[sany]

How to make my K-r produce 300 dpi jpegs instead of the 96 dpi it produces right now?
I am hoping there are some setting that's hidden to enable this. On the other hand if this feature is only available in higher end models, it is going to disappoint me

[JohnX]

Page 192 of the manual.

[sany]

I don't think so, because I am already on the highest setting of 12M pixel and three star setting for quality<br />
<br />
I am talking about the dpi here!! I am capturing RAW+ could this be a culprit?

[pop4]

You can't do it in-camera (you can't do with the higher end models either) , but if you use Photoshop, go to Image>Image Size, unclick "resample image", then change the "resolution" to whatever you want it to be. If you're using Lightroom, you can set it under the "Image Sizing" submenu on export.

[PhilippeG]

Why do you want "300 dpi " jpegs? The image size in pixels will be the same anyway. Pixels in digital images don't have a physical size, so the dpi number is often irrelevant and you usually don't need to change it.

[sany]

so let me put it this way, I withdraw dpi I replace with ppi. I am not new to dpi vs ppi, I am so much used to print media and production I've only seen 300 dpi images supplied as high res images from photographers mostly coming out of canon and the likes, so tell me now what does a K5 produce? <br />
So. when I open a canon produced high res image in photoshop when you go to image size resolution box reads as 300 pixels/inch whereas the ones that comes out of my K-r reads 96 ppi

[mtngal]

I really don't care about what the camera assigns as a dpi figure - it's only important when you get to printing. Some programs I've found for printing don't seem to care either - just put in the output size and the program automatically computes the dpi from how many pixels there are the picture. If you use photoshop you can just change the dpi in the block for the file and not resize the picture, keeping the actual pixels across and down the same. Or, since I use Lightroom a lot, I could always set the export function to automatically change to 300 dpi. I guess if I were printing all the time and were using a program that doesn't compute the dpi itself based on output size, I might get annoyed with having to change the dpi figure for every file I printed I suppose. I don't think the K5 is any different as far as being able to set the dpi number, but I haven't completely digested the owners manual and this figure is one that's unimportant to me.

[pop4]

You can't do it in-camera (you can't do with the higher end models either)

I am not new to dpi vs ppi, I am so much used to print media and production I've only seen 300 dpi images supplied as high res images from photographers mostly coming out of canon and the likes, so tell me now what does a K5 produce?

I stand corrected; a JPEG straight from my K-5 has a resolution of 300 DPI.

[Schraubstock]

Hi
It does not matter.
A camera, any camera, has only so many pixels it can record. Change of resolution does not change this. So if your camera produces, say, 3264 x 2448 pixels this will remain the same at 72 pixels/inch or 300 pixels/inch the only thing that changes is the dimension of the image, namely at 300 pixels/inch the available pixels will be bunched together more tightly if you will and therefore reduce the size of the image. (What people refer to as high resolution for printing).

I don't know of any camera that records JPGs at higher resolution than 72 pixels/inch. Your friends when they give you a file with 300 pixel/inch they merely have converted the available pixels their cams produces from 72 to 300 pixels/inch and thereby reducing the size of the image from 45.33 x 34 to 10.88 x 8.16 inch in the above pixel count. You do the conversion in a graphics manipulation program. And if you print at 300 pixels/inch (240 - 300 is what printers usually work with) 10.88 x 8.16 inch is what you finish up with. If you wish to print a larger size picture from the above example, as soon as you go above the 10.88 x 8.16 size restriction, in simple words, you are stretching the available pixels into a bigger space and your picture becomes blocky. Or if you want to avoid this you have a small margin to play with by reducing the resolution to 240, go lower and you are not talking high resolution anymore.

So as you can see 72 or 300 pixels/inch, it does not matter, what matters is at what resolution you want to print and then convert to that requirement.

There is a good link explaining it here:

Explaining Digital Image Resolution, Effective Resolution and How They Affect the Appearance and Quality of Digital Images when Printed

Greetings

[sany]

Hi
It does not matter.
........

Greetings

Hi Schraubstock, thanks for your patience and time but still for some reason i am not fully convinced.

If it is not a matter why is a K-5 (as confirmed by Pop4) produce 300 and why not K-r?

Also many instances I've noticed, many amateur publishing designers desperately try to boost a 72 ppi image (provided by uninformed clients) to 300 ppi hoping to make it a high res image - but what they don't know is that they are only increasing the file size but the details will not gather in, it is exactly this principle that makes me think that what you get straight out of the camera is what matters as it has more details packed in pixels - I again welcome more debate on this as I do not always claim I am right.

thanks all

[cats_five]

As said before, the dpi/ppi only becomes important once you go to print, or put the image in some software that cares what the dpi/ppi is. But as produced by the camera it's just a number in the EXIF which you can change with a vast array of editing programs. I leave it alone unless I want to print an image - for uploading to Flickr I simply resize my final image so the longest side is 1024. It wouldn't matter if the dpi/ppi in the image is 72, 180, 240, 300 or even 4,000 - it will display the same size. And a few of them do have 4,000 dpi - they have come from my 35mm film scanner.

[JeffJS]

For computer/internet viewing, it's an irrelevant number until you start blowing up the image. If you want to provide an online image available for pixel peeping, then you want the higher resolution. If you are going to Print your image, then you want the higher resolution. However, it is your processing and viewing software that determines the default. The Real important number is the actual dimensions.

Aside from the obvious difference in overall size, which one do you think has the highest resolution? The DPI And the PPI do not matter until, as said, we are blowing them up or printing them.

[cats_five]

For computer/internet viewing, it's an irrelevant number until you start blowing up the image.

For computer / internet viewing it's an irrelevent number regardless of how much you blow up an image - what counts is the actual number of pixels, not the dpi/ppi.

[Just1MoreDave]

My way to explain it: the inch is the important part.

Is this measurement still common in metric places? It might mean the inch survives another century!

[stevebrot]

As said before, the dpi/ppi only becomes important once you go to print

+1

The jpeg dpi is a clue for print rendering and nothing more and is generally overriden by the printer driver.