Confused about digital camera

"Dennis Herrick" wrote in message

[…] However,
Photoshop tells me that ALL pictures are 72 dpi. Maybe I bought a camera that won’t help!!!!

Disregard the "dpi". If you look at the physical presentation size at 72dpi in Photoshop, your pictures probably have HUGE dimensions, possibly 50" across or something. Right? Just use IMAGE -> image-size and change the dimension to 12" across with the ‘resample’ checkbox empty. Now it’s a reasonable ‘size’. You want about 360dpi for printing. If the image is still not the right size, then change the ‘resolution’ or physical size until it’s something you can work with. Print and enjoy.

I guess another way to ask this is — if I want something equivalent to a 600 dpi scan, what do I need in digital cameras?

Over how large an area?

Over a 1 inch square, a 1 MegaPixel camera would match a 600 dpi scanner.

Over an area 10 inches on a side, you’d need 6000 x 6000 pixels – and those cameras get expensive.

Chris

In article <BC6A8425.462F%>, Dennis Herrick
wrote:

I guess another way to ask this is — if I want something equivalent to a 600 dpi scan, what do I need in digital cameras?

Dennis Herrick wrote in news:BC6A8425.462F%
:

I guess another way to ask this is — if I want something equivalent to

a

600 dpi scan, what do I need in digital cameras?

More training.

There are so many misconceptions in your statements, it’s hard to know where to begin.

First of all, a "600 dpi" scan has a different number of pixels in it depending on the size of the image. If you are scanning a 3" image, you wind up with 1800 pixels. That means your digital camera must produce at least 1800 pixels to be "equivalent."

If you are shooting for 4" x 4" at 600 dpi, you need a camera that can produce at least 2400 x 2400 pixels. See the trend?

It makes no difference whatsoever what dpi setting your camera has attached to the file. Amount of pixels matters, period.

Now – I’m pretty sure you’re not going to need 600 dpi. This is only needed for ultra-premium offset printing, in which case you’d be paying so much for it I guarantee you’d be paying someone else to lay it out rather than risk screwing it up. 300 dpi should be fine.

Now – do this:

Open the digital picture you want to use. Go to Image->Image Size. Make sure the "Resample Image" is clicked OFF. Type "300" under "Resolution".

This will show you the largest size that particular image should print on a standard offset press. Click OK.

Select Image->Mode->CMYK.

Save as a Tiff image.

Place it in your layout program.

You almost certainly have too many pixels than needed for printing at this size, but that’s worlds better than too few. Come back after you complete this part and we’ll talk about shrinking the images to the right size for the job.

On 3/2/04 7:13 PM, in article
, "Eric Gill"
wrote:

Now – I’m pretty sure you’re not going to need 600 dpi

Here’s why I’ve used the 600 dpi figure…. I’m scanning record jackets that are 12×12. The print on the back of the record jackets becomes pretty small when printed at about 4×4 (size of a CD jewel case). If I make this scan at 300 dpi, it’s not that readable when printed at 4×4. When I do it at 600 dpi, the small print from the back of the record becomes something that is readable when printed at 4×4.

Come back after you
complete this part and we’ll talk about shrinking the images to the right size for the job.

OK. Thanks for the suggestions. I don’t have the files home with me, but I’ll try this tomorrow.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:08:11 -0600, Dennis Herrick
wrote:

On 3/2/04 7:13 PM, in article
, "Eric Gill"
wrote:

Now – I’m pretty sure you’re not going to need 600 dpi

Here’s why I’ve used the 600 dpi figure…. I’m scanning record jackets that are 12×12. The print on the back of the record jackets becomes pretty small when printed at about 4×4 (size of a CD jewel case). If I make this scan at 300 dpi, it’s not that readable when printed at 4×4. When I do it at 600 dpi, the small print from the back of the record becomes something that is readable when printed at 4×4.

The size of a jewel case inlay is 11.9×12.2 cm or 4.69 x 4.8 inches.

Michael

I guess another way to ask this is — if I want something equivalent to a
600 dpi scan, what do I need in digital cameras?

