# Dpi and photoshop and printing.



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 23, 2011)

I have a project in Photoshop that I think is 300dpi (it says 300 pixels per inch).
I have been asked to deliver as a 400dpi Tiff.

Can I just change it with no real consequences?

The two photos I have used obviously won't magically become any better quality but will I need to redo the text?

Do they want a tiff with or without layers (for the printers).


----------



## ddraig (Aug 23, 2011)

yes it will degrade it, need to know more tbh, how much detail is there in the document? is the psd the same as the print size or bigger?
and the only way you can get a true indication is printing out both versions or obviously get proofs which i appreciate is not always practical or affordable
depends what you are doing really but i imagine the printers would want the final flat image, unless you have any special inks or whatever.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 23, 2011)

If the text is in normal photoshop tex layers, then it will come through a resize with no loss of quality. You'll almost certainly want to give them a flattened image, no layers. So tick save a copy and untick save layers.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 23, 2011)

ddraig said:


> yes it will degrade it, need to know more tbh, how much detail is there in the document? is the psd the same as the print size or bigger?
> and the only way you can get a true indication is printing out both versions or obviously get proofs which i appreciate is not always practical or affordable
> depends what you are doing really but i imagine the printers would want the final flat image, unless you have any special inks or whatever.



Changing the dpi will degrade the picture? Yipes!
I will have to check the size (just closed it though) but it appears to be about the size of what needs to be printed. It should be because I did it on guide lines.
It's 12 inches by 24 inches so it's bigger than anything else I have ever made for print. I thought 300dpi was as good as you needed.
The original photographs have already been blown up a bit to fit the guides.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 23, 2011)

Crispy said:


> If the text is in normal photoshop tex layers, then it will come through a resize with no loss of quality. .


Even if some layers have been linked and resized?


----------



## editor (Aug 23, 2011)

Is the text part of an image or a separate font layer?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 23, 2011)

editor said:


> Is the text part of an image or a separate font layer?


I think it's a font layer but I linked some bits and resized them. It did that thing where it asked me to 'add changes' or whatever.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 23, 2011)

In "dpi", is a dot the same as a pixel?


----------



## editor (Aug 23, 2011)

weltweit said:


> In "dpi", is a dot the same as a pixel?





> Really printed output dimensions are dictated by DPI (Dots Per Inch), or sometimes referred to as PPI (pixels per inch) – whatever term you use they mean the same thing. This refers to how many pixels get printed in an inch. So, if you have a 600 pixel x 600 pixel image at 300DPI, it will output at 2 inches square. If you change this images DPI to 150, this will mean it will output at 4 inches square. So, as you can see, changing the DPI of an image changes it output size.


http://photoshopninja.com/photoshop-top-tips/image-resolution-and-dpi-explained/


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 24, 2011)

editor said:


> http://photoshopninja.com/photoshop-top-tips/image-resolution-and-dpi-explained/


So if I change my image from 300dpi to 400dpi the actual image will get smaller?
I thought it just changed the resolution for print output.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 24, 2011)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> So if I change my image from 300dpi to 400dpi the actual image will get smaller?



Depends on how you describe your image. If you describe your image in pixels then it will remain a 6000 x 4000px image (whatever), but if you describe it in centimeters as a printed image then yes it will get smaller if you increase the dpi resolution.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I thought it just changed the resolution for print output.



I think you are right, it just changes the resolution for print.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 24, 2011)

same thing really init!
smaller image being scaled up will lose some resolution


----------



## gabi (Aug 24, 2011)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> So if I change my image from 300dpi to 400dpi the actual image will get smaller?
> I thought it just changed the resolution for print output.



Yes, it'll resample it. you'll get a smaller pic. if you unclick resample when you're resizing your size will stay the same but you'll lose quality.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 24, 2011)

gabi said:


> Yes, it'll resample it. you'll get a smaller pic. if you unclick resample when you're resizing your size will stay the same but you'll lose quality.


Yes, I can't help the resolution of the images (apart from one that I had to shrink), but the text can be of better quality surely.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 24, 2011)

ddraig said:


> same thing really init!
> smaller image being scaled up will lose some resolution


Not necessarily surely as it is for print. More print dots per that size, plus text will adapt won't it?


----------



## gabi (Aug 24, 2011)

is it predominantly text then? ideally you'd be providing this in vector (ie, illustrator) format, then there's no loss when you scale up


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 24, 2011)

gabi said:


> is it predominantly text then? ideally you'd be providing this in vector (ie, illustrator) format, then there's no loss when you scale up


No it isn't mostly in text. It's two pictures but they have already been scaled up to fit a template at 300dpi. There is text over the top.
The whole thing is 12 inches by 24 and they have asked for it at 400dpi for the printers. Basically I don't know what to do to deliver / get the best results.

Do I change it to 400dpi and then redo the text?


----------



## gabi (Aug 24, 2011)

ask them why they want 400dpi. that's pretty weird. 300 is fine for most things.

but yes, if u can, do the text in illustrator and paste it in as a vector smart object.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 24, 2011)

gabi said:


> ask them why they want 400dpi. that's pretty weird. 300 is fine for most things.
> 
> but yes, if u can, do the text in illustrator and paste it in as a vector smart object.



Ah, well that's good news for a start. I thought 400 was a bit weird but I have not had enough experience in these things to to really question it.
Will it really make much difference doing the text as a vector smart object rather than photoshop text at 400dpi?


----------



## gabi (Aug 24, 2011)

Well, no not really... are u making a billboard or something?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 24, 2011)

gabi said:


> Well, no not really... are u making a billboard or something?


No, just a record cover.


----------



## gabi (Aug 24, 2011)

300 is fine then. ive sent a few of those to print. i'd be a but sus about your printer tbh if he's asking for 400dpi.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 24, 2011)

gabi said:


> 300 is fine then. ive sent a few of those to print. i'd be a but sus about your printer tbh if he's asking for 400dpi.


Just to be clear it's 12inch vinyl not a CD, is that the same?.

I did think 300 was fine.


----------



## Structaural (Aug 24, 2011)

300dpi wll be fine. Especially if you've already made the imagery.
Ask the printer what Screen he is using (lpi), the only reason to request 400dpi is if he's using a screen of 200lpi or higher which is unusual. And even then 300dpi wll print fine on 200lpi unless you have very fine lines and type.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 24, 2011)

dpi for printing digital images is meaningless... all digital images are technically 72dpi... sadly it's quite important for text.

you need to know the pixel dimensions of the image you're going to have on the final piece and then resize the original image to that. the text will convert in PS to the right dPI althoguh the font sizes might scale in 3rds or similar...


----------



## Structaural (Aug 24, 2011)

No they're not.
He's done all that Garf. It's correctly sized and the artwork made - but his printer is asking for an uncommon 400dpi.

Dpi (or ppi) for printing is _entirely meaningful_, it's how many pixels exist _per inch_ when finally printed and must be linked to the screen lines per inch when printed with plates (usually 1.5 pixels to 2 pixels per line). A newspaper prints at around 80lpi so only 160dpi is required. A typical magazine or record cover will use a screen of around 150lpi and thus need a 300dpi image.


----------



## gabi (Aug 24, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> dpi for printing digital images is meaningless... all digital images are technically 72dpi... sadly it's quite important for text.
> 
> you need to know the pixel dimensions of the image you're going to have on the final piece and then resize the original image to that. the text will convert in PS to the right dPI althoguh the font sizes might scale in 3rds or similar...



eh? this is a print project, not a web one. DPI is crucial.


----------



## Structaural (Aug 24, 2011)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Will it really make much difference doing the text as a vector smart object rather than photoshop text at 400dpi?



Only if you can send him the entire PSD unflattened and he prints from that. If it's a TIFF or JPEG dropped into another app it won't work.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 24, 2011)

Well anyway, they have just contacted me and said 300dpi is fine.
Still it was nice to get it all settled in my mind. Thanks to everyone who posted !


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 24, 2011)

gabi said:


> Well, no not really... are u making a billboard or something?



10 dpi would be fine for a billboard.

As a general rule of thumb...

Set your PS document settings to 360 dpi and canvas size in Centimeters at the size you intend to output. From there a file requested for print at 400, or 300 dpi will not be a problem, and will not degrade in quality.

Start as you mean to go on!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 25, 2011)

gabi said:


> eh? this is a print project, not a web one. DPI is crucial.


doesn't change the hard coded fact that the res of the digital image will never increase past 72 dpi. you can upscale it if you chose to 1billion dpi but the image will just pixelate and decay. ALL digital images are 72dpi which makes no material difference to their quality at all...

unless you're saying modern highres digital images aren't any good when printed...

read

http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/mythdpi.html


----------



## Structaural (Aug 25, 2011)

You're wrong. If the image is 72dpi then that is merely what it has been set to, if it's 300dpi then that's what it is has been set to. I've been doing this for 23 years I don't need to read a *photographers* badly understood and worded take on *print production* (even though I did read it: talk about making something simple, complicated and confusing). Most web images, JPEGs and RAWs from cameras are set to 72dpi. Most scanners will scan with a resolution set to 300dpi. The fact that that photographer thinks 72dpi is some sort of industry standard when all it relates to is seeing pixels at 1:1 on a computer screen. Though even this is wrong:

On my monitor all my images when viewing on screen are around *110dpi * -regardless of their 72dpi resolution setting. Most modern monitors have a higher dot pitch than 72dpi these days, so even your 'fixed' 72dpi 'hard-coded' image setting is _wrong_. The image when prepared for the web, or stored as RAW or JPEG may be set at 72dpi, but this will be incorrectly displayed on any modern monitor. ie bring up one of your 72dpi images and look at its physical size in Photoshop - it's width and height in mms, say, and now measure it with a ruler on your screen. See it's wrong. Unless your using a CRT from the 90s.
So be clear DPI (which is exactly analogous to PPI and no printer would ever get this confused) is _*how many pixels exist within any inch*_ on your final output - whether that be an iPhone (336dpi) a computer monitor (72-150dpi) a magazine (300dpi) or billboards (20dpi). I hope that helps.  This helpfully then relates to the actual physical size of your image ie, 10cm by 10cm or 9m by 3m.
So a 100cm by 100cm 72 dpi image is exactly the same size (in pixels and filesize) as a 24cm by 24cm at 300dpi. Specifically 2835 x 2835 pixels. You can print it any size you want but its resolution will change.

If *all* you're interested in is the final pixel width and height - or it's size in megapixels then back to the web for you, for that is the only medium where only pixels count and almost always with a fixed (incorrect) resolution of 72dpi (well, also film/movie production). Everyone else is dealing with the physical size of the image and its resolution. Even those outputting 10x8 E6 transparencies will want a specific pixel density. Output a continuous tone A3 photographic print at 72dpi (1191 x 842 px) and it will be heavily pixellated. Print the same image at A7 and it will be crisp and sharp.

The problem that often confuses people is that a pixel image as opposed to a vector image has a finite amount of pixels available hence the need for larger and larger megapixels to keep up with larger and larger print demand. And higher and higher quality - some printers will print beautiful 300lpi prints (requires 450-600dpi image) - but it looks like photography.
I recently did a load of work for Lacoste/Footlocker, some platinum range and the photographers work - even at 60Megapixels - wasn't high enough for the final output, so some clever upsizing had to be done (using PhotoZoom). All because the printer insisted on 300dpi at final size of 2 meters (the cunt).


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 25, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> doesn't change the hard coded fact that the res of the digital image will never increase past 72 dpi. you can upscale it if you chose to 1billion dpi but the image will just pixelate and decay. ALL digital images are 72dpi which makes no material difference to their quality at all...
> 
> unless you're saying modern highres digital images aren't any good when printed...
> 
> ...



Who gives a shit when we are talking about print and not digital images?








That link even proves there is a difference in quality, it just depends on what size you are digitally displaying your images

Edit - Beaten to it by structural.


----------



## Structaural (Aug 25, 2011)

sorry quiet morning


----------



## weltweit (Aug 25, 2011)

My main outputs are web and print.

For the web I think only in pixels and try to maintain 3x2 proportions even if I crop.

For printing I maintain maximum size of file (for me it is just 6mp - 2.5mb) and maintain 3x2 so that I can print on 6x4 or 9x6 or 10x15 without any cropping. I have no idea of the resolution the fuji frontier printer uses and whether they have to interpolate the image when printing it, but I do know that I get the quality of print that I am after.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 25, 2011)

I never expected this to be a two page thread. Awesome!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 25, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> doesn't change the hard coded fact that the res of the digital image will never increase past 72 dpi. you can upscale it if you chose to 1billion dpi but the image will just pixelate and decay. ALL digital images are 72dpi which makes no material difference to their quality at all...
> 
> unless you're saying modern highres digital images aren't any good when printed...
> 
> ...



You're misunderstanding a critical aspect.

Web/screen resolution may well be limited to 72dpi (or, more commonly 96dpi today) by output only.

Print output is limitless almost.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 25, 2011)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I never expected this to be a two page thread. Awesome!



Tagline


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 28, 2011)

New question.

What byte order (or was that bit order?) should the TIFF be.
I'm using a Mac but it has given me the option of Mac or PC ?


----------



## Structaural (Aug 29, 2011)

Doesn't really matter these days - I'd go for the Mac one as you're on a mac.


----------



## gabi (Aug 29, 2011)

yeh, that's an irrelevance these days.. pretty sure adobe will phase that option out soon


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 29, 2011)

Ah ok cool, thanks guys, I already selected Mac anyway.


----------

