Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-19-2007, 09:22 AM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Methuen, MA.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 7
K10D Resolution Question

First let me apologize for rookie questions that I may ask. I am fairly new to digital photography and I have much to learn.

I am using a K10D and love my new camera. Here is my question:

When shooting at the highest quality setting, 10MP, I notice that when viewing the image size in Photoshop that my Resolution is only 72ppi. Is there a setting that changes this or do I have to manually process my image to get the 300ppi needed to get a quality print. Will shooting in RAW vs Jpeg effect this?

Thanks ahead of time.

Tim

02-19-2007, 09:32 AM   #2
Veteran Member
Alvin's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,530
From my understanding, monitors display at 72ppi. I don't know PP too well and I know a lot of forum members here will be able to answer the question about saving at 300ppi (for magazine print) better. Just wanted to pass on what I knew.

Cheers.
02-19-2007, 09:53 AM   #3
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bristol, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 112
The dpi (dots per inch) associated with an image file is just a value, a default for how it could be printed. This default can be changed at any time or overridden when printing. It has no effect whatsoever on the image held in the file.

dpi is only meaningful when an image is printed.

Some people used to suggest that monitors "were" 72dpi, but this is both incorrect and meaningless. Consider the resolution you use on your monitor (e.g. 1152x864 pixels) and the size of your monitor (e.g. 12.5"x9.5" - a rough measurement of my '17"' monitor) - that's about 90 "dpi". Now change the resolution you're using or get a different monitor (bigger or smaller) or get a projector and mess around with the size of the projected image. You will soon see that trying to specify a "standard" monitor dpi is meaningless.

You should be interested mainly in the size in pixels of your images - from the K10D at native resolution that's 3872x2592. When printed at about 12.9"x8.64" that will give you 300dpi, whatever the default setting in the image file says.

Whether you need to print at 300dpi is another matter and one which can be discussed for ever. Most people will say that 250dpi is adequate, many will say that 200dpi is OK and some will show you good results printed at 150dpi - that will give you a print size up to 25"x19"!

Simon

Last edited by Simon; 02-19-2007 at 09:55 AM. Reason: typo
02-19-2007, 12:03 PM   #4
Site Supporter
slip's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,533
QuoteOriginally posted by TMoore77 Quote
First let me apologize for rookie questions that I may ask. I am fairly new to digital photography and I have much to learn.

I am using a K10D and love my new camera. Here is my question:

When shooting at the highest quality setting, 10MP, I notice that when viewing the image size in Photoshop that my Resolution is only 72ppi. Is there a setting that changes this or do I have to manually process my image to get the 300ppi needed to get a quality print. Will shooting in RAW vs Jpeg effect this?

Thanks ahead of time.

Tim
If you process your raw images with photoshop cs2, you can set the preferences for the dpi to be what you like. I have mine set to 320 dpi as this is what my printer asks for (my local costco)
the output from camera raw will then be your choice instead of 72 dpi of your k10

cheers

randy

02-19-2007, 12:04 PM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
"I have to manually process my image to get the 300ppi needed to get a quality print"

i think most would agree that the 300dpi thing is outdated nonsense thow.. to put it bluntly..

trog
02-19-2007, 01:20 PM   #6
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: WV
Posts: 1,495
I agree.

If your image is going to be published in a magazine, the magazine will want the image resized to 300dpi.

Other than that, it has little relevance.

Here is a rule of thumb I rely on: if your image looks good as an 8x10 print held at arm's length, it will look good at 80 feet x 100 feet, or any other size, provided it is viewed at the proper viewing distance. No pixel peeping allowed!
02-19-2007, 01:33 PM   #7
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Methuen, MA.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 7
Original Poster
Thanks,

Very helpfull
02-20-2007, 03:41 PM   #8
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 174
Resolution for an image viewed on a monitor for all practical purposes can only be expressed in terms of the image pixel dimension (x & y dimension). As Simon pointed out, terms such as 72ppi do not have much meaning for a monitor.

Now having said that, yes each monitor has a resolution setting that it uses and once fixed it does not change unless changed in the monitor software options (in the case of a CRT). In theory, you could get a piece of paper that is 5 inches square and hold it up to your screen and play with the image size setting (in PS) using a digital image that is supposed to be 5 inches square. In this manner you could probably approximate through a trial and error matching process the effective screen resolution being used.

02-20-2007, 05:24 PM   #9
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by Simon Quote
Some people used to suggest that monitors "were" 72dpi, but this is both incorrect and meaningless.

Simon's generally right - but I would add a boring footnote note. "DPI" (dots per inch) is for printers, as has been pointed out. "PPI" (pixels per inch) is the measure for monitors. Although it does vary quite a bit, it's not entirely meaningless.

