Cropping and resolution

[BekahAura]

I have a Nikon D50 so even at the largest file size (3008px X 2000px) it seems like I can only print as large as 8x10 without reducing quality.

Although I have been trying my best to compose my photos while shooting, I still find plenty of images that could benefit from a crop. When I crop them though, it reduces the possible print size to 5x7 or even 4x6.

I'm trying to compile CDs for the people I have found to help me build my portfolio, but I'm afraid to crop any images in case they might want to blow up the images.

I'm sure most of you have cameras that produce much larger file sizes, but I was wondering if anyone knew of a way that I can crop my images and still keep the necessary 300 pixels per inch for an 8 x 10 printed image.

I've tried using the crop tool in photoshop set at 8x10 and 300 resolution, but when I print the image it comes out blurry, so I don't think this is the best way to do this.

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

 

[Robin Usagani]

so 3008 x 2000 = 6 mil.. that means you have 6 mega pixel. if you want 8x10 300 resolution that means you need (8 x 300) * (10*300) = 7.2 megapixel

You CANT.

 

[BekahAura]

Thank you both.

Graystar, that was a very useful post, and I will keep that in mind in the future. I'm just a little confused... when I crop should I still enter 300 in the resolution box? Or should I leave it blank?

I will definitely experiment with the unsharp mask filter in photoshop. But I won't be able to do this for every cropped image on a CD with confidence, because I don't have the time to do test prints. (I've done a bunch of photoshoots for free in order to build my portfolio) I guess I will have to tell people not to print more than 5x7, and if they want an 8x10 that they should come to me because further editing will be needed.

Now I'm concerned... I thought I would be able to get at least 8x10 prints, I guess I may be able to get decent ones but not perfect ones, and not without a great effort and experimentation.

I'm going to need a new camera, and I'm curious what do you pros have in megapixels?

I was thinking if I have to buy a camera I should at least be able to offer 11 x 14 prints, so that would be 13.9 megapixels minimum right? Did I do the math right Schwettylens? And that would be without cropping so perhaps 20 megapixels is the safest bet.

 

[KmH]

I have a Nikon D50 so even at the largest file size (3008px X 2000px) it seems like I can only print as large as 8x10 without reducing quality.

Although I have been trying my best to compose my photos while shooting, I still find plenty of images that could benefit from a crop. When I crop them though, it reduces the possible print size to 5x7 or even 4x6.

I'm trying to compile CDs for the people I have found to help me build my portfolio, but I'm afraid to crop any images in case they might want to blow up the images.

I'm sure most of you have cameras that produce much larger file sizes, but I was wondering if anyone knew of a way that I can crop my images and still keep the necessary 300 pixels per inch for an 8 x 10 printed image.

I've tried using the crop tool in photoshop set at 8x10 and 300 resolution, but when I print the image it comes out blurry, so I don't think this is the best way to do this.

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! First, yes leave the resolution box blank.

300 ppi is an arbitrary number. At one point in the early days of digital, someone decided a digital image needed to be printed at that ppi to be equivilent to some types of print film. Back then a camera that had 2 MP was top-of-the-heap.

There are cropped digital images that can be printed at 100 ppi and look as pro as they come. The fact of the matter the PPI needed for a printed digital photograph: DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON THE IMAGE.

At 100 ppi your D50 photos can be printed a 30.08 inches by 20.00 inches.

That's way bigger than you would want for a printed portfolio (usually 11x14) but for an online or computer displayed portfolio: PPI IS TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

Next, you should also be aware, you can up-rez digital images if need be.

 

[burstintoflame81]

I have a Nikon D50 so even at the largest file size (3008px X 2000px) it seems like I can only print as large as 8x10 without reducing quality.

Although I have been trying my best to compose my photos while shooting, I still find plenty of images that could benefit from a crop. When I crop them though, it reduces the possible print size to 5x7 or even 4x6.

I'm trying to compile CDs for the people I have found to help me build my portfolio, but I'm afraid to crop any images in case they might want to blow up the images.

I'm sure most of you have cameras that produce much larger file sizes, but I was wondering if anyone knew of a way that I can crop my images and still keep the necessary 300 pixels per inch for an 8 x 10 printed image.

I've tried using the crop tool in photoshop set at 8x10 and 300 resolution, but when I print the image it comes out blurry, so I don't think this is the best way to do this.

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! First, yes leave the resolution box blank.

300 ppi is an arbitrary number. At one point in the early days of digital, someone decided a digital image needed to be printed at that ppi to be equivilent to some types of print film. Back then a camera that had 2 MP was top-of-the-heap.

There are cropped digital images that can be printed at 100 ppi and look as pro as they come. The fact of the matter the PPI needed for a printed digital photograph: DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON THE IMAGE.

At 100 ppi your D50 photos can be printed a 30.08 inches by 20.00 inches.

That's way bigger than you would want for a printed portfolio (usually 11x14) but for an online or computer displayed portfolio: PPI IS TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

Next, you should also be aware, you can up-rez digital images if need be.