A picture from a digital camera HAS NO DPI.

A digital camera just collects pixels. It does not assign a size to those pixels.

If you want a 600 dpi image from your camera, you open the Image Size command, turn OFF "Resample image," and set the resolution to 600 pixels per inch.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Here’s why I’ve used the 600 dpi figure…. I’m scanning record jackets that are 12×12. The print on the back of the record jackets becomes pretty

small

when printed at about 4×4 (size of a CD jewel case). If I make this scan at 300 dpi, it’s not that readable when printed at 4×4.

How are you making the image 4×4? I bet you’re not doing it right.

300 pixels per inch is plenty–more than enough to be crystal-clear and sharp at 4×4. I bet when you take your 12×12 image and making it 4×4, you are doing it in a way that causes you to lose pixels.

Describe exactly, step by step, what you are doing to your 12×12 scan to make it 4×4.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article <BC6AA83B.49BD%>, Dennis Herrick
wrote:

Here’s why I’ve used the 600 dpi figure…. I’m scanning record jackets that are 12×12. The print on the back of the record jackets becomes pretty small when printed at about 4×4 (size of a CD jewel case). If I make this scan at 300 dpi, it’s not that readable when printed at 4×4. When I do it at 600 dpi, the small print from the back of the record becomes something that is readable when printed at 4×4.

What printer are you using that makes 600dpi?

"Tacit" wrote in message

How are you making the image 4×4? I bet you’re not doing it right.

That wouldn’t surpise me!!!!

300 pixels per inch is plenty–more than enough to be crystal-clear and

sharp

at 4×4. I bet when you take your 12×12 image and making it 4×4, you are

doing

it in a way that causes you to lose pixels.

Describe exactly, step by step, what you are doing to your 12×12 scan to

make

it 4×4.

1. I have the record jacket sitting on a chair, have a camera on a tripod over it.

2. I have some extra lighting so that I don’t have to use the flash (as this reflects off shiny covers)

3. I take the picture, bring it into Paint Shop or Photoshop, cut the square of record jacket and paste to a new image and save that.

4. on the old 2.1 megapixel camera this is done as an uncompressed tiff and the cropped image is saved in the same format. I don’t do anything else with the size or resolution. The new six megapixel camera doesn’t do tiffs and this is all done as jpeg.

5. To print I use the Neato software that comes with their labels. it’s designed so that whatever image I select totally fills the square on the back of the jewel case (I know it’s not exactly a square and not excatly 4×4) If I have a HUGE tiff file, or a very small jpg, it is automatically sized by the software to fit into the "frame". This leaves lots of LARGE files around, but once the jewel case is printed they can be deleted. Other than cropping so that I only have the record jacket itself from the original photo, I’m not altering it’s size in any way.

I’m just never getting the clarity I can get if I scan the record jacket at 600 dpi and then try and piece the two sections of the scan together.

"Xalinai" wrote in message

The size of a jewel case inlay is 11.9×12.2 cm or 4.69 x 4.8 inches.

Since the software sizes my image exactly into a preset "frame" I never try to create one thats the exact dimensions. Record jackets are square, and getting them in this space is close enough, eventhough they are stretched a little in one direction…..

"jjs" wrote in message
news:\

What printer are you using that makes 600dpi?

An HP 1160 inkjet. Normal setting is 1200×600

I typically print using normal setting.

In article , "Dennis Herrick"
wrote:

[…]
I’m just never getting the clarity I can get if I scan the record jacket at 600 dpi and then try and piece the two sections of the scan together.

Who knows what DPI means in this case, but assuming the popular convention, it’s too big. 300dpi is typical of most inkjet printers. When your software reduces the size of your image, it downsamples and downsampling that much is a destructive, degrading process.

Can’t you set the camera to a smaller file size? Many have settings for small, medium, large

4. on the old 2.1 megapixel camera this is done as an uncompressed tiff
and
the cropped image is saved in the same format. I don’t do anything else with
the size or resolution. The new six megapixel camera doesn’t do tiffs and this is all done as jpeg.

