Photo Printing

[PAUL50]

I rarely print photos and now that I’m getting ready to print several I’ve run into some issues and I’m hoping I can get some advice. I frequently crop my photos in Lightroom and until recently didn’t concern myself with the standard crop formats like 4x6, 8x10, etc. Now I’m thinking that was a mistake. In addition, file size issues have also cropped up (pun intended). So, my research shows I need two things to be concerned about, the proper format to make sure no part of the print gets cut off and enough pixels to make a quality print. So, assuming I need 300 ppi to get a quality print, the charts show the number of pixels I need for both height and length and when you multiply height by length you get the total number of megapixels needed. Ok, now, do they have to be perfect matches? What if you have enough megapixels in total but the number of pixels I have for the height is less than indicated but I have more than enough along the length side. Will the print look right. Recently I sent a photo of an owl to Whitewall for printing. I requested a 16x12 print. They came back indicating the best they could do for a high quality print was 12x10. The photo I received back was excellent, clearly they know their business, but I think I just got lucky, and I should be a lot smarter. I’ve spent quite a bit of time on the Internet and I haven’t seen anything that clearly deals with the issues. And so, I put the question to the group. Your assistance will be sincerely appreciated. Thanks.

 

[aolander]

You don't need to concern yourself with megapixels, just the pixel dimensions. The height and width in pixels needs to match the aspect ratio of the print size you want. In your example, 16 x 12 is a 4:3 aspect ratio. You need an image that is 4800 x 3600 pixels if printed at 300 ppi. 12 x 10 is an odd aspect ratio. You must have cropped to that dimension plus you must not have sent a high enough resolution image. A 12 x 10 image would be 3600 x 3000 pixels if printed at 300 ppi.

 

[PhilcTx]

If you've not already check out using Lightroom's Print module. Lots of flexibility for setting up images for print including printing non-standard cropped sizes with blank borders on standard paper sizes.

 

[gbodave]

Always adjust the aspect ratio to the print size to be used. My go to print size is 10 X 8 but I can also muster other sizes from the original RAW file.

Using LrC in develop mode : within the aspect ratio box move the image around until you get everything that's important inside of it and composed as is wanted. Confirm by pressing enter then export as a JPG. Your print will come out looking exactly as you envisioned it when adjusting the aspect ratio.

 

[Rassie]

One last thought: I don't think anyone has ever lacked for print quality at 300 dpi. But there are times also when you can get away with less. I've read in forums, and experienced it myself, that sometimes even 270 dpi is good enough. That allows a larger print than 300 dpi.

 

[soundbyte]

I always try to crop to a known ratio, in my case the A4 - 1:1.41 ratio as we print on metric sized paper here.
The outline of a 1:1.41 crop and the ratios I have available can be seen below.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

I then open LibreOffice Writer with a page size and orientation selected (e.g. A4 portrait, with margins adjusted to suit) insert the image and see what the result looks like on virtual paper.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

This has helped me get an idea of what I might expect to get if I get that image printed.
If you get your sizes wrong this method will soon show you.

 

[Mr F Stop.]

I have the same problems to be honest. But all good advice above, I would add that the DPI all depends on where the image is to be viewed from.

 

[PAUL50]

Thanks all for the valuable assistance. Frankly, I had missed the print module in LR and will explore that today. In addition I’ll start looking at using standard ratios and keep my eye on the pixel dimensions. Rassie raised a good point with the owl shot. It is tack sharp out of the camera but cropped and I must have cropped to an odd size. When I look at the pixel dimensions now there were not enough pixels along the height axis to get a 300 ppi resolution. Whitewall must have decreased the 300 ppi to something like 270, as Rassie suggests, to print it. Totally unnoticeable the print came out great. Great lesson. Thanks all.

 

[dabhand16]

I used to think that, but I 'solved' it by cutting my own mats fpr the print and sizing the mat to fit any frame that I wanted - if I was going to frame them - and selecting a suitable frame. if not framing, the mat was sized to whatever I wanted. If I wanted to frame them later I just cut a new mat.

Is there any reason why you want all of your prints to have the same standard ratio?

As far as I know, the larger the print is you don't need to print at 300dpi. I think this is because large prints are not viewed at close range as a small one usually is.

