The D2X's lowest setting captures at 72dpi and creates a 35 mb file of 4288 px wide and 2848 px high, and is 59 by 39 inches.
You mean highest?
True resolution is based in the total number of pixels at capture. The term "ppi" (dpi) just refers to the size of a pixel when (and if) printed, nothing more.
Steve, look at the total number of pixels in both your TIFF and JPEG (Image>Image Size). Are they the same? If so, then the differences you should look for between the two prints should be the introduction of JPEG artifacts caused by compression.
No, that's the lowest setting actually! If I right click while in window explorer, it says it only 2.5 mb. When I open it in photoshop, and go to Image>Image size, those are the dimensions I get. I believe it's the interpolation of how photoshop opens it. Still a good looking print, even on the lowest setting.
As far as you're quote, yes, it's 72 ppi, not 72 dpi. My mistake, I'm just so used to dealing with dpi for printing, and very seldom use ppi as I make little to no reference to images for the web. Habbit, I guess
The total number of pixels are the same for all images captured with the D2X (from lowest jpeg setting to either the .tiff or raw nef format). However, the actual size is different (inces). The jpeg is 59 x 39 inches at 72 ppi (not dpi! LOL!), and both the .tiff and raw nef are only 14 x 9 inches at 300 ppi. The point that I was attempting to stress was that you can get a good 4x6 print from a 72 ppi image, and that you don't need to have a 300 ppi image to make a print. I agree with what you said about the jpeg and artifacts caused by compression. Nikon will blame that on the program (photoshop) though, as that's what they've told me on the phone when I asked why it captures 300 dpi in .tiff and raw nef, but only 72 in jpg, they said it's the programs fault, that that's how the programs deals with the image from the camera. _________________ All gave some, some gave all.....Lest we forget that war produces veterans, wounded both mentally and physically, and it is our job to help them now, as they have already helped us all in ways we will never know, and in ways that we take for granted every day.
But your jpg file is not printing at 72ppi. Not on letter-size paper anyway. When you print those files from photoshop to fit the size of your media, photoshop shrinks the pixels (i.e. increases the ppi value) So your test doesn’t really show how a 72 ppi file prints, because it is actually printing (let me do some math here….) at 360 ppi if you printed an 8” X 12” photo.
715 ppi (!) if you printed a 4” X 6” photo.
The fact that the tiff file opens at 300 ppi and the jpeg opens at 72 ppi, has nothing to do with image resolution.
But your jpg file is not printing at 72ppi. Not on letter-size paper anyway. When you print those files from photoshop to fit the size of your media, photoshop shrinks the pixels (i.e. increases the ppi value) So your test doesn’t really show how a 72 ppi file prints, because it is actually printing (let me do some math here….) at 360 ppi if you printed an 8” X 12” photo.
715 ppi (!) if you printed a 4” X 6” photo.
The fact that the tiff file opens at 300 ppi and the jpeg opens at 72 ppi, has nothing to do with image resolution.
The printer I use has a max printing resolution of 300 dpi, so anything over 300 ppi is considered a waste (of hard drive space and time it takes to print). As far as printing an uncropped image, I don't know the first thing about that, as I never print an image that's uncropped. I always crop my image before I print it, so that the final product is "customer worthy". As far as losing quality when printing the way you had mentioned, I look at it this way as this is how it was eplained to me in a seminar; if your original image is only 72 ppi, and you print it at 300 ppi (dpi), that doesn't make your image appear or look any better, it just increases your file size, as you can take away (reduce from 300 ppi to 72 ppi), but you can't add to (increase from 72 ppi to 300 ppi). Does that make sense? Enlarging the ppi doesn't do a whole lot, and it really depends on the way that you resample it. The original point I was attempting to stress without becoming to technical was speaking from personal experience, that it's possible to make a decent 4"x6" print from a 72 ppi image.
I think that we're wandering from the topic here, and that this could potentially turn into what could be viewed as arguing (I'm not arguing, it's just that there's no verbal tone when I type, so you can't really tell that I'm not mad ). I believe that we're both heading for the same point, just getting there by means of different travel. _________________ All gave some, some gave all.....Lest we forget that war produces veterans, wounded both mentally and physically, and it is our job to help them now, as they have already helped us all in ways we will never know, and in ways that we take for granted every day.
No arguing here. Too early in the week. (Of course I certainly can and do continue to beat dead horses. Annoys my wife to no end. Sorry if I’m being annoying, don’t mean to be.)
Back to the original topic. The reason (one reason anyway) the cell phone picture is poor quality is too few pixels in original image capture (Which I’m sure was pointed out somewhere in this thread.) It doesn’t matter if the image is 12 ppi or 1200 ppi. The term “ppi” only defines the size the pixels will be when printed. The primary problem is the original cell phone image is only 160 px X 120 px. (That, plus a lot of jpeg artifact.)
If you “scale” (as opposed to “resample”) an image, all you do is change the size the pixels (and thus the size of the print) when outputted. The file size does not change. I can have a 72 ppi image, duplicate it and make it 300 ppi. And as long as I’m not resampling (interpolating pixels), the file size stays the same.
When you say your 72ppi file looks fine on letter size print, that image is actually being scaled-down to fit the paper. (not cropped or resampled). And when it is scaled down, the pixels get smaller. So it is not really a 72ppi image source for the print you are viewing.
If you take a digital camera file (that may open in PS at 72 ppi) to a photolab to print. It looks great because it contains many pixels. And those pixels are shrunk down in size to fit the photo paper. However if you took them an image file that actually was 4” X 6” at 72ppi (and doing more math here… that works out to 288 X 432 pixels) the picture quality will be noticeably poor.
But like you said, I think we mean the same thing. I'm just being a nit-picky pain.
LOL! Yes, I can see that we are a lot alike. My wife would sell me on eBay if it were allowed, as I'm like the energizer bunny...going and going on and on about something that's already been discussed 1 to many times! LOL! God bless our wives, and thank them for not smothering us with a pillow when we sleep!
I see where the confussion is; When I print, I take a raw image, crop it at a standard common picture print size (4x6, 5x7 etc.) and then print it. When I crop it I resample it accordingly (best size), then print out the image(s). I was a little lost when you were talking about letter size, A4 and what not, and couldn't figure out why some one would print a raw image at a full letter size. My problem is that I print for a "final product" that can be easily framed and/or crammed in a photoalbum, and only print everything out at a standard photo size. The only time I deal with letter sizes and whatnot is when I need to print out an 11x17 inch image. Then I have to switch the printer setting to "double letter, full bleed" so it prints right to the edge of the paper. Unfortunately, every print I make is considered "custom" because I do it 1 image at a time, and not just batch print or run it through some automated machine. I could follow the math parts of what you were saying (barely, I'm not really good at math!), but then the letter sizes for prints confused me! Did I fail to mention that I fail easily? LOL!!!
I'd like to ask how you know so much about printing and the pixel dimentions, as most people just stick with the basics and leave it at that. It's not to often I come across someone that really knows this stuff. BTW Hats off to you for knowing it too! _________________ All gave some, some gave all.....Lest we forget that war produces veterans, wounded both mentally and physically, and it is our job to help them now, as they have already helped us all in ways we will never know, and in ways that we take for granted every day.
Ha. I think sometimes my wife wishes I was a little more like that bunny.
Anyway, when I said “letter size” I was just using that as an example of a common print size smaller than the 59 X 39 inches @ 72 ppi you had mentioned. Sorry for the confusion.
If your bosses support job related education (don’t know how the army is with that), ask them send you to a PhotoshopWorld conference (sponsored by National Association of Photoshop Professionals). It is a great and inspiring resource. The “big guns” of Photoshop usually make up the faculty (people like Bert Monroy, Ben Wilmore, Julieanne Kost, Bruce Fraser, Russell Brown, Katrin Eismann, and more… an impressive list). It is offered twice a year, one west coast and one east coast.
I'd like to go to some extra classes on photoshop, but I managed to have them send me to a ("a" as if in ONE") seminar about 3 years ago. It was 4 hours long. Other than that, everything that I've learned about photoshop has been through trial and error, and reading books. This forum is my first venture into the "online" world of learning photoshop. I've never been to college for anything, including photography, but oddly enough have become a professional photographer. Dunno how that happened! The big wigs here talk about sending me to school, classes, seminars etc., but I just got an email about a week ago saying that the light at the end of the tunnell has been cut off due to budget restraints. I'm just lucky to get my paycheck, and hope that the government doesn't close this base down!
Errrrr.....ummmm....I had a question for you last night, but seem to have forgot it. Must be getting senile in my old age If I think of it, I'll post it somewhere, then probably forget where I posted it! LOL!!! _________________ All gave some, some gave all.....Lest we forget that war produces veterans, wounded both mentally and physically, and it is our job to help them now, as they have already helped us all in ways we will never know, and in ways that we take for granted every day.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
). I believe that we're both heading for the same point, just getting there by means of different travel.
If I think of it, I'll post it somewhere, then probably forget where I posted it! LOL!!!
