Resolution

Gary F. Pitel wrote:

I have an image that was emailed to me and it has a resolution of 72 pixels/inch. I would like to print this image so I want to change the resolution to 300 pixels/inch. When I do this do I want to check or remove the check from resample?

Normally, you would not resample. However, that means that the printed image will probably become very small. There isn’t much you can do about that, I’m afraid. Images that people send by email are usually very small to keep the file size down. If you want a reasonably sized print and 300 ppi, you may have to ask the sender to send it again at full resolution rather than fiddle with this one.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Gary F. Pitel wrote:

I have an image that was emailed to me and it has a resolution of 72 pixels/inch. I would like to print this image so I want to change the resolution to 300 pixels/inch. When I do this do I want to check or remove the check from resample? Also should I do this in the crop mode since it evidently makes this decision for you? Thanks for the help.

Reducing resolution is easy….Increasing it is a lot harder….

Think of it this way….

Mixing flour, eggs, sugar and water to make a cake is easy….Extracting flour, eggs, sugar and water from a cake is a lot harder….

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:

Gary F. Pitel wrote:

I have an image that was emailed to me and it has a resolution of 72 pixels/inch. I would like to print this image so I want to change the resolution to 300 pixels/inch. When I do this do I want to check or remove the check from resample? Also should I do this in the crop mode since it evidently makes this decision for you? Thanks for the help.

Reducing resolution is easy….Increasing it is a lot harder….
Think of it this way….

Mixing flour, eggs, sugar and water to make a cake is easy….Extracting flour, eggs, sugar and water from a cake is a lot harder….

Utter nonsense. Resolution is just a number, which tells the printer how many pixels should be printed on one inch. Nothing more and nothing less. You can freely incrase or decrease this number, as long as you do *NOT* check the option ‘Resample Image’.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:

Gary F. Pitel wrote:

I have an image that was emailed to me and it has a resolution of 72 pixels/inch. I would like to print this image so I want to change the resolution to 300 pixels/inch. When I do this do I want to check or remove the check from resample? Also should I do this in the crop mode since it evidently makes this decision for you? Thanks for the help.

Reducing resolution is easy….Increasing it is a lot harder….
Think of it this way….

Mixing flour, eggs, sugar and water to make a cake is easy….Extracting flour, eggs, sugar and water from a cake is a lot harder….

Utter nonsense. Resolution is just a number, which tells the printer how many pixels should be printed on one inch. Nothing more and nothing less. You can freely incrase or decrease this number, as long as you do *NOT* check the option ‘Resample Image’.

Not really. Changing the resolution without resampling changes the printing dimensions proportionally. Changing the res. from 72 to 300 ppi will reduce the dimensions of the image by a factor of about 4, i.e. the image will be a quarter of the original dimensions.

This may not be acceptable.

Colin D.

—
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:

Gary F. Pitel wrote:

I have an image that was emailed to me and it has a resolution of 72 pixels/inch. I would like to print this image so I want to change the resolution to 300 pixels/inch. When I do this do I want to check or remove the check from resample? Also should I do this in the crop mode since it evidently makes this decision for you? Thanks for the help.

Reducing resolution is easy….Increasing it is a lot harder….
Think of it this way….

Mixing flour, eggs, sugar and water to make a cake is easy….Extracting flour, eggs, sugar and water from a cake is a lot harder….

Utter nonsense. Resolution is just a number, which tells the printer how many pixels should be printed on one inch. Nothing more and nothing less. You can freely incrase or decrease this number, as long as you do *NOT* check the option ‘Resample Image’.

Utter nonsense.
Once you reduce the resolution, you throw away pixels and image data. Those pixels are un-retrievable. They are lost forever. You have lost a portion of the image and you can never get it back again. By increasing the resolution, you are merely increasing the pixel count. a single blue pixel will simply divide into 4 or more identical blue pixels in a grid pattern.
You may have increased the resolution in terms of pixel count, but you have not increased the resolution in terms of print quality, as you simply cannot replace information that no longer exists. Aniy pixelisation that was visible when printed at 72dpi will still be visible once you have raised the resolution up to 300dpi.
If it were possible, there would be no market for high megapixel digital cameras, as manufacturers would use the same sensors that are found in webcams, and simply use software to increase the resolution.

In article <1ib1ec3.nnlxsask6mohN%>,

Utter nonsense. Resolution is just a number, which tells the printer how many pixels should be printed on one inch. Nothing more and nothing less. You can freely incrase or decrease this number, as long as you do *NOT* check the option ‘Resample Image’.

