150 dpi for 20x30 print?

I had taken some team photos for the local HS XC teams. They are photos that will be hung on the walls outside the gym. Usually in a 20x30 size. I had a call from one of the coaches saying that they were having a hard time getting them to look right for printing. The photos are roughly 4491x3348, which would not be enough if printing at 300 dpi but at 150 dpi, should be enough. I would guess that photos hung on the wall to be viewed from 6 ft or more should be OK at 150 dpi? I am including an example of one of the photos

IMAGE LINK: https://troybracker.sm​ugmug.com …eam-/n-28X3Rd/i-T6d4KtS/A

Perhaps the issue isn't your resolution but rather your aspect ratio? The pixel resolution you provided won't fit into a 20x30 image. Just a thought....

duckster wrote in post #19315767
The photos are roughly 4491x3348, which would not be enough if printing at 300 dpi but at 150 dpi, should be enough. I would guess that photos hung on the wall to be viewed from 6 ft or more should be OK at 150 dpi?

Yes ... 150 dpi should be good ... but the ratio is a little off.

4:3 ratio if you want image as is ... 185 dpi ( 24 x 18 )

If interested in spreadsheet that figures different print ratios send PM and I'll email to you.

You can use apps such as On1 Resize to change the image dimensions, add pixels as needed....etc.

That may be the problem. There was some extra bleacher space that I had cropped down a little bit. I do have the originals.

duckster wrote in post #19315767
.
I would guess that photos hung on the wall to be viewed from 6 ft or more should be OK at 150 dpi?
.

.
That should be no problem at all. . There isn't any fine detail here that the image depends on. . It's not like with people, the viewer wants to be able to see every hair and every freckle crisply and clearly rendered. . Really depends on subject matter - totally different criteria for people shots like this than you typically have with photos of wild mammals, birds, or macro work.

duckster wrote in post #19315767
.
Usually in a 20x30 size. I had a call from one of the coaches saying that they were having a hard time getting them to look right for printing.
.

.
The color cast looks unnaturally yellow - perhaps that is what the coach meant when he/she said that he/she was having a hard time getting it to look right. . These colors would be hard to work with. . When almost everything in the scene actually is more or less yellow, it's hard to take that nasty yellow look out of the image and still have it look right.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19315788
.
That should be no problem at all. . There isn't any fine detail here that the image depends on. . It's not like with people, the viewer wants to be able to see every hair and every freckle crisply and clearly rendered. . Really depends on subject matter - totally different criteria for people shots like this than you typically have with photos of wild mammals, birds, or macro work.

.
The color cast looks unnaturally yellow - perhaps that is what the coach meant when he/she said that he/she was having a hard time getting it to look right. . These colors would be hard to work with. . When almost everything in the scene actually is more or less yellow, it's hard to take that nasty yellow look out of the image and still have it look right.

.

Thanks Tom. The yellow color comes from the wood bleachers and gym floor. You should see some of the other photos up on the wall from years gone past. Many have much more of the yellow tint. The coaches said these were the first ones in a long time that weren't yellow.

They are planning to put a narrow black banner along the bottom of the photo with the athletes names listed.

It's got to be the aspect ratio. A quick peek shows that the image just barely fits into a 3:2 ratio with the awards almost clipping the bottom and the guy in the back almost clipping the top edge.

It isn't hard to reset the white balance if you have the raw files, that yellow tint is easily removed, but I don't think the WB is all that off though. This is my attempt using the JPG above, but it would be easier with the raw, so this isn't perfect.

Thanks. I will go back and look at the original. I might have shot the original in JPEG as I was previously struggling to convert the R6 RAW files for use on my Mac but then I figured out the Adobe DNG converter

This is adjusting the WB on the original JPEG

At a viewing distance of 60", the human eye is limited to being able to detect something as small as 0.0087" (one-half second of arc)...115 pixels per inch.
A print 30" wide would need need 3450 pixels in order for the eye to NOT detect individual pixels at that viewing distance.

As pointed out, your photo has an aspect ratio of 4:3, and you wish to make a print with a different aspect ratio, 3:2, and fill 20"V x 30"H. If you fill 30" with the existing crop, you will be running risk of cutting off the tops of heads in the back row and cutting off lower legs in the front row in order to fill the short dimension of the 20" tall print!
You need a wider space to left and right of the group, so you do not amputate feet or heads in a 20" x 30" print--or more importantly, keeps the trophies visible in the print!

I think Teamspeed's attempted correction looks nicer. While warm/coolness might have been adjusted with WB control, there is some green Tint still present in your photo, duckster. I suspect the ambient lighting in most gyms has too much green.

Thanks for the information. Probably right. And I am a little bit red/green color blind so I am certainly not the best judge.

The original photo had more space to the left/right of the team, as well as a bit more top and bottom.

I went back to the original and clicked on 3:2 crop. Does this look better?

That seems better, and I would crop the image between the two holes in the bottom bleacher and deliver that post processed result to the team.