It should be noted though that the industry standard is 300ppi, but this has no relevance on your portfolio nor does it disprove what KMH is saying. It just means that when submitting photos for things like stock, most companies REQUIRE 300ppi. Whether its needed for their prints is another story, but people love routine and consistency. Also as KMH pointed out, you can up-rez your pics using photoshop or any other software using interpolation. This is where the computer spreads the pixels and then guesses at what it should put between them ( using much more complicate algorithms than that of course ). Technically you dimish quality, but in most cases its not going to be noticeable. Thinks of HD tv. 1080i is interpolated and 1080P is not, not a huge difference, but its enough to make people dump there TVs and spend several grand on a new one. There is a very widely used software though called Genuine Fractals that is used to blow pictures up to enormous sizes. Even a full framed camera wouldn't look good if you blew the picture up for a billboard. This software ( with some limitations of course ) uses much better calculations than most softwares to help you upsize pics.

 

[BekahAura]

Oh, wow, I'm really relieved now. Thank you so much for taking the time to explain things to me.

Graystar, I will definitely experiment with this type of processing, when using my own printer.

Keith, ahh, the lightbulb is shining above my head. So what you and Graystar are saying is that the larger an image is the less ppi it needs, because you won't be looking at a 30 x 20 image from as close as you would look at a 4 x 6 image or 5 x7 image, right?

I just took one of my more heavily cropped images and then cropped it 8x10 resolution box blank and it came out to be about 210 ppi. I guess I will just have to see how it looks printed. I have a lot of testing to do. But I'm really happy that I won't have to go out and buy a camera right away.

I was seriously considering using a lab for printing, and I'm guessing I'd simply crop to the size I want and send it off. I'm going to research several labs and send a few of the same images to each of them and see which have the nicest result.

As for making the CDs for my freebie clients, I'm going to make the images look as best as possible, even if that means a lot of cropping. I will simply tell them that I can't guarantee the quality of any prints they get done on their own and suggest they come to me for printing. Maybe I might make some money off these shoots after all.

Thanks a lot for all your eye-opening responses. They were extremely helpful!

 

[BekahAura]

Burstintoflame,

I will consider this software... once I can afford it... can anyone else suggest similar software programs that can up rez photos? Just so I have more options.

Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[KmH]

Oh, wow, I'm really relieved now. Thank you so much for taking the time to explain things to me.

Graystar, I will definitely experiment with this type of processing, when using my own printer.

Keith, ahh, the lightbulb is shining above my head. So what you and Graystar are saying is that the larger an image is the less ppi it needs, because you won't be looking at a 30 x 20 image from as close as you would look at a 4 x 6 image or 5 x7 image, right?

I just took one of my more heavily cropped images and then cropped it 8x10 resolution box blank and it came out to be about 210 ppi. I guess I will just have to see how it looks printed. I have a lot of testing to do. But I'm really happy that I won't have to go out and buy a camera right away.

I was seriously considering using a lab for printing, and I'm guessing I'd simply crop to the size I want and send it off. I'm going to research several labs and send a few of the same images to each of them and see which have the nicest result.

As for making the CDs for my freebie clients, I'm going to make the images look as best as possible, even if that means a lot of cropping. I will simply tell them that I can't guarantee the quality of any prints they get done on their own and suggest they come to me for printing. Maybe I might make some money off these shoots after all.

Thanks a lot for all your eye-opening responses. They were extremely helpful!

You need to write that out in more detail and include it as an image file that is also on the CD.

I advocate limiting the pixel dimensions of images you put on a CD that is for a retail client.

An example of a print release:

Print Reproduction and Use License Agreement
All of these images are protected by United States Federal Copyright Law, © 2010 (Copyright Owners Name), and provisions of the Berne Convention, all rights reserved.

This license grants (your client name here) and their immediate family the right to print, or have printed, any of the images on this disc. No other usage rights are granted.

Reproductions of the images on this disc are for personal, home, and work place use only and may not be entered in any contest, used for any commercial purpose, nor be placed anywhere on the Internet without written permission from, (Your Studio Name).

Images appropriately formatted and sized for Internet use have been provided on a separate disc and are covered by a Use License specific to Internet use.

(Your Studio Name) is not responsible for the quality of any prints not purchased from, (Your Studio Name.)

Authorized Signature: (Copyright Owners Name) Date: _____________

Client Signature: ___________________________ Date: _____________

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional notes:
In addition to a paper copy for the client (and one in your files), you should also put a PDF copy of the license on the disc as an image.

You can add whatever other restrictions or permission you desire. As an example you could limit the size they do prints, " the right to print, or have printed, any of the images on this disc at a size no larger than 10 inches by 15 inches.

Or, you could allow Internet use of the images.

One last note: Don't call it a Copyright Release unless you are actually intending to be giving away ownership of the copyright. If you do, the image could legally be interpreted as no longer yours and you would not be able to use it in any way without the written permission of the new copyright owner.

 

[BekahAura]

Keith,

Another great suggestion that I hadn't considered. I will have to include this kind of contract on my disks.

Thanks again.