Crop the image, then save it as a TIF and bring that TIFF into your software. JPEG files use "lossy" compression, which degrades the quality of the image.

I don’t know how your label software scales images, but one thing to try is to bring the camera image into Photoshop, use the Image Size command in Photoshop to make the image 300 pixels per inch *with "Resample Image" turned OFF*, save the file as a TIFF, and place the TIFF in your label software.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"jjs" wrote in message

In article , "Dennis Herrick"
wrote:

Who knows what DPI means in this case, but assuming the popular convention, it’s too big. 300dpi is typical of most inkjet printers.

If I do a scan at 300 dpi, I can’t read the print after it’s printed. With a 600 dpi scan I can. Since the process is the same in both cases, it must be the scan

When
your software reduces the size of your image, it downsamples and downsampling that much is a destructive, degrading process.

This part I’m not sure how it works…. I don’t actually resize the file at all….. The Neato software that I use (comes with the labels, jewel case inserts) autoamtically resizes whatever graphic is selected into the entire space. Since this is done instantly, thee can’t be any conversion process.

Can’t you set the camera to a smaller file size? Many have settings for small, medium, large

On the new camera, I can use 1, 2, 4, or 6 megapixels. I really don’t care about the file size, only the clarity of the end product.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:32:29 -0600, "Dennis Herrick" wrote:

"Xalinai" wrote in message

The size of a jewel case inlay is 11.9×12.2 cm or 4.69 x 4.8 inches.

Since the software sizes my image exactly into a preset "frame" I never try to create one thats the exact dimensions. Record jackets are square, and getting them in this space is close enough, eventhough they are stretched a little in one direction…..

You know that you lose (at least "control over") sharpness if ou let that label software resize the image?

But then – its your workflow…

Michael

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:38:41 -0600, "Dennis Herrick" wrote:

"jjs" wrote in message
news:\

What printer are you using that makes 600dpi?

An HP 1160 inkjet. Normal setting is 1200×600

That printer is only capable of less than 200 pixels per inch.

See threads about relation between single-color-ink-dots-per-inch (DPI) and full-color-pixels-per-inch (PPI) in this group for details.

Michael

On 03 Mar 2004 14:15:13 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

I guess another way to ask this is — if I want something equivalent to a
600 dpi scan, what do I need in digital cameras?

A picture from a digital camera HAS NO DPI.

A digital camera just collects pixels. It does not assign a size to those pixels.

Most digital cameras set a value to the Xdpi and Ydpi fields in the image file formats they create. For the Canon D60 this is a value of 180dpi – assuming the "resolution" of cheap prints, I think. So the camera maufacturer assigns a size of 11,4×17" to the full size images.

It may be a misconception at the camera makers, but it is there and we have to live with those annoying and (to many) confusing numbers.

Michael

On 3/2/04 7:13 PM, in article
, "Eric Gill"
wrote:

Dennis Herrick wrote in news:BC6A8425.462F%
:

Now – do this:

Open the digital picture you want to use. Go to Image->Image Size. Make sure the "Resample Image" is clicked OFF. Type "300" under "Resolution".

This will show you the largest size that particular image should print on a standard offset press. Click OK.

Select Image->Mode->CMYK.

Save as a Tiff image.

Place it in your layout program.

You almost certainly have too many pixels than needed for printing at this size, but that’s worlds better than too few. Come back after you complete this part and we’ll talk about shrinking the images to the right size for the job.

OK. I did this today. I took the entire image and did as instructed above, then cut out the exact square of the old record jacket and put it in the laybout program. Then I did the same thing with the jpg right from the camera and put that in the layout program also using the booklet layout so they’d be side by side. Other than some color difference, the readablily of the text wasn’t much different. Impossible to read ( but remember that a record jacket reduced to this size comes out to about 15 lines of text per inch…..)

On 3/4/04 1:00 AM, in article ,
"jjs" wrote:

When
your software reduces the size of your image, it downsamples and downsampling that much is a destructive, degrading process.

