Image Viewing Confusion: Want To See How Print Will Look.

I am currently preparing all my images to determine what sizes they can be printed out at because I haven't got a printer and someone else will be printing them for me.

Amongst my images I have a wildlife image that is cropped from the original frame and is now 648 x 864 pixels. I want to know if this will print as an 8" x 10" photograph with suitable quality. The thing that is confusing me is what I am seeing on my monitor and if that is representative of how the image would look when printed out.

Based on what I have learned so far I have done this, which I presume is correct:

I went to Image Size (in Photoshop), unticked the Resample Image box, set the resolution to '300' and 'pixels/inch' which has resulted in the image size being shown as 2.16" x 2.88", which is obviously miles off what I want to print at. I understand why this is and it isn't the problem.

If I go to View > Print Size it shows a tiny image that (when measured on-screen with a ruler) is less than the 2.16" x 2.88" size shown in the Image Size details. At the top of the screen it says that the image is showing as '@ 24%'. What am I seeing here? I thought it should be the print size at full size, but the on-screen dimensions don't equal the given dimensions, nor does the information at the top of the screen say anything is at 100%, rather that it says 24%.

If I select View > Actual Pixels I get a large image on-screen, with 100% showing at the top of the screen, but now it is about 7.5" x 9.5" and obviously not the 2.16" x 2.88" that it says it should be in the Image Size box.

All I am trying to do is view my image as it will print out so that I can judge whether it will have suitable quality.

If I go to Image Size and enter the dimensions I want (actually 7.5" x 10" ), then the 300ppi resolution becomes 86.4ppi, which I understand. Now if I go to View > Print Size the on-screen image gets smaller and is about 6.5" x 8" on the screen (measured with ruler), BUT is now showing 83.3% at the top of the screen. I'm getting neither the dimensions I want nor 100%. What on earth is going on? I have no idea where it has got 83.3% from, nor why it chose 24% last time.

What should I be doing to view my image as it will be printed so that I can see if my chosen dimension is suitable? I have now got an 83.3% image on-screen that looks good, but is apparently 86.4ppi and 7.5" x 10" in the Image Size box. It isn't physically 7.5" x 10" on screen and I'm not sure I'm viewing it at 100% because it says 83.3%. If I choose View > Actual Pixels (to get 100% at the top of the screen) I get an image of 7.5" x 9.5", which is closer to what I'm after, but still not exact.

With everything I have done so far the image looks fine on-screen, but I don't know what I'm looking at, so I still don't know if it will look as good when printed.

All I want to do is view my images on-screen with the detail that they will print out at, which will enable me to decide if I need to reduce the image dimensions. I haven't yet seen any figures or dimensions that suggest to me I'm seeing what I want to see.

Could anyone please throw some light on this mystery and suggest how I can simply see my image on-screen as it will print out? This is driving me absolutely mad.

Thanks very much,

Mike

You can't.

You can't simulate 3D ink on paper by looking at 2D pixels on a screen. The way the ink bleeds through the paper texture significantly affects the pixelization of what you might see at a 100% screen crop. There is no comparison or way to truly judge what a print will look like without making the print.

Now you can make an abstract judgment based simply on your crop. 640 x 800 is not going to make a GREAT 8 x 10; it isn't enough pixels. As you see, at 300 ppi it is only 2 x 2 inches so the interpolation at some point is going to stretch that to 4 times its current size. That is a lot of stretch. It will print and given a few feet of viewing distance it will look OK but it isn't enough data to look great.

Often if you are confused about interpolation or upsizing, it is best to work with a knowledgeable printer and let them manage the re-sizing. Send them the biggest file you can get and let them change it. Any changes you make will probably only be changed later anyway as it goes through the RIP or printing process.

Okay, thanks.

I understand that the dimensions at 300ppi suggest that it won't look good at 7.5" x 10", but everything I have seen on-screen so far look fine - even when scaled up much larger than my monitor screen, which is adding to the confusion.

Mike

Interpolation, up-sizing, etc, can look pretty good if it is done well. I don't have a lot of experience in it so maybe someone else can chime in. You might investigate some 3rd party demos -- I know Alien Skin has one -- that use fractal algorithms to keep the straight lines sharp while upsizing the detail inbetween.

If you're not happy doing that, talk to the printer, and see how they would upsize it. Likely you can get a good print from it, but for better results, you'd want more pixels.

648 x 864 will look like crap on an 8 x 10 no matter how you try and do it including Fractal software.

Forget about trying to see it at the same physical size as the print if it is for the purposes of judging print quality. You can't do it.

Viewed from 5 feet back it would look fine; viewing distance is the other part of the triangle equation besides print size and quantity of pixels.

Thanks again I'll look into up-sizing. It's all new to me at the moment and I still haven't got the basics straight in my mind in order to know what kinds of things to look into to learn more.

The mass of confusion that has been created by the different percentages and strange on-screen image sizes might be solved if I knew actaully what Photoshop is showing me and why!

Mike

Yea you need a good primer on DPI vs. PPI vs. viewing distance.. I'm sure Rene has one up his sleeve or maybe even stickied at the top here?

I have read Tim's FAQ, which was a great help (as has Tim himself, replying to my other posts), but I am having difficulties applying that information to what I am trying to do here.

I'm wondering if I should be keeping the Resample Image box ticked and add pixels instead. I have been playing around with this, but I don't really know what I'm doing. The only thing I do know is that whatever I do to the image it still looks good on-screen, even when really large.

If it printed like that it will be easily suitable as a 7.5" x 10" image, despite the original image resolution suggesting otherwise.

Mike

bohdank wrote in post #6410818
648 x 864 will look like crap on an 8 x 10 no matter how you try and do it including Fractal software.

Forget about trying to see it at the same physical size as the print if it is for the purposes of judging print quality. You can't do it.

Sorry I missed your post earlier.

Okay, I understand what you're saying there, but my image looks fine (on screen) even scaled way beyond that size. Is Photoshop giving me a seriously distorted view of how my image will translate to print? Surely there is some correlation between on-screen appearance and printed appearance.

Mike

TheHoff wrote in post #6410825
Viewed from 5 feet back it would look fine; viewing distance is the other part of the triangle equation besides print size and quantity of pixels.

Yes, I understand this

The resolution I have arrived at with my photograph is very close to what Tim suggests as suitable for a 30" x 40" print, which would be viewed from further back.

I was thinking about this. I would view an 8" x 10" image from about 2' away, but of course the content of the picture would affect that. If the image was of some buildings or something with detailed features I would look closer. If it was of something larger then I would stand further back.

My image is of a bird, which fills more of the frame and would be viewed differently from, for example, a detailed row of buildings, so maybe that's why it looks okay scaled up, as it appears to be on my screen.

Mike

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #6410896
Sorry I missed your post earlier.

Okay, I understand what you're saying there, but my image looks fine (on screen) even scaled way beyond that size. Is Photoshop giving me a seriously distorted view of how my image will translate to print? Surely there is some correlation between on-screen appearance and printed appearance.

Mike

No, there isn't as far as size and sharpness... if you want to get an idea.... resample it to 300 and 8 x 10, then look at it at 50%. Of course it will be larger than what will print but the appearance of sharpness or lack of sharpness will mimic fairly closely the final print at 8 x 10.

You're expecting the equivalent of 1/2 meg image to look good, scaled up over 10 times. Not gonna happen. Still, print one... it's the only way to know if it is acceptable to you.

Thanks, I'll give that a try.

As you can probably tell, I am new to the printing side of things!

Mike

Okay, I've just done that. I couldn't get it to look any different unless I kept the Resample Image box ticked.

Entering 300ppi has now given me an image of 2026 x 2701 pixels. Viewed at 100% the image is MASSIVE! I have measured it with the ruler on-screen and it is about 29" tall. I have absolutely no idea what is going on, but I presume that I have larger pixels. The image size is showing as 6.75 x 9, but I've no idea where that came from either.

Anyway, using your advice I have now viewed this massive image at 50% and it looks good to me, from about 2' away. It is about 15" high on my monitor, displayed at 50%.

Mike

Should I always be choosing Resample Image to add extra pixels when setting what size I want it printed at?

If I untick Resample Image then the ppi figure goes down as I enter the desired print size, so it will no longer be the 300ppi that the printer is asking for.

Mike