300 dpi images

R
Posted By
Robert
Nov 27, 2005
Views
1228
Replies
41
Status
Closed
Good day
I am sending images to a magazine, and they have requested that they be sent at 300 dpi. I shoot on a canon 10 D (large-fine jpeg), and I am not quite sure as to what dpi they are sent from the camera to my computer. Using photoshop what is the easiest to ensure that the images are saved at 300 dpi ?
Awaiting your expert answers..

Thanks
Harold
Johannesburg,
South Africa

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

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.

J
jaSPAMc
Nov 28, 2005
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:15:39 +0200, "Robert" found these unused words floating about:

Good day
I am sending images to a magazine, and they have requested that they be sent at 300 dpi. I shoot on a canon 10 D (large-fine jpeg), and I am not quite sure as to what dpi they are sent from the camera to my computer. Using photoshop what is the easiest to ensure that the images are saved at 300 dpi ?
Awaiting your expert answers..

Thanks
Harold
Johannesburg,
South Africa
IF the mag is requiring that you work to a ‘final dimension’ size, the dpi matters … if not, they’re just plain idiots!

Just go into ‘image size’ and uncheck ‘resample’, type in 300 and then OK. You could make an action to do this just for the clueless mags.
S
SCRUFF
Nov 28, 2005
"Robert" wrote in message
Good day
I am sending images to a magazine, and they have requested that they be
sent
at 300 dpi. I shoot on a canon 10 D (large-fine jpeg), and I am not quite sure as to what dpi they are sent from the camera to my computer. Using photoshop what is the easiest to ensure that the images are saved at 300
dpi
?
Awaiting your expert answers..

Thanks
Harold
Johannesburg,
South Africa
Just send it to them at the camera’s ppi (pixels per inch). Send it as a tif if possible, but it probably doesn’t matter. Magazines usually print below 200 dpi anyway.
Crop it how you want it to look though.
Upping it to 300 ppi will do you more harm than good.
Any decent mag will know how to manage the pic.
N
nomail
Nov 28, 2005
"Scruff" wrote:

Just send it to them at the camera’s ppi (pixels per inch). Send it as a tif if possible, but it probably doesn’t matter. Magazines usually print below 200 dpi anyway.
Crop it how you want it to look though.
Upping it to 300 ppi will do you more harm than good.
Any decent mag will know how to manage the pic.

Very bad advice. If you want your photos to be published, deliver them the way the magazines asks. Don’t think you know better, because all that happens is that your photos end up in the bit bucket. If they ask for 300 ppi, don’t be a wise guy. Send them in 300 ppi. It’s one menu item in Photoshop, so what’s the big deal anyway? And by the way, most magazines do print photos in 300 ppi.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
M
Mark
Nov 28, 2005
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
news:1h6qmwp.1h8zs431vncj2uN%
Very bad advice. If you want your photos to be published, deliver them the way the magazines asks. Don’t think you know better, because all that happens is that your photos end up in the bit bucket. If they ask for 300 ppi, don’t be a wise guy. Send them in 300 ppi. It’s one menu item in Photoshop, so what’s the big deal anyway? And by the way, most magazines do print photos in 300 ppi.

Johan,

dpi vs. ppi–what is the relationship exactly? When I open photos that I intend to submit to publications, I change the ppi from 72 (camera result) to 300 (without resampling). Recently I started saving those as tif files for submittal (but previously saved as jpg’s which worked out well enough for publication–I’ve been relatively successful). Am I on the right track or is there something else I can do to enhance my photographs?

I had one editor tell me I could submit the photos just as they came off the camera and that my 5 megapixel size was adequate for their needs (they require 300dpi [not necessarily ppi] for the magazine)–thus my question on the relationship of dpi/ppi. Are 300 dpi and 300 ppi relatively similar?

I would greatly appreciate any enlightenment you could provide.

Thanks,

Mark
N
nomail
Nov 28, 2005
Mark wrote:

dpi vs. ppi–what is the relationship exactly? When I open photos that I intend to submit to publications, I change the ppi from 72 (camera result) to 300 (without resampling). Recently I started saving those as tif files for submittal (but previously saved as jpg’s which worked out well enough for publication–I’ve been relatively successful). Am I on the right track or is there something else I can do to enhance my photographs?
I had one editor tell me I could submit the photos just as they came off the camera and that my 5 megapixel size was adequate for their needs (they require 300dpi [not necessarily ppi] for the magazine)–thus my question on the relationship of dpi/ppi. Are 300 dpi and 300 ppi relatively similar?
I would greatly appreciate any enlightenment you could provide.

PPI and DPI are often used (incorrectly) for the same thing. PPI stands for ‘pixels per inch’, and since digital images only have pixels, that is the only term you can use for images. DPI stands for ‘dots per inch’, but images do not have dots. Therefore, you cannot use ‘DPI’ for an image, but many people do when they mean PPI.

Printers use dots to simulate colors, because they can only print those colors that are in their inkset. So, if a printer needs to print a red pixel, and it only has CMYK inks, it uses several magenta dots and several yellow dots to simulate one red pixel. That also means that the DPI value of a printer needs to be much higher than the PPI value of the image, because more than one dot is used for one pixel. On a printing press, it’s usually a matrix of 8 by 8 dots used for one pixel. Inkjet printers often have 2400 DPI or more, but I trust you now understand that this doesn’t mean your image has to be 2400 PPI. 300 PPI is enough for the human eye not to see the individual pixels anymore.

Forget about DPI. As a photographer you do not need to know the DPI of the printing press. In principle, you also do not need to know the PPI value either, because any editor can simply change that. That one editor is right when he says he can use the image straight from the camera: only the total number of pixels determines whether an image can be used at a certain size or not.

Unfortunately, editors are also only human. There are many editors who are not computer specialists and also do not really know the difference between PPI and DPI. Those are the ones that tell you they need "300 DPI" without telling you the image size in inches to go with that. True, they don’t know what they are talking about. So just send them the full camera image, that you set at 300 ppi in Photoshop (without resampling). That will keep them happy and then they will keep you happy.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
M
Mark
Nov 28, 2005
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

So just send them the full
camera image, that you set at 300 ppi in Photoshop (without resampling). That will keep them happy and then they will keep you happy.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Thank you SO much for the explanation and advice…….it is the clearest explanation I’ve seen and finally makes sense to me.
S
SCRUFF
Nov 28, 2005
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
"Scruff" wrote:

Just send it to them at the camera’s ppi (pixels per inch). Send it as a tif if possible, but it probably doesn’t matter. Magazines usually print below 200 dpi anyway.
Crop it how you want it to look though.
Upping it to 300 ppi will do you more harm than good.
Any decent mag will know how to manage the pic.

Very bad advice. If you want your photos to be published, deliver them the way the magazines asks. Don’t think you know better, because all that happens is that your photos end up in the bit bucket. If they ask for 300 ppi, don’t be a wise guy. Send them in 300 ppi. It’s one menu item in Photoshop, so what’s the big deal anyway? And by the way, most magazines do print photos in 300 ppi.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
I take it that the pic being sent is not a random submission but one that IS going to be printed?
Any pic I have ever sent to a mag has looked infinitely better when I didn’t up the res to 300ppi. And I mean hundreds. However, I will say that my camera is 230ppi.
Now, if I send a pdf ad file I send it 300ppi and sometimes higher.
F
fotomanaz
Nov 28, 2005
There is one thing that was not covered in this discussion and that is how do you find out what DPI the image file has been saved as. To do this, open the original image file in Photoshop, click on Image and then on Image size. The window that opens will give you the Document resolution in pixels/inch as well as much more information you may find useful when resizing your images.
S
SCRUFF
Nov 28, 2005
"fotomanaz" wrote in message
There is one thing that was not covered in this discussion and that is how do you find out what DPI the image file has been saved as. To do this, open the original image file in Photoshop, click on Image and then on Image size. The window that opens will give you the Document resolution in pixels/inch as well as much more information you may find useful when resizing your images.
Which is pixels per inch, not dots per inch.
DPI is for printing only and has nothing to do with image manipulation.
N
nomail
Nov 28, 2005
"Scruff" wrote:

Very bad advice. If you want your photos to be published, deliver them the way the magazines asks. Don’t think you know better, because all that happens is that your photos end up in the bit bucket. If they ask for 300 ppi, don’t be a wise guy. Send them in 300 ppi. It’s one menu item in Photoshop, so what’s the big deal anyway? And by the way, most magazines do print photos in 300 ppi.
I take it that the pic being sent is not a random submission but one that IS going to be printed?
Any pic I have ever sent to a mag has looked infinitely better when I didn’t up the res to 300ppi. And I mean hundreds. However, I will say that my camera is 230ppi.
Now, if I send a pdf ad file I send it 300ppi and sometimes higher.

I wasn’t talking about ‘upres’, which means you DO check the ‘Resample’ checkbox and let Photoshop interpolate. Don’t do that. However, if you UNCHECK the ‘Resample’ checkbox you will find that changing the resolution to 300 ppi doesn’t alter the image in any way.

By the way: your camera’s isn’t 230 ppi. A camera has no ppi, a camera produces only pixels. PPI only has a meaning if you print something. That the images coming from your camera happen to be set to 230 ppi is just a coincidence. It could be any other value and that wouldn’t change a thing. And you can change it to any other value using the above mentioned method. Just leave that checkbox untouched!


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
S
SCRUFF
Nov 28, 2005
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
"Scruff" wrote:

Very bad advice. If you want your photos to be published, deliver them the way the magazines asks. Don’t think you know better, because all that happens is that your photos end up in the bit bucket. If they ask for 300 ppi, don’t be a wise guy. Send them in 300 ppi. It’s one menu item in Photoshop, so what’s the big deal anyway? And by the way, most magazines do print photos in 300 ppi.
I take it that the pic being sent is not a random submission but one
that IS
going to be printed?
Any pic I have ever sent to a mag has looked infinitely better when I
didn’t
up the res to 300ppi. And I mean hundreds. However, I will say that my camera is 230ppi.
Now, if I send a pdf ad file I send it 300ppi and sometimes higher.