 

[Viathelens]

About 95% of the time I only crop a little bit and I almost always keep the 3:2/2:3 aspect ratio so I don't have print problems as noted in this post. I also buy mats in bulk so I need to keep images to a size that I can mat. I will sometimes crop a bit to get the old-school 11 x 14 and I do have mats for that. It's good to think ahead when processing images. To figure out sizing, using 300 ppi since most outside printers require that (although technically you could actually print as low as 240 ppi for larger prints...smaller prints could require a ppi of 360, which always seems backwards to me!) take the size (inches) of the finished print you want and multiply it by 300, that will give you a ball-park setting, although you can push this depending on the original image quality and how large you want to go with the print. I have a chart taped to my computer for sizes, figured at 300 ppi. So, in general, if I want a print that is 12" x 18", I multiply 18 by 300 and come up with a minimum largest side pixel requirement of 5400 pixels (and I know this will also cover the shorter side size needed). A 12 x 18 print needs an image size of 3600 pixels by 5400 pixels to obtain a quality print at 300 ppi. I also use this method at home when I print and I print about 95% of my work at home, for anything larger than a 13" print I need to go to an outside printer, generally Bay Photo. This approach has worked well for me for many years and it allows me to print, mat and frame an image very quickly when needed. Last year a lady called me about 4 days before Christmas and wanted two images, matted and framed, by Christmas Eve. I was able to accommodate that request with ease and she picked them both up on Christmas Eve.

 

[PAUL50]

I used to think that, but I 'solved' it by cutting my own mats fpr the print and sizing the mat to fit any frame that I wanted - if I was going to frame them - and selecting a suitable frame. if not framing, the mat was sized to whatever I wanted. If I wanted to frame them later I just cut a new mat.

Is there any reason why you want all of your prints to have the same standard ratio?

As far as I know, the larger the print is you don't need to print at 300dpi. I think this is because large prints are not viewed at close range as a small one usually is.

Thanks for your reply. I’m not looking to use just one standard ratio but rather to just use the standard ratios instead of my non-standard crops. I do a lot of cropping because it’s difficult to get close to my wildlife subjects and as l go back over them looking for printable photos I began to realize that the crops I chose didn’t line up with the pixel dimensions I needed to get 300 ppi quality prints. My thought was if I use the standard ratios the pixel dimensions would line up better. Not sure this solves my problem - will be playing with the theory today. If I’m moving in the wrong direction I’d like to hear your views. I think when Whitewall ultimately printed the owl photo they used something less than 300 ppi because I didn’t have enough pixels on the long side for a 300 ppi print for the size I originally wanted. Looking at it now it appears that to get a really crisp print they had to both downsize the photo dimensions and use fewer ppi to get the job done. And, that’s what kicked off my thought proces. I need to add, Whitewall did an outstanding job on the print. I love it. But it’s also when I realized I needed to get smarter on this area of post processing and frankly, at the moment, I’m not sure I’m working in the right direction. I agree that fewer than 300 ppi can be workable. The owl seems to be the proof.

 

[PAUL50]

About 95% of the time I only crop a little bit and I almost always keep the 3:2/2:3 aspect ratio so I don't have print problems as noted in this post. I also buy mats in bulk so I need to keep images to a size that I can mat. I will sometimes crop a bit to get the old-school 11 x 14 and I do have mats for that. It's good to think ahead when processing images. To figure out sizing, using 300 ppi since most outside printers require that (although technically you could actually print as low as 240 ppi for larger prints...smaller prints could require a ppi of 360, which always seems backwards to me!) take the size (inches) of the finished print you want and multiply it by 300, that will give you a ball-park setting, although you can push this depending on the original image quality and how large you want to go with the print. I have a chart taped to my computer for sizes, figured at 300 ppi. So, in general, if I want a print that is 12" x 18", I multiply 18 by 300 and come up with a minimum largest side pixel requirement of 5400 pixels (and I know this will also cover the shorter side size needed). A 12 x 18 print needs an image size of 3600 pixels by 5400 pixels to obtain a quality print at 300 ppi. I also use this method at home when I print and I print about 95% of my work at home, for anything larger than a 13" print I need to go to an outside printer, generally Bay Photo. This approach has worked well for me for many years and it allows me to print, mat and frame an image very quickly when needed. Last year a lady called me about 4 days before Christmas and wanted two images, matted and framed, by Christmas Eve. I was able to accommodate that request with ease and she picked them both up on Christmas Eve.