I’m not sure how all this works… When I insert a graphic, it instantly displays in the "square" on the jewel case layout where it is supposed to go. There isn’t any conversion at this stage, I assume, because it doesn’t involve any time. I know at the printing stage it prints slower if it is a huge 600 dpi scan as opposed to a small file.

And regardless of the printing, I can see in Photoshop if the quality is good but enlarging. The 600 dpi stuff enlarges to clear letters and stuff from the camera enlarges to blurry letters. This is the same way they print (I know anything enlarged enough will get blurry)

Can’t you set the camera to a smaller file size? Many have settings for small, medium, large

I have settings for 1M, 2M, 4M and 6M which I assume is the mega pixels.

On 3/4/04 11:46 AM, in article ,
"Tacit" wrote:

I don’t know how your label software scales images, but one thing to try is to bring the camera image into Photoshop, use the Image Size command in Photoshop to make the image 300 pixels per inch *with "Resample Image" turned OFF*, save the file as a TIFF, and place the TIFF in your label software.

This I tried today. I did this and also used a jpg straight from the camera, printed them in the same label at the same time. Other than some color differences, there was no significant difference between the original and the one I edited. I’m begninning to think that this 15 lines of text per inch is too much for a camera to handle.

On 3/5/04 3:30 AM, in article , "Xalinai"
wrote:

You know that you lose (at least "control over") sharpness if ou let that label software resize the image?

But then – its your workflow…

I’ve wondered about that. I’m not sure where it the process of all this the image is reduced in size. It’s not in the initial layout of the thing because the graphics are sized in position instantly. I assume this is similar to a large graphic on a web page where the height and width are preset — a smaller graphic would load faster but not look different.

I know that if I use a huge file, printing is slower, so probably it’s something in the printing. I can also see in Photoshop what the quality is like, and regardless of how the label software handles all this looking at the image in Photoshop one can tell if the letters will be blurred or clear. The 600 dpi scans look clear, and all the digital camera stuff is a little fuzzy

"Dennis Herrick" wrote in message

Maybe I’m asking this is the wrong place, but it is a project for which I use Photoshop….

My goal is to take a back of a record album and after the album is on to

CD

use the original artwork on the back of the CD case. A scan at 600 dpi

works

fine for this, but not having a scanner that can do 12"x12" presents real problems putting the pieces together. I’ve been using a digital camera. I had an older 2.1 megapixel camera which could to uncompressed tiff and

this

was sometimes usable. With the drop in camera prices, I just bought a 6.2 megapixel Fuji camera and thought this would improve things. However, Photoshop tells me that ALL pictures are 72 dpi. Maybe I bought a camera that won’t help!!!! This camera only does jpeg, although I’m told it can

do

RAW but I’ve never done that.

If I understand what the guy at Fuji support told me, if I’m only printing approx 4"x4" for the back of a CD jewel case, then the megapixels don’t matter. Greater megapixels give me ability to print larger sizes, but if

I’m

printing 4×4 it’s a waste of disk space to just make a larger file with

the

6 megapixel setting.

This would mean that the quality setting is far more important than the megapixels, and if this is true, I don’t need high megapixels but high quality.

Any comments/suggestions?

Just a novice here but sounds to me like he is taking a photo of 12 pt text and reducing the photo so it is now 4 pt text and his printer is not capable of handling the sharpness at that level.

I can also see in Photoshop what the quality is
like, and regardless of how the label software handles all this looking at
the image in Photoshop one can tell if the letters will be blurred or clear. The 600 dpi scans look clear, and all the digital camera stuff is a little fuzzy

In that case, the problem is not resolution–the problem is that your camera isn’t focussing properly.

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On 3/6/04 1:09 AM, in article ,
"Tacit" wrote:

In that case, the problem is not resolution–the problem is that your camera isn’t focussing properly.

Thanks for your suggestions, but this current camera is the 5th different camera I’ve tried. I bought this 6 megapixel one a few weeks ago thinking it would help…..

Thanks for your suggestions, but this current camera is the 5th different camera I’ve tried. I bought this 6 megapixel one a few weeks ago thinking it would help…..

Can you post sample images (from the camera and the scanner, full-size) on the Web somewhere?

—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html