Complete and utter Bullshit.

—
Dogs have owners.
Cats have staff

Bob in Central California

Fat Sam wrote:

Reducing resolution is easy….Increasing it is a lot harder….
Think of it this way….

Mixing flour, eggs, sugar and water to make a cake is easy….Extracting flour, eggs, sugar and water from a cake is a lot harder….

Utter nonsense. Resolution is just a number, which tells the printer how many pixels should be printed on one inch. Nothing more and nothing less. You can freely incrase or decrease this number, as long as you do *NOT* check the option ‘Resample Image’.

Utter nonsense.
Once you reduce the resolution, you throw away pixels and image data.

No, you don’t. Like so many people, you confuse changing the resolution with resampling, because you can do that in the same Photoshop dialog. Those are two different things however. Try the following: Go to ‘Image Size, *UNCHECK* ‘Resample Image’ and change the resolution from 72 ppi to 300 ppi. You will *not* loose any pixels or image data if you do this. You will only make the physical print size smaller because you tell Photoshop to fit more pixels into an inch of paper. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can change the resolution without resampling, and you can resample without changing the resolution. Those are two different things, that just happen to share the same dialog in Photoshop.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

The Bobert wrote:

In article <1ib1ec3.nnlxsask6mohN%>,

Utter nonsense. Resolution is just a number, which tells the printer how many pixels should be printed on one inch. Nothing more and nothing less. You can freely incrase or decrease this number, as long as you do *NOT* check the option ‘Resample Image’.

Complete and utter Bullshit.

It’s incredible how many people do not understand the difference between changing the resolution of an image and resampling an image. It’s even more incredible how many people have never bothered to check what that option ‘Resample Image’ really means and what happens if you turn that off. Contrary to popular belief, changing the resolution of an image is *not* the same as resampling an image, despite the fact that they happen to share the same dialog in Photoshop and so can be combined in one step.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Colin_D wrote:

Reducing resolution is easy….Increasing it is a lot harder….
Think of it this way….

Mixing flour, eggs, sugar and water to make a cake is easy….Extracting flour, eggs, sugar and water from a cake is a lot harder….

Utter nonsense. Resolution is just a number, which tells the printer how many pixels should be printed on one inch. Nothing more and nothing less. You can freely incrase or decrease this number, as long as you do *NOT* check the option ‘Resample Image’.

Not really. Changing the resolution without resampling changes the printing dimensions proportionally.

Of course it does, because more pixels in one inch of paper means smaller overall print dimensions. I never said that wasn’t the case.

Changing the res. from 72 to 300
ppi will reduce the dimensions of the image by a factor of about 4, i.e. the image will be a quarter of the original dimensions.

This may not be acceptable.

Of course it may not be acceptable to get such a small print. That is why I already advised the OP to ask for the original image. But the point here is that changing the resolution is just changing a number that is only relevant for the printed image. It does not change the file itself, as suggested by Gary, unless you let Photoshop resample the image at the same time.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

LOL – you guys stop picking on Johan. I think you all know what he means. —
Mike Russell – www.curvemeister.com

Mike Russell wrote:

LOL – you guys stop picking on Johan. I think you all know what he means.

Quite frankly, I doubt that. Resolution versus file size is the most common misunderstanding of Photoshop in my experience. In all the workshops I’ve given, that question pops up again and again. I partly blame Adobe for that, for not making two different dialogs: an ‘image size’ dialog for resampling, and a ‘print size’ dialog for setting the resolution. Combining thses dialogs made it convenient for people who understand the subject, but it causes a lot of confusement for others. As shown in some of these reactions…

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Fat Sam wrote:

Reducing resolution is easy….Increasing it is a lot harder….
Think of it this way….

Mixing flour, eggs, sugar and water to make a cake is
easy….Extracting flour, eggs, sugar and water from a cake is a lot harder….

Utter nonsense. Resolution is just a number, which tells the printer how many pixels should be printed on one inch. Nothing more and nothing less. You can freely incrase or decrease this number, as long as you do *NOT* check the option ‘Resample Image’.

Utter nonsense.
Once you reduce the resolution, you throw away pixels and image data.

No, you don’t. Like so many people, you confuse changing the resolution with resampling, because you can do that in the same Photoshop dialog. Those are two different things however. Try the following: Go to ‘Image Size, *UNCHECK* ