like when I view it under View> Proof Colors in Indesign:
    This is what it looks like when I export it as a Hight Quality Print pdf:
    This is what the jpeg image looks like when I export it under the following settings:
    And this is what the jpeg image looks like when I export it under these settings:
    Is it correct of me to use the exported jpegs with the simulate overprint option selected even though i'm only digital printing this pdf file? The color of the jpeg resenmbles the most of the pdf color. Thus... is it alright to do that?
    Thank you

  • DPI vs PPI - a definitive answer?

    I've looked back at some previous discussions of the DPI setting in Aperture, and I've also read some online explanations of DPI vs PPI. Apparently software applications sometimes confuse the two, and I suspect that this is the case with Aperture but I haven't seen this definitely specified. Photography competitions that ask for high-res files often ask that you use 300 PPI (not DPI); but previous discussions of Aperture suggest that the DPI option (there isn't a PPI option) should be set to 300 for high-res exports. In other words, Aperture seems to refer to DPI when it should be referring to PPI. Is this correct?

    LondonDave wrote:
    Photography competitions that ask for high-res files often ask that you use 300 PPI (not DPI); but previous discussions of Aperture suggest that the DPI option (there isn't a PPI option) should be set to 300 for high-res exports.
    PPI and DPI are often incorrectly used interchangeably but most of the time the improper usage does not hurt anything. However IMO we should ourselves endeavor to use the terms properly. Aperture uses the dpi term correctly because it is referring to an output device.
    Much of the time "photography competitions" are just stealing your image one way or another, so the image spec is just to get it into the form they want to harvest. <OK I am a cynic...>
    When the contest spec is making sense usually it is just specifying linear size (inches or centimeters) x ppi (like 300 ppi) to achieve consistent linear pixel dimensions, which are what really matter. So if they want to harvest what would be typical 8x10 print quality image files they specify 8" x 10" at 300 ppi: the important net result is that every contestant provides a (8x300) x (10x300) = 2400 pixels x 3000 pixels file.
    Or they could specify 24" x 30" at 100 ppi: net result  (24x100) x (30x100) = 2400 pixels x 3000 pixels file.
    Or maybe it is a size-righteous competition, in which size as viewed matters. After all, we all know some pix show well small while others demand large presentation. In that case they may only specify the ppi. The photog determines the presentation size. E.g. 300 ppi is specified and one wants to present at 4" x 4"  it would be a 1200 pixels by 1200 pixels image submission.
    -Allen

  • What PPI should I use when exporting for a video project?

    I shoot RAW photos.  I like and use Premier Elements 11 to make video.  Frequently I insert photos in the videos and enjoy using the Pan and Zoom technique (frequently credited to Ken Burns).
    Resizing photos helps Premier Elements to run smoothly.  The LR Export command makes it easy.  Using PSD files works well in Premier Elements.  However, I am confused about settings.
    My understanding is that if no Pan&Zoom or cropping is to be done in the video the export should be 1920x1080.  If Pan&Zoom is planned, the setting should be higher by about 50%.  LR makes it simple by letting you specify the "Long Edge" so the setting would be 2880.   The short edge will match the original. 
    What about "Pixels Per Inch" for a HD 1920x1080 video project that may be played on a big HD TV or smaller YouTube?  There is plenty of information about PPI for printing and computer monitors, but not HD Video. 
    Here is screen capture for reference:
    What should the pixels per inch be set at to match 1920x1080 video?  The 140 setting is a complete guess!
    Thanks in advance!
    Bill

    whsprague wrote:
    My understanding is that if no Pan&Zoom or cropping is to be done in the video the export should be 1920x1080.  If Pan&Zoom is planned, the setting should be higher by about 50%.  LR makes it simple by letting you specify the "Long Edge" so the setting would be 2880.   The short edge will match the original. 
    The above sentence from your first post is the correct answer with a few changes as to what settings you need to use in LR's Export module.
    Anytime you "resize" an image it will lose sharpness unless you apply Output Sharpening. I have no idea if Premier Elements applies sharpening, how much it applies, or how much using large raw images slows it down. The best suggestion is for YOU to resize the raw images and apply Output Sharpening that meets YOUR taste as to "crispness." That way Premier Elements will use the properly sized TIFF or JPEG images (no PNG Export in LR) with no further modifications.
    For 1080p (1920 x 1080) Videos:
    Don't use the 'Long Edge' option in LR's Export module since you want both portrait and Landscape images to have the same height. Instead simply enter W: 1920, H: 1080, and Resolution as mentioned doesn't matter. For the Output Sharpening LR's Screen Standard setting should work fine, but review the resized images at 1:1 and adjust to your taste. LR's Develop module Sharpening settings should NOT be used for this purpose. This is for the initial "capture" sharpening only.
    As you mentioned when using Zoom & Pan you will want to increase the file size proportional to the actual Zoom setting you are using inside Premier Elements:
    150% = 2880 x 1620
    200% = 3840 x 2160
    300% = 5760 x 3240
    For best results I'd limit your Zoom to 150%, especially if you’re having performance issues. You also don't want to make your image larger than its native camera raw resolution, which will reduce the sharpness. For higher Zoom settings simply Export the images full-size without using ‘Image Sizing’ or ‘Output Sharpening.’ Use 'File Settings' JPEG, sRGB, with 80 Quality setting, which will provide good results.

  • PPI/DPI setting... why do you want it?

    I occasionally see requests for a PPI/DPI setting in Aperture and I just noticed a request for the same in the discussion about Adobe's Lightroom. I've posted comments about why a PPI/DPI setting is not needed, so I'm curious to see if maybe I'm missing something and I'd like to hear some feedback on the subject to help educate myself and others along the way. If my examples aren't exactly clear and seem confusing, perhaps someone else can explain what I'm saying in a much more elegant and easier understood way.
    Here's a copy of my original post about the subject. I've added a few other examples for further clarification on pixel dimensions in relationship to output.
    "An output ppi/dpi setting is not necessary and not relevant and here's why...
    Remember, were talking about pixels here, not inches. Pixel dimensions are all that matter when it comes to sizes in digital photography.
    So when you export an file from Aperture and want something different from the built-in presets, choose "Edit" from the "Export Preset" pop-up in the Export dialog box. You can then add your own settings based upon the output pixel dimensions you would like to have.
    For instance, if you need an 8 x 10 inch image, then take whatever ppi/dpi you would like and times it by those dimensions. A common standard for the web is 72ppi, so your pixel dimensions for an 8 x 10 inch image will be 576 pixels x 720 pixels. A common standard for printing is 300dpi, so then an 8 x 10 inch image will need to be 2400 pixels x 3000 pixels.
    Hence, say you have a 2400 pixel x 3000 pixel file, it would equal...
    - 8 x 10 inches @ 300 ppi
    - 33.333 x 41.667 inches @ 72ppi
    - 4 x 5 inches @ 600ppi
    - 10 x 12.5 inches @ 240ppi
    - 2400 x 3000 inches @ 1ppi
    All the above listed dimensions will give you the exact same perfect 8 x 10 inch print from a 300dpi printer. In fact, whatever the dpi of the printer, each of the above listed dimensions will print the same size on the same printer.
    Say you gave your favorite printer a file that another image editing application (Photoshop perhaps) says is 33.333 x 41.667 inches @ 72dpi or any of the other combinations I listed above. Well most printers are set to print at 300dpi, so it would output perfectly as an 8 x 10 inch print. If the printer was set to print at 360dpi, then you would have a perfect 6.667 x 8.333 inch print.
    Again, if you need an 8 x 10 inch print and the printer prints at 300dpi, then you need a 2400 x 3000 pixel file, if you need a 16 x 20 inch print, and the printer prints at 300dpi, then you need a 4800 x 6000 pixel file. If the printer prints a 240dpi, then an 8 x 10 inch print would need to be 1920 pixels x 2400 pixels and a 16 x 20 inch print would need to be 3840 pixels x 4800 pixels.
    So, you see, it doesn't matter what you ppi/dpi is, it can be anything you want it to be. The only thing you need to know is what you want your pixel dimensions to be and choose those based upon what your output device is."
    -Robert
    PowerMac G5 Quad 2.5Ghz   Mac OS X (10.4.3)   4.5GB RAM, Nvidia 7800 GT, 600GB RAID

    Many of my clients have come to expect me to ftp
    their images cropped, sized and sharpened for final
    reproduction. They say they get much better results
    when I handle all of that. I'm billing by the hour
    for Photoshop type work, so it has become a profit
    center, and I find that when left to the printer to
    sharpen files, and oft times even the designer, they
    do not do such a great job.
    So, the ability to export at a given size and ppi is
    a feature that does not seem at all unreasonable.
    Telling my clients that their requests for files at
    300ppi are unreasonable is unreasonable. It is not
    befitting of a "professional" program to ask us
    constantly to do workarounds for such commonly
    expected capabilities. But it is, like so many
    other "we know best" features, the Aperture way.
    David,
    I completely understand your point and I really do believe that it would be very simple to add a function like this to both Aperture and Lightroom. It's not like such a common setting is a complete mystery to software developers or anyone associated with the commercial arts industry. So, in light of the fact that Adobe, the king of the commercial art software industry leaves a simple common function such as this out of their application also, one has to ask, why?
    I really don't believe for one second that Apple just dropped the ball and didn't include this function just because some believe they rushed a product to market. That just doesn't make any sense. How could you not include what is considered to be such an important function by so many out of an application. Nope, I don't buy it, I truly believe it's not include it on purpose.
    So again, I ask why?
    I keep having to rethink about what is just "photographic". Remove myself from the business of running my studio. Forget about what a photographer needs in order to run their business, I myself use Photoshop, Bridge, InDesign, Illustrator, GoLive, Quark, QuickBooks, many times a week if not everyday. I need all these things and much more in order to conduct business, but business isn't "photographic". Business is business.
    Photoshop is an absolutely wonderful application, but it doesn't do "photography" very well. This is where both Aperture and Lightroom come in. They both ask, what is "photographic" and then only do that.
    And again, I keep coming back to the fact that the ability to control DPI/PPI settings is a pre-press function only, it's not a photographic function, never has been and never will be. It maybe a common function that a photography studio may need, but it has absolutely nothing to do with photography. It's strictly pre-press.
    With both these new products that Apple and Adobe have offered the photographer, I think they're really trying to drive home the point that they want us "Photographers" to really re-think how we've done things in the digital realm all these past years. They want to help us be "Photographers" not just businesspersons that need to run a multi-function commercial art business.
    -Robert

  • Size confusion

    I doing my first business card. The printer told me to make sure that I do the image at 300 ppi so I've set up a blank work page at 3 1/2 x 2 inches and or 1050 x 600 pixels at 300ppi.
    I've set it up this way so that what ever other images I bring into this work space, I will be able to see immediately if they are large enough or not to work on this business card.
    Now, one of the images that the client wants brought into this work space is 329 x 242 pixels at 72 ppi and he wants it to be almost the full width of the card because it is a logo. Now immediately, I'm thinking, this is just going to be too small.
    Here's what's really confusing me, as a test, I selected the whole 329 x 242 pixel, 72 ppi image and dragged it into the business card work space thinking for sure that when I dragged it in, I would immediately see it's visual size shrink dramatically. This did not happen. It dragged into the work space without shrinking at all even though it was a 72 ppi image being brought into a 300 ppi image.
    Then, just to try and figure things out, I went back to the 329 x 242 image and changed the resolution to 300 ppi without resampling, which of course made the size numbers for the image go down dramatically but when I went ahead with the resizing, THIS DIDN'T SHRINK THE IMAGE EITHER.
    This is version III. I could almost swear that when I did this exact same type of thing before, with version II, I would immediately see the dragged in, less resolution image shrink, which only makes sense.
    Somebody set me straight here.
    Confused.

    As Colin suspected, you are a tiny bit confused about the resolution issue. The ppi in this particular case isn't important; you only need to pay attention to the number of pixels present in each of the two images. The image of the logo is going to transfer to the new document pixel for pixel. I see now what you were trying to describe, and it was working the way it should. So, you're right; your bigger challenge will be increasing the pixel dimensions of the logo in order to get a good print.
    How detailed is the logo? My son had created one for a business we had that was really quite forgiving and would have resized well. I'd suggest before you do anything else that you experiment (on a copy, of course!) Open the logo and resize it with Resampling checked. PSE 3.0 now has two new options for resampling; one is Bicubic Smoother, and the other is Bicubic Sharper. And I'll be doggoned if I can remember what the consensus is for which one to use when resampling upwards and which to use when resampling downwards! Eeeek!
    You get the copy made, and I'll go off and see if I get lucky and find the answer. When I do, I'll repost, or maybe someone else will know which is which off the top of their head and post the answer. Or, if I'm too slow for you, try using one resizing option on one copy and the other option on another copy. This might require you do a test print, unless it looks so bad on the screen that you can tell right away. Unfortunately, screens are more forgiving that printers. :(
    Resizing might not work, in which case recreating it will be the only alternative. Let's hope you get lucky.
    Edit: That was easier than I thought: "For upsizing your images, check Resample and Choose Bicubic Smoother from the Bicubic drop-down menu. Try not to upsize more than 50% for a quality image."
    Good luck, and let us know how it's going. In your case, you'll have to go beyond that 50% rule. You might want to add one more step to this. Don't do the entire upsize at once; tackle it in increments of 10% at a time, but still use the Bicubic Smoother option. You've got a long way to go, so it still might not work, but it won't take you long to find out.
    Edit #2!: A couple more thoughts. The size discrepancy you were seeing (or not seeing, depending on your perspective) may have been because the View percentage on the two images was different. But that's not important at this point.
    Does this person have anything else the logo has been used on that's already been printed? If so, you might be able to get yourself a decent scan at a higher resolution.
    And, last (whew!), if you DO wind up having to recreate this logo, make sure you do it in a nice high res in case he comes back wanting something bigger than a business card made! It's always easier to downsize a big image than to upsize a small one. :)
    I think I'm through now.

  • PPI VS. DPI in verbal printing discussion

    Hi,
    I was wondering If I could get a professional opinion on how DPI and PPI should be conversed with a print vendor?
    This would include screen printing and offset printing.
    Also, for years when I talk with a designer, I always asked to save as 300 DPI…not 300 PPI thats just the language I have been used to.
    Can someone please give me an endepth explaniation of the two choices and which is more common to use.
    Personally I think DPI is the more current to use.
    Thanks…please advise,
    JB

    They are used interchangably (unfortunately) and if they ask for 300 DPI then you can be confident that they mean 300 PPI.
    However, this doesn't make it correct: there are no "dots" in a digital image, never have been and never will be. There are only pixels. PPI is the correct unit of measurement, and that's only if you know the print size; the actual resolution of a digital image is the total number of pixels, for example 1500px by 850px -- until you determine the output size there is no PPI measurement. Of course you need to know the output size in order to give them 300 PPI; scanning an image @ 300 PPI and then enlarging it 200% in your layour will give you an effective resolution of 150 PPI.
    DPI refers to output resolution of a device such as a printer, imagesetter, platesetter, etc. It does not refer to linescreen (that would be lines per inch, or LPI).
    The best way to avoid confusion in any discussion is to use proper terminology (and teach and encourage others to do the same).

  • Export jpeg ppi

    Whenever I export a RAW file to jpeg, the resulting ppi is 72 irrespective of what I set in the export dialogue. Further, the constraint to maximum size is disregarded. Exporting to psd format performs as expected. Using LR 1.1 with Vista.

    A search on 72dpi might not work, try just dpi.
    The dpi setting can be ignored. Only applies if you are actually printing and even then, from what I have read, dpi is calculated, the critical info being file size in pixels and desired print size. PPI would be the more correct term but that would be ignored too since resolution cannot be a factor in screen display of images, only pixel dimensions are used.
    In any event it appears to me that LR (and other Adobe products) are confusing the issue by including resolution settings (dpi is definitely wrong since it is strictly a printing term) for images that are being resized for email or any other form of screen display. Only pixel dimensions count for screen display - 800x600, 1600x1200, etc. Monitors do not have variable resolution and they display images in pixel dimensions only - dpi (or ppi) settings are ignored.

  • Newbie to printing: A bit confused

    I use to work for webs, and now I need to print a few tags. So I prepared the first file (120 mm x 40 mm, 300ppp), saved in JPEG, and... what did I get, when I opened it in Photoshop to check? A picture of 120 mm x 40 mm, that's OK... but no 300 ppp but only 72 Therefore, measures in pixeles are just 341 x 114.
    What's wrong? Thanks for your help!

    OK guys the OP is not lazy so a screen shot would be helpful. As they are just confused since they are web oriented. And no one understands what Rsyer Effects Settings means the first time they see it.
    To the OP I am not sure why you are exporting thye file to a raster image file in the first place and secondly why you would choose Jpeg over Tiff as evetually the jpeg has to be converted to a tiff to send it to most imagesetting devices.
    So I would one suggest the tiff format and two explain to the groupop here why you are exporting it to a raster image file so they might advise you as to wether that is the right thing to do as it might possibly not be what you really need to do with the file.
    Here are screen shots from the export dialogs showing where you set the files resolution.  The default is 72 ppi. so ou have to chaqnge it manually.
    For Jpeg
    For tiff

  • Apple ID appearing on another iPhone device (Sync confusion)

    Issue
    iTunes is sporadically requesting access to my partner's Apple ID account when downloading applications and trying to install the other iTunes account applications also when syncing takes place within iTunes. System software/accounts seems confused.
    How can I ensure that both devices remain separate and do not access each other's iTunes accounts or sync over Mac logins? How can I delete mixed applications from separate Apple ID's ensuring it won't replicate the deletion on the primary Apple ID?
    Background
    1 x Macbook Pro OS 10.8.2
    iTunes 11.0.1
    App Store 1.2.1
    1 x iPhone 4S OS 6.0.1 (Device A)
    1 x iPhone 4 OS 6.0.1 (Device B)
    Separate Apple ID's
    Separate iCloud accounts
    iTunes accounts
    Both people have our own iTunes accounts linked to their own device. All details are currently correct when checking Apple ID profiles.
    MacbookPro
    Both people have separate MacBook Pro logins and software is all up to date.
    History
    In the past, over a year ago, both iPhone devices were sync'd via the same iTunes and Macbook log in. (Not a good start I know) Both iPhones always had their own iTunes account for downloading apps and music etc. When I realised I was syncing application data from one iPhone to the other on my Macbook, I created two Macbook log ins. I deleted all applications on Device B that were transferred from Device A and also deleted the applications in Device B's iTunes account. It seemed that both devices finally had seperated, retained their own Apple ID logins, applications and Macbook user logins.
    Device B recently tried to install an application that Device A also had.
    The application installed onto Device B without an issue and there was no confusion with Device A having the same application. The application can be upgraded to provide additional functionality. When Device B requested this within the application to upgrade, the Apple ID of Device A suddenly appeared.
    I checked that Device B was asked to INSTALL the primary basic version of the application rather than OPEN it, just incase the confusion started at this point. It definitely said INSTALL.
    I thought the divorce was done and dusted in the past.
    Why would Device B suddenly point Device A's Apple ID?
    To troubleshoot, I connected Device B to iTunes on the MacBook with Device B's Macbook log in. When iTunes opened within the Apple ID of Device B ALL DEVICE A applications appeared and started to sync these applications to Device B! I am back to mixed accounts.
    How can ITunes suddenly connect the Apple ID's of both accounts and then tell Device B it needs to install Device A's applications? They are separate Apple ID accounts, separate copyright, separate costs.
    I know with iMatch that you can share the library with another device and when this occurs it locks the Apple ID of the primary iTunes account for 90 days on secondary device. We have never done this.
    I'm 'Syncing' trying to work this one out, please help!

    Steve324 wrote:
    s there a solution to get things
    back the way it was before the install?
    Thank you!
    See my previous suggestions

Maybe you are looking for