I’m shooting in TIFF or JPEG Fine, in the Large format which produces a file that is roughly 40" by 27" according to the rulers in Corel Photo Paint. When this file is displayed in the Photoshop Elements main window or Print Preview, it is only 10" by 6", roughly 1/4 the size originally shot. Surprisingly, when I increase the size in Page Setup to fill the 13×19 Epson paper there is no derogatory effect on resolution when printed. It’s as though the original size is there but I can’t get to it when displayed in the main window. I checked Preferences but couldn;t find a setting that controls this. I’d appreciate some insight on this. I want to retain the original size and reduce it only when I choose to via "Fit on Screen" viewing and "Fit to Media" printing is selected Thanks.
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
Your image hasn’t truly been reduced, in the sense of a lessening or loss. It is a resolution issue. It’s like if you gave 3 squashes each to two people, but for one person you cut all of their’s in quarters. 12 pieces seems like he has more than the guy with only three, but they do have equal amounts of squash. Your 40×27 image is the same exact size as the 10×6 one. It’s all about resolution. Images come off of digital cameras with a resolution of 72ppi. Images are comprised of teeny, tiny boxes, arranged on a grid, called pixels. So an image is x number of pixels by y number of pixels and they are only loosely packed together with 72 pixels per inch. You can’t get a good print with an image at 72ppi, it looks blocky, you can see some of those pixels. Changing that low resolution to a suitable one for printing, like 300ppi, has the same number of pixels crammed together more tightly. They now take up less physical space. You need a higher resolution to print a sharp photo. Same number of pixels in either case, just a matter or spacing.
Read up on this at Wayne Fulton’s great site, you need to have a firm grasp of the whole resolution issue.
The size of an image displayed on your workarea in PSE has no bearing to its actual size. The display is shown at whatever size you want. It can zoom to view individual pixels at like 1600% or show the whole image in a space of thumbnail. If you have the rulers showing, the size means when printed at the resolution the file is now in. (check this by looking at Image>Resize, WITHOUT resample checked, type in different numbers for resolution only. The higher the res., the smaller the printout. The numbers for resolution are only for the benefit of our printers, to tell them how large to print our image. Res. means nothing to a monitor.
Most monitors have a resolution of somewhere between 72 and 100 pixels per inch (ppi). That’s why the default resolution is set to 72 by most (not all) digital cameras. When you open an image in PSE, it resamples the image to fit in the work area, and the header at the top of the window tells you how much it had to shrink the image to make it fit. If you want to see it at 100%…each pixel occupying a pixel space on the monitor…click Ctrl-Alt-0 (that’s zero, not "oh")on a PC (not sure about the equivalent for Mac). You will probably have to scroll to see the full image. To return to a "full-screen" view, click Ctrl-0. You can expand and contract the image in smaller increments by clicking Ctrl+ and Ctrl-. Hope this helps. Bert
Many UPS units will also act as a power regulator. It’s surprising how the current varies on a line. Even when it says 110 volts, electricity can jump from 107 to 130 volts. I burned a Color Computer (several years ago) because our power corp sent us 124 volts… But, suspecting this, my father asked for a technician to install an instrument to measure power strenght. When the guy came back to collect his equipment, he realized this was way over "normal tolerance" for appliances. A few days later, the company installed a new piece of equipment in the neighborhood. That never happened again. But, if I could have had a UPS at that time, it would have saved my computer.
Ray, You’re in the wrong topic , but that’s okay. It gave me a chance to learn you had a color computer. I had a pair of them myself ( we are talking early 1980’s here ) and I learned a lot from the experience.
Since 4×6 is the standard size for photo printing, why would PSE not include a print layout which includes 4×6 prints???? It’s easy to get my pictures to print at 5X7, 3.5 X 5 or 2.5 X 3.5. Why would PSE not make it just as simple for 4×6? This really baffles me. I am frustrated at the amount of time I have spent researching something that I think should have been made very simple for me.
The 4×6 standard was set by the 35mm negative size long before digital cameras came about. If you go back far enough, 3.5×5 was the standard photo size at most processors then it went to 4×6. The bottom line is that the digital ratio of 4:3 will not make a 4×6 no matter how much you’d like it to. It takes a little getting used to but once you get it planted firmly in your mind you automatically take that into account when you shoot digital.
That aspect ratio of most digital cameras is very close to what the more professional, medium format film cameras shoot. What I like to do is create a smaller 4×5 (nearly) version of each picture, and then put four of those on a standard sheet of photo paper. However, if I decide to save money, I will crop the pictures to whatever size I want them printed and then take them to Sam’s Club to be printed. I cannot print at home for what I can get them done there for.
With my old Nikon CP 950, it was really simple to do multiple pix per page. The images were 1600×1200, so if I just wanted some uncropped snapshots, I set resolution to 320 ppi which gave me images that were 5 x 3.75 inches. Then, I opened a new 10 x 7.5 inch canvas with resolution set to 320 ppi, and dragged four images onto the canvas. The result was a page with four (roughly) 4x5s with a half-inch border around the page. This will work with any camera that has a 4:3 image ratio. Just divide the long dimension pixel value by 5 and set the resolution to that value. If the resultant resolution is too high, you might want to downsample, though. My Oly E-20 is 2560×1920 which means I would have to print at 512 ppi. Bert
I save all of my photos in albums with 4×6 sleeves. I’ve been uploading photo files to online photo processors because they send me back the 4×6 prints that I can’t do at home. I just wish the whole process was simpler on PSE so that I could print out 4×6’s at home when I wanted to.
There is no reason why you should not be able to print 4×6 prints at home. I do it frequently. Your image has to be cropped and sized appropriately, but that is fairly straightforward. Or is there something I’m just not understanding in your question. In reality, you should be able to print any size photograph up to the maximum that can be printed by your printer.
While they do appear to be very costly they have a couple of things going for them. One you do not need a computer with them and that is a savings in itself. Two the new ones are very easy to use and require very little or know computer knowledge. Three and probably the most important I do think most are dye sublimation and therefore are capable of some very fine prints. Granted these are made for a niche market and I doubt if someone of you skill would be interested in one but what about Aunt Dorthy and Uncle Rhemus?
A friend of mine has one of the Sony 4×6 printers, and it makes fantastic prints!
No computer necessary – although it will work with one. Simply plut it into a TV, insert a memory stick (don’t know if it accepts other formats), and you can view thumbnails, zoom (crop), adjust color, run a slideshow, and print.
My feeling is that it is too limited in function, too expensive to buy, and too expensive to operate (~$16/25 prints), so I won’t be rushing out to my nearest retailer.
Simply plut it into a TV, insert a memory stick (don’t know if it accepts other formats), and you can view thumbnails, zoom (crop), adjust color, run a slideshow, and print.
I understand the allure this has for people who are not computer-literate (Uncle Rhemus, as Grant says) or more importantly, Photoshop-literate. I would think that anyone participating in this forum has little interest in a printer like that. I have too much fun working on the images in PSE. Why would I want to forgo that? 🙂 Bert
I got to work with one of those Canon dye-sub printers that could ONLY print from a Canon camera, not from a computer. I had to do all kinds of gyrations to take an image off the CF card, manipulate it in Elements, upload it back to the CF card, put the card back in the camera, and print. Nice print, but…
My epson will print without a computer as well and I can get all sorts of size prints and various layouts ( high quality ) without the computer and did not pay this much. Although I admit i know nothing about dye sub ink but still….c’mon, those prices need to come down….and they probably will …eventually. I just think the limited print size should reflect the price. It’s called X~mas time prices !
Jodi, you also get dinged on the cost of replacement ink AND paper cartridges for those machines. They’re definitely the gifts that keep on giving….to Sony (or Canon).
Well Chuck, it seems it’s the era of the digital camera…notice all the commercials now just before Christmas..Sony, Canon, Olympus are the 3 that are constant here….only lately though…that Christmas thing…anyways, ya, your thoughts are the same reason I would never buy an expensive car if I hit the lottery…those parts are costly ! In the long run i do not see the point in these 4 X 6 printers. Imagine you take a beautiful image in which you want to frame…oops, shit my printer wont do that…ya, forget it. Waste of money ! I’m allowed to be a bitch right now…my back is killing me and I can’t sleep.
Jodi, I’m sorry about your back; hope it heals quickly for a youngster like you….
I bought a travel printer (Canon i70) for business that’s a compromise: relatively small size but an inkjet not dye-sub; uses regular paper (copy and photo); attaches to camera or ‘puter. Still, it won’t be cheap to operate; the ink cartridges are SO tiny.
ya know, I should back up a bit…the printers are fine ( they can sell what they want )…it’s the price that bugs me !!! Sony is $200…and that was a Sears sale price here…for only 4 X 6’s !!!! sheeesh
Besides, Jodi, it may seem expensive to you, but those prices are INCREDIBLE for dye-sub printing. I remember back in 96 or 97 when someone came out with a (really crummy horrible broke down all the time) dye-sub for about $2000 and it was really big news.
Jodi, that’s a good price! They’re $339 on amazon.com. Is it the same printer (55 something?) I recall that the Canon was ~$250 last year – and then you had to pay more a bunch for the paper/ink cartridges.
I can’t find it in here which means it ended up in the kitchen garbage and I’m not digging through that. I’m thinking it was not the model you stated. Probably not. Your price is even more ridiculous.
Well, it’s quite a coincidence for me that we’re on the subject of printers…one of mine…and old HP 722c…died last weekend. It looks like it’s just a broken drive belt, but it’s six or seven years old…definitely not worth fixing. So, I started shopping for printers today. I also have an Epson Stylus Photo 780 on my Photoshop machine. The HP was on the other computer, just sort of a utility printer. I tried to convince my wife to let me replace the HP with the Epson, so I can go buy an Epson 2200 7-color printer, but she’s balking. Doesn’t like the 780. She’s heard me swear at it too much when the heads plug up. So we just want a little 4-color printer with really cheap ink cartridges (LOL). Yeah, and I really believe in Santa Claus, too. Bert