I too now have a chart of pixel dimensions for print sizes at 300 ppi and the formula listed for non standard sizes taped to my screen. I’m curious about two things. Can you get professional quality prints on a home printer and what printer and paper would you recommend. Also, how do you market your photos, if you don’t mind sharing.

 

[Viathelens]

I too now have a chart of pixel dimensions for print sizes at 300 ppi and the formula listed for non standard sizes taped to my screen. I’m curious about two things. Can you get professional quality prints on a home printer and what printer and paper would you recommend. Also, how do you market your photos, if you don’t mind sharing.

Hi Paul,
I use an Epson printer, an older R3000, it prints beautifully and Epson printers have always worked well for me with my Mac equipment. I'd say, yes, they are professional quality: I've won many awards in regional competitions and sold a number of prints, all printed from my home printer. There is some art to printing, knowing what paper to use to accent your image, having all the correct ICC profiles, knowing how to use soft proofing, understanding if your printer prints a bit too dark and knowing how to correct for that, and, of course, a calibrated screen (my Mac seems to always be correctly calibrated). I certainly could not count on selling my images for food and shelter but do sell some throughout the year. Currently I am in a gallery in the town I live in. I also have a website but have never sold a thing from it. I've had shows at a couple of places and when I've entered competitions my artwork has hung in the gallery of whoever was holding the competition. So, various ways. Don't quit your day job, at least I couldn't, but it's fun to know that my work is out there hanging on someone's wall for them to enjoy.

 

[aolander]

Trying to get the aspect ratio of the camera, the print size, and the frame size to work together often creates issues. Ratios other than the 2:3 of your DSLR's require cropping, often quite a bit. If you vary from "standard" sizes, you'll have to get custom matting and framing which is quite expensive, and even standard size matting and framing is costly unless you do it yourself. One way around matting and framing is to get canvas or metal prints made which seem to be popular. You still have to stick to certain ratios, however.

Connie is correct in saying that selling prints is difficult. You have to get them out there and market yourself. I think local venues for your work is a good place to start.

 

[FB101]

Before you spend a lot on printing, I suggest you first check the output at 240ppi, 270 and 300ppi - to be honest most high quality printers will look pretty much the same unless you stick your nose on them. And that's the key, the bigger the printer the further away you stand, the more flexibility you have on the resolution (ever looked at a billboard upclose?) - that will give you a good idea on how much flexibility you have on print sizes without upsampling.

If you find yourself needing to resample to 300ppi frequently, then I suggest you invest on a high quality resampled; the algorithms in LR and PS are good (much better than a decade ago), but I find Topaz to be a bit sharper.

 

[PAUL50]

Hi Paul,
I use an Epson printer, an older R3000, it prints beautifully and Epson printers have always worked well for me with my Mac equipment. I'd say, yes, they are professional quality: I've won many awards in regional competitions and sold a number of prints, all printed from my home printer. There is some art to printing, knowing what paper to use to accent your image, having all the correct ICC profiles, knowing how to use soft proofing, understanding if your printer prints a bit too dark and knowing how to correct for that, and, of course, a calibrated screen (my Mac seems to always be correctly calibrated). I certainly could not count on selling my images for food and shelter but do sell some throughout the year. Currently I am in a gallery in the town I live in. I also have a website but have never sold a thing from it. I've had shows at a couple of places and when I've entered competitions my artwork has hung in the gallery of whoever was holding the competition. So, various ways. Don't quit your day job, at least I couldn't, but it's fun to know that my work is out there hanging on someone's wall for them to enjoy.

Thanks. You’ve been very helpful. Appreciate the advice.

 

[PAUL50]

Before you spend a lot on printing, I suggest you first check the output at 240ppi, 270 and 300ppi - to be honest most high quality printers will look pretty much the same unless you stick your nose on them. And that's the key, the bigger the printer the further away you stand, the more flexibility you have on the resolution (ever looked at a billboard upclose?) - that will give you a good idea on how much flexibility you have on print sizes without upsampling.

If you find yourself needing to resample to 300ppi frequently, then I suggest you invest on a high quality resampled; the algorithms in LR and PS are good (much better than a decade ago), but I find Topaz to be a bit sharper.

Thank you. Interestingly, I've just started looking at the Topaz products.

 

[Replytoken]

My advice is that you import your raw images into LR and only crop when exporting for a specific purpose, like printing. As others have said, 300PPI is a good guarantee of a print that will look good at close viewing range. You can get reasonable prints at around 240-270PPI depending on subject matter and viewing distance, but YMMV. Lastly, I would suggest making the crop in LR prior to exporting, but export as much resolution as the cropped image permits and choose a quality setting of 90 or higher.. I have rarely ever seen an issue for sending more resolution to a lab. If you want to do a quick check on the exported file, you can use a program like FastStone Image Viewer. It has a very hadny crop feature, and will quickly give you the PPI for an image.

Good luck,

--Ken

 

[PAUL50]

My advice is that you import your raw images into LR and only crop when exporting for a specific purpose, like printing. As others have said, 300PPI is a good guarantee of a print that will look good at close viewing range. You can get reasonable prints at around 240-270PPI depending on subject matter and viewing distance, but YMMV. Lastly, I would suggest making the crop in LR prior to exporting, but export as much resolution as the cropped image permits and choose a quality setting of 90 or higher.. I have rarely ever seen an issue for sending more resolution to a lab. If you want to do a quick check on the exported file, you can use a program like FastStone Image Viewer. It has a very hadny crop feature, and will quickly give you the PPI for an image.

Good luck,

--Ken

Thank you

 

[dabhand16]

My thought was if I use the standard ratios the pixel dimensions would line up better. Not sure this solves my problem - will be playing with the theory today.

I'm not sure that this is right, or even if the pixel dimentions are or should be the deciding factor, but if you are going to experiment you will find out soon.

I rarely print nowdays as 1) I'm a bit colour blind so I've got no chance of getting the colours right (just could not do wet colour processing back in the day), and 2) I've run out of space to accommodate them!

Bulk of the prints I do now are happy snaps for the family and my non standard size crops don't bother me at all as I am not hung up on trying to get a print to fit onto a standard size of paper. If I want a good quality print I get it from a lab. Chances are that these prints will end up in a frame, so as I said before, I just cut a custom mat.

Printing is a whole new ball game and is a very specialised part of photography.

 

[PAUL50]

Thanks Graham. I’ve decided not to start printing and continue using the Whitewall lab. Interesting that you mention color blindness. I’ve got minor issues with greens, grays and browns under some conditions (usually in low light). Until you mentioned it, it hadn’t crossed my mind that it could be effecting my processing. I’ll have to have younger eyes check what I’m doing. LOL! I’ve been experimenting with different ratios and it seems to help. If I’ve got enough pixels at any chosen numbers of ppi on the long side with a standard aspect ratio, I seem to automatically have enough on the short side. Just makes it easier to tell. I’m also sure that depending on how sharp the shot is out of the camera and the size of the print that lower ppi will still create a high quality print. The owl shot I mentioned is proof of that. Thanks again for your comments.

 

[dabhand16]

Thanks Graham. I’ve decided not to start printing and continue using the Whitewall lab. Interesting that you mention color blindness. I’ve got minor issues with greens, grays and browns under some conditions (usually in low light). Until you mentioned it, it hadn’t crossed my mind that it could be effecting my processing. I’ll have to have younger eyes check what I’m doing. LOL! Thanks again for your comments.

No problem Paul. I found out I was a bit red/green colour blind at school when I was doing titrations in chemistry for my GCE exams. My results were wildly different not only from everyone else's, but with my own previous results! I had to have someone to tell me when the colour changed in the exam.

I find my issue principally affects very dark red/green colours - back in the day Ford made a car available in 'black cherry' or 'goodwood green' in the UK. Both very dark and in most light I could not tell the difference. Same goes when red/green colours get very pale. I guess it must also affect other colours too, but I'll never know!

This put me off doing portraits for ages and also explains my love of black and white. I just could not do colour wet processing. Developing tranparencies was OK as they were done in a tank with a timer and not by eye. In the digital age, I always used to do my own mono conversions in PS using the channel mixer. That was until somebody told me that all of my conversions had a magenta cast! so now I use NIK Collection Silver FX for my conversions so then I know that thety ARE black and white.