The small black & white built-in display of the original Apple Macintosh (1984) was deliberately designed to a resolution of to 72 ppi. Aside from the fact that this resolution worked satisfactorily (in a way that, say, 22 dpi would not have) this had an added side-benefit in that it greatly helped the Mac manage the display of fonts. Fonts were/are measured in POINTS, and there are about 72 points per inch. So the Mac was designed to have a one-to-one correspondence between the points in a font and the pixels on screen. The original dot matrix printer that came with the Mac had a way of faking 144 dpi by overlapping lines; it actually worked surprisingly well. Anyway, there were of course other monitors in use at the time, and within a few years, the Mac, too, was supporting external monitors and the whole resolution thing became much more complicated. Even so, it's still not quite meaningless. Since your computer rasterizes things on screen based on the number of pixels required, if you get a higher-res screen like, say, my Dell laptop's 1680x1050, the items (fonts, icons, etc) on screen get literally smaller (as measured by an external ruler) than the same items displayed on the same screen but at a lower resolution.

It has been suggested that one of the reasons objects like icons and fonts are getting larger logically on both the Mac and the PC is that the programmers and the heads of the companies are getting older, like me, in other words, presbyopia is urging developers to make things bigger. Only half true. The other half is that users have cried for higher-res displays, BUT THEY DON'T WANT THOSE DISPLAYS to be that much physically larger. In other words, most users are still looking at 15" or 17" or 21" displays, although the number of pixels jammed on to those displays has continued to grow. ONE of the reasons that people want higher res monitors but don't want the size of the monitors to grow is PHOTOGRAPHY. We want physically smaller pixels so we can get a sort of "high definition" effect on our computers while we view our photos. Great for photos, but not so great for the objects like icons, window title bars, etc., whose size on screen is measured in fixed numbers of pixels. The problem with fonts has partially been resolved by getting rid of the old bit-mapped display fonts and calculating font display on the fly from vector definitions (and with the help of anti-aliasing). But fonts, too, have gotten logically "larger," by which I mean that 14 and 16 point fonts are now common as display fonts in many programs and many operating systems.

Will
02-20-2007, 09:32 PM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 643
my lcd monitor has a native resolution of 1680 x 1050.. its a 20 inch widescreen.. at windows XP defaults its pretty much unreadable.. everything is simply too small..

i used to run it at a lower 1400 x 900.. my last rather expensive graphics card upgrade in its wisdom removed the 1400 x 900 option i liked..

i am now stuck with the native 1680 x 1050 resolution.. there is no easy fixed for this.. carefull font sizing in windows and other things has given me something vaguely correct or at least readable.. but i cant say as i have noticed fonts getting bigger.. just resolutions getting higher..

i think monitor resolutions are like mega pixels in cameras.. a selling factor.. i would run a lower one if my LCD monitor and graphics card drivers permited.. but sadly they dont.. which leaves me often squinting at fonts that in essence are too small..

its more of a problem with lcd monitors that like to be at their native resolution than the older crt type where u could just select one that suited your eyesight the best..

my formula for readability used to be 800 x 600 for a 17 inch crt.. 1024 x 768 for a 19 inch crt.. everything was nicely readable without font resizing..

the default font size on my software is the same as its been for the last several years.. i am not sure where u are coming from with your fonts getting bigger Will..

they only get bigger on my computer when i make them bigger.. which is how it has always been.. the size loaded at default thow by evrything is way too small to match the resolution i am now forced to use..

trog

ps.. imagine this at roughly 16 x 10 inches.. larger than default fonts and everyhting now has to be carefully adjusted.. in the past it all just worked.. he he



my normal viewing distance is just under three feet..

Last edited by trog100; 02-20-2007 at 09:51 PM.
02-21-2007, 01:49 AM   #11
Pentaxian
Arpe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,344
I have a 24" widescreen at 1900x1200 at work, everything is just fine at default for Windows.

Ok say I've got an image, jpg, out of my camera in PS. PS tells me its 72dpi. The magazine says it must be 300dpi, how do I change that dpi value?
02-21-2007, 02:26 AM   #12
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bristol, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 112
QuoteOriginally posted by Arpe Quote
Ok say I've got an image, jpg, out of my camera in PS. PS tells me its 72dpi. The magazine says it must be 300dpi, how do I change that dpi value?
The simple answer is that you don't have to. The value associated with the file is only a default, which can be overridden by your client.

If you want to apply a belt and braces approach (which might be wise) then use "resize" in your image editor:

Paint Shop Pro: Image/Resize. Uncheck "Resample using". Set "Resolution" to "300 Pixels / Inch"

Photoshop: Image/Resize/Image Size. Uncheck "Resample image". Set "Resolution" to "300 Pixels / Inch"

Gimp: Image/Print Size. Set Resolutions to 300 and 300, Pixels/Inch. OR Image/Scale Image. Set "Interpolation" to "None". Set Resolutions to 300 and 300, Pixels/Inch

Others: try "Help"

What I find most frustrating is when a client asks for "300dpi" images without specifying the size. It's like ordering carpet from a 5m roll without saying the length needed. Alternatively it's a bit like the driver, stopped by the police for doing 50 miles per hour in a 30 limit. He said "Sorry officer, that's not possible, because I've only been going for 15 minutes."

Simon
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, image, k10d, photography, quality, question, resolution
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Resolution question TWN Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 09-16-2010 07:25 PM
Question About Resolution shutterpuppy Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 01-21-2009 08:39 PM
Technical question about sensor density x resolution BBear Photographic Technique 2 07-16-2008 08:36 AM
K10D Dynamic / Resolution Klusen Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 01-19-2008 12:27 PM
Resolution question button Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 04-13-2007 08:06 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:10 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top