Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 14 Feb 2010 (Sunday) 21:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

how many pixels for 10" X 7.5" print?

 
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
17,798 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1561
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Feb 14, 2010 21:21 |  #1

so i was thinking about entering a photo into a contest...the rules state that the photo must be able to be printed in high resolution at 10" X 7.5"...one of the shots that i was considering is cropped quite a bit...i'm not sure if I'd be able to print it at that size or not...is there a way to tell based on how many pixels wide, and tall the image is if it'd work or not?

thanks in advance


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
dugcross
Senior Member
Avatar
876 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Palm Harbor, Florida
     
Feb 14, 2010 21:29 |  #2

DreDaze wrote in post #9610341 (external link)
so i was thinking about entering a photo into a contest...the rules state that the photo must be able to be printed in high resolution at 10" X 7.5"...one of the shots that i was considering is cropped quite a bit...i'm not sure if I'd be able to print it at that size or not...is there a way to tell based on how many pixels wide, and tall the image is if it'd work or not?

thanks in advance

Well for print when they say high resolution that is normally 300 dpi. Basically open your file in photoshop. Make the resolution 300 dpi and if the resulting dimension is 10 x 7.5 or larger you should be ok.


Doug Cross
Graphic Designer and Photographer
www.crossphotographics​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stargazerfrank
Goldmember
Avatar
1,475 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 58
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Near ATL.
     
Feb 14, 2010 21:36 |  #3

I saved this from another web site.

maximum recommended file size will make a Photographic Print that is 300 DPI.
Print Size
MIN File Size - MAX File Size
4x6 600x900- 1200x1800
5x7 750x1050- 1500x2100
8x10 1200x1500- 2400x3000
8.5x11 1275x1650- 2550x3300
8x12 1200x1800- 2400x3600
11x14 1650x2100- 3300x4200
12x18 1800x2700 - 3600x5400
16x20 2400x3000- 4800x6000
16x24 2400x3600- 4800x7200
20x24 3000x3600- 6000x7200
20x30 3000x4500- 6000x9000


Canon T3I 6D 24-105L 100-400L Canon 430EX
my pics
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/58987754@N06/a​lbums/with/72157669383​175216

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
THREAD ­ STARTER
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
17,798 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1561
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Feb 14, 2010 22:07 |  #4

dugcross wrote in post #9610398 (external link)
Well for print when they say high resolution that is normally 300 dpi. Basically open your file in photoshop. Make the resolution 300 dpi and if the resulting dimension is 10 x 7.5 or larger you should be ok.

o.k....sorry if this is a dumb question, but when i loaded the picture into photoshop it was originally 1,000 X 700 pixels or so @ 72ppi resolution...changed the resolution to 300ppi...and then it made the file larger...it became about 4,000 X 3,000...is that right? would it normally make the file bigger?

Stargazerfrank wrote in post #9610430 (external link)
I saved this from another web site.

maximum recommended file size will make a Photographic Print that is 300 DPI.
Print Size
MIN File Size - MAX File Size
4x6 600x900- 1200x1800
5x7 750x1050- 1500x2100
8x10 1200x1500- 2400x3000
8.5x11 1275x1650- 2550x3300
8x12 1200x1800- 2400x3600
11x14 1650x2100- 3300x4200
12x18 1800x2700 - 3600x5400
16x20 2400x3000- 4800x6000
16x24 2400x3600- 4800x7200
20x24 3000x3600- 6000x7200
20x30 3000x4500- 6000x9000

thanks for the list


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,637 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 513
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Feb 14, 2010 22:41 |  #5

You will have a pretty bad result with that size photo. The size at 72 ppi is enough to display on the Web, but just enough -- enlarging even to an 7x10 will result in a pretty poor quality image.

If you want too see for yourself, in the Photoshop Image/Image Size dialog, go ahead and set the dimensions to 10x7 inches (which would give you a "native" resolution of 100 ppi. Then set the ppi to 300 and check the Resample to yes, and hit OK. then in Photoshop view the image at a few sizes -- 100% to be really scared, and try viewing at the Print Size to get some perspecive. I'd say as a next step, take it to a print shop and print it out at 7x10 and see how it looks to you.

You image after the resize would be 2100x3000 pixels (a 7 1/2x10 would be slightly larger) and so you can see that an image that would print a 7x10 at best quality should hit those pixel dimensions -- in other words about 6 MP after cropping (as opposed to the <1MP image you are dealing with). Doing the resampling thing for a contest entry may give OK results, but eyeball them for yourself so that you can be your own judge.


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
THREAD ­ STARTER
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
17,798 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1561
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Feb 15, 2010 00:33 |  #6

tonylong wrote in post #9610753 (external link)
You will have a pretty bad result with that size photo. The size at 72 ppi is enough to display on the Web, but just enough -- enlarging even to an 7x10 will result in a pretty poor quality image.

If you want too see for yourself, in the Photoshop Image/Image Size dialog, go ahead and set the dimensions to 10x7 inches (which would give you a "native" resolution of 100 ppi. Then set the ppi to 300 and check the Resample to yes, and hit OK. then in Photoshop view the image at a few sizes -- 100% to be really scared, and try viewing at the Print Size to get some perspecive. I'd say as a next step, take it to a print shop and print it out at 7x10 and see how it looks to you.

You image after the resize would be 2100x3000 pixels (a 7 1/2x10 would be slightly larger) and so you can see that an image that would print a 7x10 at best quality should hit those pixel dimensions -- in other words about 6 MP after cropping (as opposed to the <1MP image you are dealing with). Doing the resampling thing for a contest entry may give OK results, but eyeball them for yourself so that you can be your own judge.

thanks, yeah i'm not sure on how the quality would be...that's what led me to ask

just out of curiosity how do you figure the image would be less than 1MP...my images are normally 3888 X 2592 from my 10mp 40D...if i'm at 1,000 X 700...it'd seem like the image would have to be at least 2.5MP equivalent or so...i'm still not suggesting the quality would be good enough

but I don't know what i'm talking about here...just trying to figure how you got that #...:D

thanks again


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,637 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 513
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Feb 15, 2010 01:28 |  #7

1 MP is 1000x1000 or the equivalent. This is an image that would fit on your screen at 100 ppi (10x10 inches). Your close crop will struggle though with a print -- what you have to realize is that printing typically needs more resolution than screen resolution when printed/viewed at a "normal" size/distance.

But, like I said, give it a try, do the resizing and be sure to sharpen the image afterware, then have a print shop run off a 7x10 and you should be able to see the outcome.


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JoePhotoOnline
Senior Member
Avatar
915 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Central Valley, California
     
Feb 15, 2010 02:30 |  #8

8 x 10 @ 300dpi = 7.2MP



Beginners talk about cameras, Pros talk about lenses, and Masters talk about light.
Feedback: 1 2 3 4 5 eBay UserID: 1969fordtruckman

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,404 posts
Likes: 169
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Feb 15, 2010 03:28 |  #9

I hope this doesn't offend anybody, but I have to rant a little. Doesn't anybody ever do simple math in their heads? Plug it into Photoshop? I have very little problem knowing that 300 dpi x 10 inches is 3,000 pixels. 300 x 7.5 takes only slightly longer. If you don't have 3000 x 2250 pixels a 10x7.5 won't be "high resolution".

I also don't have much trouble figuring that 1000 x 700 is 700,000 or that that is 0.7 Mp., all without a calculator. Sheeyit, I guess there really is a generation gap. At this moment I'm glad to be on my side of it.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Feb 15, 2010 06:11 |  #10

tonylong wrote in post #9610753 (external link)
You will have a pretty bad result with that size photo. The size at 72 ppi is enough to display on the Web, but just enough

The ppi has nothing to do with it. It's the size in pixels that counts (and 1000x700 is way too low for anything bigger then about 4x6")


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
THREAD ­ STARTER
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
17,798 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1561
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Feb 15, 2010 10:06 |  #11

tzalman wrote in post #9611747 (external link)
I hope this doesn't offend anybody, but I have to rant a little. Doesn't anybody ever do simple math in their heads? Plug it into Photoshop? I have very little problem knowing that 300 dpi x 10 inches is 3,000 pixels. 300 x 7.5 takes only slightly longer. If you don't have 3000 x 2250 pixels a 10x7.5 won't be "high resolution".

I also don't have much trouble figuring that 1000 x 700 is 700,000 or that that is 0.7 Mp., all without a calculator. Sheeyit, I guess there really is a generation gap. At this moment I'm glad to be on my side of it.

i can do simple math in my head...but i know nothing about printing...i have no clue really about 300dpi(or is it ppi?), and all that...I'm an amateur, and rarely print that much right now

hence why i asked the question, i knew it was going to be a simple question to answer and I could get the answer quickly here

the 2nd question about the getting <1mp i knew was dumb from the outset if you look at the way i posed it...however i figured that one out before any responses came, but didn't see the point in editing my post


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Feb 15, 2010 10:08 |  #12

ppi = Pixels per inch ;)


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agedbriar
Goldmember
Avatar
2,521 posts
Likes: 264
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Slovenia
     
Feb 15, 2010 17:32 |  #13

tzalman wrote in post #9611747 (external link)
I also don't have much trouble figuring that 1000 x 700 is 700,000 or that that is 0.7 Mp., all without a calculator. Sheeyit, I guess there really is a generation gap. At this moment I'm glad to be on my side of it.

Thanks to the slide-ruler. ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
THREAD ­ STARTER
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
17,798 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1561
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Feb 15, 2010 18:17 |  #14

René Damkot wrote in post #9613084 (external link)
ppi = Pixels per inch ;)

i take it dpi is 'dots per inch'...?

anyways, so this leads me to another question...which is probably totally obvious to all but me:)

so 72ppi is good for web viewing, and things of that nature...and 300 ppi is good for high resolution printing...what ppi is the minimum in your opinion for good printings


also i've only done one large print with my 40D...a 20X30 landscape...but since i knew nothing of ppi, and all that then i'm sure it was done at 72ppi, as that seems to be the resolution all my shots are in when i load them into photoshop

if i were to increase the ppi(i think i'd have to resample it in order to still have that same size) would i notice a difference between the two?...I guess i could just try this myself, but figured I'd see if i could save some $$

thanks for putting up with me again:)


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,908 posts
Likes: 329
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Feb 15, 2010 19:09 |  #15

300ppi is ideal, 50ppi will work as long as you're not too close to the image.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,110 views & 0 likes for this thread
how many pixels for 10" X 7.5" print?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mason.snipes
692 guests, 379 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.