I wasn’t talking about ‘upres’, which means you DO check the ‘Resample’ checkbox and let Photoshop interpolate. Don’t do that. However, if you UNCHECK the ‘Resample’ checkbox you will find that changing the resolution to 300 ppi doesn’t alter the image in any way.
By the way: your camera’s isn’t 230 ppi. A camera has no ppi, a camera produces only pixels. PPI only has a meaning if you print something. That the images coming from your camera happen to be set to 230 ppi is just a coincidence. It could be any other value and that wouldn’t change a thing. And you can change it to any other value using the above mentioned method. Just leave that checkbox untouched!
You know what I meant! 😉
J
jaSPAMc
Nov 28, 2005
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:42:09 GMT, "Mark"
found these unused words floating about:

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
news:1h6qmwp.1h8zs431vncj2uN%
Very bad advice. If you want your photos to be published, deliver them the way the magazines asks. Don’t think you know better, because all that happens is that your photos end up in the bit bucket. If they ask for 300 ppi, don’t be a wise guy. Send them in 300 ppi. It’s one menu item in Photoshop, so what’s the big deal anyway? And by the way, most magazines do print photos in 300 ppi.

Johan,

dpi vs. ppi–what is the relationship exactly? When I open photos that I intend to submit to publications, I change the ppi from 72 (camera result) to 300 (without resampling). Recently I started saving those as tif files for submittal (but previously saved as jpg’s which worked out well enough for publication–I’ve been relatively successful). Am I on the right track or is there something else I can do to enhance my photographs?
I had one editor tell me I could submit the photos just as they came off the camera and that my 5 megapixel size was adequate for their needs (they require 300dpi [not necessarily ppi] for the magazine)–thus my question on the relationship of dpi/ppi. Are 300 dpi and 300 ppi relatively similar?
I would greatly appreciate any enlightenment you could provide.
Thanks,

Mark
For most uses they are the same, however when you work an image to a specified size for publication, it’s best to state ppi. That ‘convinces’ the ‘editor’ that you have enough information to give the quality they want. Example:
An original image of 1500 x 2000 (3×4 ‘video’ format) is needed to print at 2"x3" in the publication.
After manipulating for tonality, whatever … you’d then resample (or the editor would) down to 600×900 for a 300 ppi quality.
The largest image at 300 ppi you could supply them would be 5"x6.66" without interpolated addition of pixels.
N
nomail
Nov 28, 2005
"Scruff" wrote:

I take it that the pic being sent is not a random submission but one
that IS
going to be printed?
Any pic I have ever sent to a mag has looked infinitely better when I
didn’t
up the res to 300ppi. And I mean hundreds. However, I will say that my camera is 230ppi.
Now, if I send a pdf ad file I send it 300ppi and sometimes higher.

I wasn’t talking about ‘upres’, which means you DO check the ‘Resample’ checkbox and let Photoshop interpolate. Don’t do that. However, if you UNCHECK the ‘Resample’ checkbox you will find that changing the resolution to 300 ppi doesn’t alter the image in any way.
By the way: your camera’s isn’t 230 ppi. A camera has no ppi, a camera produces only pixels. PPI only has a meaning if you print something. That the images coming from your camera happen to be set to 230 ppi is just a coincidence. It could be any other value and that wouldn’t change a thing. And you can change it to any other value using the above mentioned method. Just leave that checkbox untouched!

You know what I meant! 😉

No, I don’t. You said "Any pic I have ever sent to a mag has looked infinitely better when I didn’t up the res to 300ppi". What does that mean? If you do not check the ‘resample image’ checkbox when you change the resolution, your 300 ppi picture is exactly the same as the 230 ppi original.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
A
Auspics
Nov 28, 2005
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
"Scruff" wrote:

I take it that the pic being sent is not a random submission but one

that IS

going to be printed?
Any pic I have ever sent to a mag has looked infinitely better when I

didn’t

up the res to 300ppi. And I mean hundreds. However, I will say that my camera is 230ppi.
Now, if I send a pdf ad file I send it 300ppi and sometimes higher.

I wasn’t talking about ‘upres’, which means you DO check the ‘Resample’ checkbox and let Photoshop interpolate. Don’t do that. However, if you UNCHECK the ‘Resample’ checkbox you will find that changing the resolution to 300 ppi doesn’t alter the image in any way.
By the way: your camera’s isn’t 230 ppi. A camera has no ppi, a camera produces only pixels. PPI only has a meaning if you print something. That the images coming from your camera happen to be set to 230 ppi is just a coincidence. It could be any other value and that wouldn’t change a thing. And you can change it to any other value using the above mentioned method. Just leave that checkbox untouched!

You know what I meant! 😉

No, I don’t. You said "Any pic I have ever sent to a mag has looked infinitely better when I didn’t up the res to 300ppi". What does that mean? If you do not check the ‘resample image’ checkbox when you change the resolution, your 300 ppi picture is exactly the same as the 230 ppi original.
Why bother arguing Johan?
Quite clearly the people advocating doing what *they* think is appropriate and slamming the client for specifying dimensions, don’t sell their photos. They are just postulating and stamping around to see if they can make a noise and get some attention. Don’t forget either, School is out in many countries and the flood of "know it all" teenager’s with nothing better to do than tell the world how good they are is about to start!

Alienjones…
Writer of the last FAQ. 🙂
T
Tacit
Nov 28, 2005
In article <BrGif.6380$>,
"Mark" wrote:

I had one editor tell me I could submit the photos just as they came off the camera and that my 5 megapixel size was adequate for their needs (they require 300dpi [not necessarily ppi] for the magazine)–thus my question on the relationship of dpi/ppi. Are 300 dpi and 300 ppi relatively similar?

In this case, "300dpi" means "300 ppi and the editor who said that is a dumbass who does not know the difference." 🙂


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
S
SCRUFF
Nov 29, 2005
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
"Scruff" wrote:

I take it that the pic being sent is not a random submission but one
that IS
going to be printed?
Any pic I have ever sent to a mag has looked infinitely better when
I
didn’t
up the res to 300ppi. And I mean hundreds. However, I will say that my camera is 230ppi.
Now, if I send a pdf ad file I send it 300ppi and sometimes higher.

I wasn’t talking about ‘upres’, which means you DO check the
‘Resample’
checkbox and let Photoshop interpolate. Don’t do that. However, if you UNCHECK the ‘Resample’ checkbox you will find that changing the resolution to 300 ppi doesn’t alter the image in any way.
By the way: your camera’s isn’t 230 ppi. A camera has no ppi, a camera produces only pixels. PPI only has a meaning if you print something. That the images coming from your camera happen to be set to 230 ppi is just a coincidence. It could be any other value and that wouldn’t
change
a thing. And you can change it to any other value using the above mentioned method. Just leave that checkbox untouched!

You know what I meant! 😉

No, I don’t. You said "Any pic I have ever sent to a mag has looked infinitely better when I didn’t up the res to 300ppi". What does that mean? If you do not check the ‘resample image’ checkbox when you change the resolution, your 300 ppi picture is exactly the same as the 230 ppi original.
What I am saying is;
I never up the res on a picture I supply to a mag, and like you said, it doesn’t matter anyway.
The three times I did up the res they turned out crappy in print, and no I didn’t resample them.
My experience.
That said, I would have to agree with you that if a mag wants it at 300 "dpi"
I would most likely be concerned enough to make it right before I sent it, although I have never
been asked to supply a pic with a specific "dpi".
A
Avery
Nov 29, 2005
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:54:43 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

"Scruff" wrote:

I take it that the pic being sent is not a random submission but one
that IS
going to be printed?
Any pic I have ever sent to a mag has looked infinitely better when I
didn’t
up the res to 300ppi. And I mean hundreds. However, I will say that my camera is 230ppi.
Now, if I send a pdf ad file I send it 300ppi and sometimes higher.

I wasn’t talking about ‘upres’, which means you DO check the ‘Resample’ checkbox and let Photoshop interpolate. Don’t do that. However, if you UNCHECK the ‘Resample’ checkbox you will find that changing the resolution to 300 ppi doesn’t alter the image in any way.
By the way: your camera’s isn’t 230 ppi. A camera has no ppi, a camera produces only pixels. PPI only has a meaning if you print something. That the images coming from your camera happen to be set to 230 ppi is just a coincidence. It could be any other value and that wouldn’t change a thing. And you can change it to any other value using the above mentioned method. Just leave that checkbox untouched!

You know what I meant! 😉

No, I don’t. You said "Any pic I have ever sent to a mag has looked infinitely better when I didn’t up the res to 300ppi". What does that mean? If you do not check the ‘resample image’ checkbox when you change the resolution, your 300 ppi picture is exactly the same as the 230 ppi original.

Surely any editor that knows the first thing about his business is going to first specify the size of the photo he wants. e.g. must be half A4 page AT 300 ppi. or 6 x4 AT 300ppi. It aint no good to ask for a 300 ppi photo and then find it prints 1" square.
S
SCRUFF
Nov 29, 2005
"Avery" wrote in message
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:54:43 +0100, (Johan W.
Surely any editor that knows the first thing about his business is
going to first specify the size of the photo he wants. e.g. must be half A4 page AT 300 ppi. or 6 x4 AT 300ppi. It aint no good to ask for a 300 ppi photo and then find it prints 1" square.

Editors usually want a pic before a page is layed out and they usually come with an article.
Thus, any production dept worth a crap is going to manipulate the photo to fit the layout.
N
nomail
Nov 29, 2005
Avery wrote:

Surely any editor that knows the first thing about his business is going to first specify the size of the photo he wants. e.g. must be half A4 page AT 300 ppi. or 6 x4 AT 300ppi. It aint no good to ask for a 300 ppi photo and then find it prints 1" square.

Of course. But unfortunately, not every editor knows that part of the business. As I said before, they are not necessarily computer experts and it’s the layout department that specifies things like that. If I get one dollar for each time sombody orders ‘300 dpi’ without specifying the measurements in inches or centimeters, I wouldn’t have to work one more day for the rest of my life.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
J
jaSPAMc
Nov 29, 2005
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:23:46 GMT, Alienjones himself found these unused words floating about:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
"Scruff" wrote:

I take it that the pic being sent is not a random submission but one

that IS

going to be printed?
Any pic I have ever sent to a mag has looked infinitely better when I

didn’t

up the res to 300ppi. And I mean hundreds. However, I will say that my camera is 230ppi.
Now, if I send a pdf ad file I send it 300ppi and sometimes higher.

I wasn’t talking about ‘upres’, which means you DO check the ‘Resample’ checkbox and let Photoshop interpolate. Don’t do that. However, if you UNCHECK the ‘Resample’ checkbox you will find that changing the resolution to 300 ppi doesn’t alter the image in any way.
By the way: your camera’s isn’t 230 ppi. A camera has no ppi, a camera produces only pixels. PPI only has a meaning if you print something. That the images coming from your camera happen to be set to 230 ppi is just a coincidence. It could be any other value and that wouldn’t change a thing. And you can change it to any other value using the above mentioned method. Just leave that checkbox untouched!

You know what I meant! 😉

No, I don’t. You said "Any pic I have ever sent to a mag has looked infinitely better when I didn’t up the res to 300ppi". What does that mean? If you do not check the ‘resample image’ checkbox when you change the resolution, your 300 ppi picture is exactly the same as the 230 ppi original.
Why bother arguing Johan?
Quite clearly the people advocating doing what *they* think is appropriate and slamming the client for specifying dimensions,

WHAT ‘dimensions’ ??? Specifying ppi is NOT a dimension! It’s merely ONE of THREE components!

don’t
sell their photos. They are just postulating and stamping around to see if they can make a noise and get some attention. Don’t forget either, School is out in many countries and the flood of "know it all" teenager’s with nothing better to do than tell the world how good they are is about to start!

Alienjones…
Writer of the last FAQ. 🙂

Ahhh THAT explains it …
S
SCRUFF
Nov 29, 2005
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
Avery wrote:

Surely any editor that knows the first thing about his business is going to first specify the size of the photo he wants. e.g. must be half A4 page AT 300 ppi. or 6 x4 AT 300ppi. It aint no good to ask for a 300 ppi photo and then find it prints 1" square.

Of course. But unfortunately, not every editor knows that part of the business. As I said before, they are not necessarily computer experts and it’s the layout department that specifies things like that. If I get one dollar for each time sombody orders ‘300 dpi’ without specifying the measurements in inches or centimeters, I wouldn’t have to work one more day for the rest of my life.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
Yes, from how many editors do you hear, "let me get it over to the production dept to take a look at it"?
They don’t always need to know production details.
R
RicSeyler
Nov 29, 2005
I am always concerned to send the proper DPI for a printing press utilizing 150lpi screen freq.. 90% of prepress now-a-days utilize 150lpi…
And old formula I have always used when in doubt is:
(final image height -divided by- original image height) x (prepress screen frequency)
x 2 = scanning resolution, or DPI needed.

Most of the stuff I sub out for process offset printing these days is 350dpi.
A few of my process subcontractors still request 300dpi. But not many. I do all my spot color work in my shop. But sub out full color.

I never allow the prepress dept of these places be responsible for this, cuz at the most critical time and for the most critical customers, it won’t get done properly 🙂 I’ll get a 72dpi pixelated image output from the Lino…. LOLOL

Scruff wrote:

What I am saying is;
I never up the res on a picture I supply to a mag, and like you said, it doesn’t matter anyway.
The three times I did up the res they turned out crappy in print, and no I didn’t resample them.
My experience.
That said, I would have to agree with you that if a mag wants it at 300 "dpi"
I would most likely be concerned enough to make it right before I sent it, although I have never
been asked to supply a pic with a specific "dpi".


Ric Seyler

R
RicSeyler
Nov 29, 2005
Most of them I deal with are too lazy/busy and/or want $85.00 an hour to even just resize something proportionally a small bit or color correct for CMYK. LOLOL

So I put the responsibility on them to tell me exactly what imprint size and DPI they want. And CMYK, Spot, TIF, EPS, PDF?
Then if there is a problem it’s on them and not on me. 🙂

Scruff wrote:

"Avery" wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:54:43 +0100, (Johan W.

Surely any editor that knows the first thing about his business is
going to first specify the size of the photo he wants. e.g. must be half A4 page AT 300 ppi. or 6 x4 AT 300ppi. It aint no good to ask for a 300 ppi photo and then find it prints 1" square.

Editors usually want a pic before a page is layed out and they usually come with an article.
Thus, any production dept worth a crap is going to manipulate the photo to fit the layout.


Ric Seyler

J
jaSPAMc
Nov 29, 2005
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:00:11 -0500, "Scruff" found these unused words floating about:

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
Avery wrote:

Surely any editor that knows the first thing about his business is going to first specify the size of the photo he wants. e.g. must be half A4 page AT 300 ppi. or 6 x4 AT 300ppi. It aint no good to ask for a 300 ppi photo and then find it prints 1" square.

Of course. But unfortunately, not every editor knows that part of the business. As I said before, they are not necessarily computer experts and it’s the layout department that specifies things like that. If I get one dollar for each time sombody orders ‘300 dpi’ without specifying the measurements in inches or centimeters, I wouldn’t have to work one more day for the rest of my life.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
Yes, from how many editors do you hear, "let me get it over to the production dept to take a look at it"?
They don’t always need to know production details.
They -should- know enough to ask for what the production department needs -or- have the production department make the ‘final’ contact for setting the acceptance requirements.

A -good- firm would have an attachment that would explain ALL their needs (FAQ, if you will) and thus avoid duplicating effort on everyone’s part!
A
Auspics
Nov 30, 2005

J. A. Mc. wrote:

WHAT ‘dimensions’ ??? Specifying ppi is NOT a dimension! It’s merely ONE of THREE components!

don’t
sell their photos. They are just postulating and stamping around to see if they can make a noise and get some attention. Don’t forget either, School is out in many countries and the flood of "know it all" teenager’s with nothing better to do than tell the world how good they are is about to start!

Alienjones…
Writer of the last FAQ. 🙂

Ahhh THAT explains it …

Lets see… "If you intend to send us Photos to use on the front page of our magazine, they’ll need to be at least 300 DPI".

Sounds about right to me. How much dead meat is in the brain that can’t figure out the size of the magazine page @300 dpi?

Alienjones,
Writer of the last FAQ 🙂
N
nomail
Nov 30, 2005

J. A. Mc. wrote:

They -should- know enough to ask for what the production department needs -or- have the production department make the ‘final’ contact for setting the acceptance requirements.

A -good- firm would have an attachment that would explain ALL their needs (FAQ, if you will) and thus avoid duplicating effort on everyone’s part!

Of course they SHOULD. But let me tell you something: we do not live in Utopia, we live in the real world (at least I do). And in the real world these things happen.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
N
nomail
Nov 30, 2005
"Scruff" wrote:

What I am saying is;
I never up the res on a picture I supply to a mag, and like you said, it doesn’t matter anyway.

I said it doesn’t CHANGE anything. It does matter because if one of those non-computer savvy editors asks you for ‘300 dpi’, you better give him ‘300 dpi’ or he may reject your images as being ‘under spec’.

The three times I did up the res they turned out crappy in print, and no I didn’t resample them.

Then you (or they) did something else wrong.

My experience.
That said, I would have to agree with you that if a mag wants it at 300 "dpi" I would most likely be concerned enough to make it right before I sent it, although I have never been asked to supply a pic with a specific "dpi".

It happens from time to time. What I usually do is send a one page size image at 300 ppi (or I call/email to ask the size in inches).


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
T
Tacit
Nov 30, 2005
In article <IG8jf.7146$>,
Alienjones himself wrote:

Lets see… "If you intend to send us Photos to use on the front page of our magazine, they’ll need to be at least 300 DPI".
Sounds about right to me.

Sounds wrong to me. It should read:

"If you intend to send us Photos to use on the front page of our magazine, they’ll need to be at least 300 pixels per inch". PPI, not DPI.


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
K
kctan
Nov 30, 2005
Just asking 300dpi image is rather vague. It’s asking like "give me 300 dot per inch image" but no requirement on image dimensions. People always have a wrong concept that the highest the dpi the better. So look at this examples: A 100dpi image of 10 x 10" = 1000 x1000 pixels = 1000000 pixels and a 300dpi image of 2 x 2" = 600 x600 pixels = 360000 pixels. Which is better? The 100dpi and not the 300dpi. Because image dimensions play a part too. That why digital camera creates image in pixel dimensions; for example: 1600 x 1200. This is known as image resolution (pixel dimensions). To be precise, it should be PPI, pixel per inch.

The above mentioned is known as input resolution. When come to printing, there are even more confusions because it uses the term DPI also. It is not the same from the input DPI or PPI. It is a measurement of its printing ability in DPI; the more the better means the smallest the dot size in diameter the best. This is known as output resolution. So there are 2 types of resolution (input and output). Depends on the type of printing method, there is a relationship between input resolution and output resolution. For inkjet printing, input resolution is 1/3 of output resolution. Therefore if you set your inkjet at 600dpi, then you image ppi is 200ppi and should be enough. For press printing, input resolution is 1.5 to 2 times the output dpi or lpi (lines per inch) to be precise. Therefore if your screen is 150lpi, then 300ppi is your max. For other printing methods, ask for the output dpi and its relationship.

This explain why your magazine asks for 300dpi. All these setting can be manipulated in Photoshop image size menu. If your image is not enough for the size at the specific dpi, PS will resample for you. This will create and fill the image with new pixels with intelligent guessing by the program.

"Robert" wrote in message
Good day
I am sending images to a magazine, and they have requested that they be sent at 300 dpi. I shoot on a canon 10 D (large-fine jpeg), and I am not quite sure as to what dpi they are sent from the camera to my computer. Using photoshop what is the easiest to ensure that the images are saved at 300 dpi ?
Awaiting your expert answers..

Thanks
Harold
Johannesburg,
South Africa
J
jaSPAMc
Nov 30, 2005
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 03:06:16 GMT, Alienjones himself found these unused words floating about:

J. A. Mc. wrote:

WHAT ‘dimensions’ ??? Specifying ppi is NOT a dimension! It’s merely ONE of THREE components!

don’t
sell their photos. They are just postulating and stamping around to see if they can make a noise and get some attention. Don’t forget either, School is out in many countries and the flood of "know it all" teenager’s with nothing better to do than tell the world how good they are is about to start!

Alienjones…
Writer of the last FAQ. 🙂

Ahhh THAT explains it …

Lets see… "If you intend to send us Photos to use on the front page of our magazine, they’ll need to be at least 300 DPI".
Sounds about right to me. How much dead meat is in the brain that can’t figure out the size of the magazine page @300 dpi?

Alienjones,
Writer of the last FAQ 🙂

Not ALL magazines use full bleed imagery … some have mastheads, contents footers, boxes, etc!

How much potted meat is in yours? <G>
J
jaSPAMc
Nov 30, 2005
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:16:27 +0100, (Johan W. Elzenga)
found these unused words floating about:

J. A. Mc. wrote:

They -should- know enough to ask for what the production department needs -or- have the production department make the ‘final’ contact for setting the acceptance requirements.

A -good- firm would have an attachment that would explain ALL their needs (FAQ, if you will) and thus avoid duplicating effort on everyone’s part!

Of course they SHOULD. But let me tell you something: we do not live in Utopia, we live in the real world (at least I do). And in the real world these things happen.

Like doctors, they should be trainable …

I managed over 40 years to get those I worked with to reaize that IF they gave the full specs, WE could save them $$$ from the top … OTW the costs go UP!
N
nomail
Nov 30, 2005

J. A. Mc. wrote:

Lets see… "If you intend to send us Photos to use on the front page of our magazine, they’ll need to be at least 300 DPI".
Sounds about right to me. How much dead meat is in the brain that can’t figure out the size of the magazine page @300 dpi?
Not ALL magazines use full bleed imagery … some have mastheads, contents footers, boxes, etc!

How much potted meat is in yours? <G>

First of all, if you know the magazine, you know if it has mastheads etc. Unless they suddenly change the layout completely, you can still do the math.

Secondly, it’s never a big problem if you supply images that are too large, only if you supply images that are too small.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
J
jaSPAMc
Dec 1, 2005
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:01:53 +0100, (Johan W. Elzenga)
found these unused words floating about:

J. A. Mc. wrote:

Lets see… "If you intend to send us Photos to use on the front page of our magazine, they’ll need to be at least 300 DPI".
Sounds about right to me. How much dead meat is in the brain that can’t figure out the size of the magazine page @300 dpi?
Not ALL magazines use full bleed imagery … some have mastheads, contents footers, boxes, etc!

How much potted meat is in yours? <G>

First of all, if you know the magazine,

…. and IF you don’t because THEY are making the contact, then FULL information is necessary. As I said elsewhere, they need to be trained as you do a doctor to maintain a working relationship.

you know if it has mastheads
etc. Unless they suddenly change the layout completely, you can still do the math.

Secondly, it’s never a big problem if you supply images that are too large, only if you supply images that are too small.

True … until they request an image that’s not available at oversize or their blank "dpi" requirements. I’ve never supplied an image and let them ‘work on it’ – only to ‘finished’ and complete specification.

Thankfully, it’s not a full living need or I might have to squirm under. <G>
N
nomail
Dec 1, 2005

J. A. Mc. wrote:

Secondly, it’s never a big problem if you supply images that are too large, only if you supply images that are too small.

True … until they request an image that’s not available at oversize or their blank "dpi" requirements.

The point was that they ask for a ‘cover at 300 dpi’. If you cannot supply a full bleed cover because your image isn’t big enough, it would be a coincidence if you could because the masthead makes it a bit smaller. Besides, if the average cover size at 300 ppi is already too big for you, maybe they should indeed contact someone else…

I’ve never supplied an image and let them ‘work on it’ – only to ‘finished’ and complete specification.

Most of us do that all the time. When I deliver a story with photos or just photos, I often do not know in advance how many picturs they will use or how big each picture will be used. Even the client may not know that at that popint, because it may (also) depend on the material I send them. In that case I’ll supply each picture ‘as big as it gets’, and let them ‘work on it’ to get the size they decide to use.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
S
SCRUFF
Dec 1, 2005
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
J. A. Mc. wrote:

Most of us do that all the time. When I deliver a story with photos or just photos, I often do not know in advance how many picturs they will use or how big each picture will be used. Even the client may not know that at that popint, because it may (also) depend on the material I send them. In that case I’ll supply each picture ‘as big as it gets’, and let them ‘work on it’ to get the size they decide to use.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Exactly. That is 100% how it works 99% of the time.
And, an editor is rarely the one who does the production work. Unless it’s a very small operation, the editor leaves it to the production dept that he/she oversees.
J
jaSPAMc
Dec 1, 2005
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:54:16 +0100, (Johan W. Elzenga)
found these unused words floating about:

J. A. Mc. wrote:

Secondly, it’s never a big problem if you supply images that are too large, only if you supply images that are too small.

True … until they request an image that’s not available at oversize or their blank "dpi" requirements.

The point was that they ask for a ‘cover at 300 dpi’. If you cannot supply a full bleed cover because your image isn’t big enough, it would be a coincidence if you could because the masthead makes it a bit smaller. Besides, if the average cover size at 300 ppi is already too big for you, maybe they should indeed contact someone else…
Yes, they should … IF the particular image they are wanting WERE available from another source.

I don’t go looking for such uses, but they often pop up and I try to assist when/where I can. For those who have your attitude – I DO say – "see ya!"

I’ve never supplied an image and let them ‘work on it’ – only to ‘finished’ and complete specification.

Most of us do that all the time. When I deliver a story with photos or just photos, I often do not know in advance how many picturs they will use or how big each picture will be used. Even the client may not know that at that popint, because it may (also) depend on the material I send them. In that case I’ll supply each picture ‘as big as it gets’, and let them ‘work on it’ to get the size they decide to use.
N
nomail
Dec 1, 2005

J. A. Mc. wrote:

The point was that they ask for a ‘cover at 300 dpi’. If you cannot supply a full bleed cover because your image isn’t big enough, it would be a coincidence if you could because the masthead makes it a bit smaller. Besides, if the average cover size at 300 ppi is already too big for you, maybe they should indeed contact someone else…
Yes, they should … IF the particular image they are wanting WERE available from another source.

I don’t go looking for such uses, but they often pop up and I try to assist when/where I can. For those who have your attitude – I DO say – "see ya!"

Right. If you can’t win the argument, it’s my attitude. So be it.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
J
jaSPAMc
Dec 1, 2005
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 20:00:00 +0100, (Johan W. Elzenga)
found these unused words floating about:

J. A. Mc. wrote:

The point was that they ask for a ‘cover at 300 dpi’. If you cannot supply a full bleed cover because your image isn’t big enough, it would be a coincidence if you could because the masthead makes it a bit smaller. Besides, if the average cover size at 300 ppi is already too big for you, maybe they should indeed contact someone else…
Yes, they should … IF the particular image they are wanting WERE available from another source.

I don’t go looking for such uses, but they often pop up and I try to assist when/where I can. For those who have your attitude – I DO say – "see ya!"

Right. If you can’t win the argument, it’s my attitude. So be it.

There’s no "win" involved … you stated "maybe they should indeed contact someone else.." and I agreed that, that’s what I advise them when they can’t be trained or understand that some images just aren’t available at ‘their’ desired ‘specifications’! That statement seemed to be your attitude as well …. eh?
K
KatWoman
Dec 2, 2005
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
Avery wrote:

Surely any editor that knows the first thing about his business is going to first specify the size of the photo he wants. e.g. must be half A4 page AT 300 ppi. or 6 x4 AT 300ppi. It aint no good to ask for a 300 ppi photo and then find it prints 1" square.

Of course. But unfortunately, not every editor knows that part of the business. As I said before, they are not necessarily computer experts and it’s the layout department that specifies things like that. If I get one dollar for each time sombody orders ‘300 dpi’ without specifying the measurements in inches or centimeters, I wouldn’t have to work one more day for the rest of my life.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

If I get
one dollar for each time somebody orders ‘300 dpi’ without specifying the measurements in inches or centimeters, I wouldn’t have to work one more day for the rest of my life.

LOLOLOL yeah me too
usually they mean they need high res images for reproduction but they have very little knowledge of what that actually means
Recently handed in a job, AD retouched it himself (PS he is COLOR BLIND) then resampled JPG files UP to ungodly unwieldy sizes and saved as TIFFs. The images needed to be physically large but they are for newspaper and most likely do not have to be 300 ppi. (I told him not to save JPG over JPG, he said "really?") My comp almost choked when I tried to preview one. Poor clients comp will most likely die upon clicking….
S
SCRUFF
Dec 2, 2005
"KatWoman" wrote in message
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
Avery wrote:

Surely any editor that knows the first thing about his business is going to first specify the size of the photo he wants. e.g. must be half A4 page AT 300 ppi. or 6 x4 AT 300ppi. It aint no good to ask for a 300 ppi photo and then find it prints 1" square.

Of course. But unfortunately, not every editor knows that part of the business. As I said before, they are not necessarily computer experts and it’s the layout department that specifies things like that. If I get one dollar for each time sombody orders ‘300 dpi’ without specifying the measurements in inches or centimeters, I wouldn’t have to work one more day for the rest of my life.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

If I get
one dollar for each time somebody orders ‘300 dpi’ without specifying the measurements in inches or centimeters, I wouldn’t have to work one more day for the rest of my life.

LOLOLOL yeah me too
usually they mean they need high res images for reproduction but they have very little knowledge of what that actually means
Recently handed in a job, AD retouched it himself (PS he is COLOR BLIND) then resampled JPG files UP to ungodly unwieldy sizes and saved as TIFFs. The images needed to be physically large but they are for newspaper and
most
likely do not have to be 300 ppi. (I told him not to save JPG over JPG, he said "really?") My comp almost choked when I tried to preview one. Poor clients comp will most likely die upon clicking….

LoL, too true.
R
RicSeyler
Dec 5, 2005
I "love" the ones that send me photos for an advert or layout, get a 72dpi 1" square photo.
Email back and ask if there is a larger pic available, then get the same image back and
the in-house guy just types in 350dpi and a new dimension. LOLOLOL

You would be surprised how often that happens. And generally it’s the College "Trained"
graphic artists. When I’m supposed to get something from a "graduate" I almost immediately
Groan. hehehe Most really really need to spend some time around an actual printing press
and bindary dept…… Out of gammut colors, 2%screens, fold and cut specs that NASA
couldn’t pull off, full sheets covered both sides with solid ink coverage…. uggh
Might look really nice on the screen, but try to actually produce that on paper. 🙂

KatWoman wrote:

LOLOLOL yeah me too
usually they mean they need high res images for reproduction but they have very little knowledge of what that actually means
Recently handed in a job, AD retouched it himself (PS he is COLOR BLIND) then resampled JPG files UP to ungodly unwieldy sizes and saved as TIFFs. The images needed to be physically large but they are for newspaper and most likely do not have to be 300 ppi. (I told him not to save JPG over JPG, he said "really?") My comp almost choked when I tried to preview one. Poor clients comp will most likely die upon clicking….


Ric Seyler

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections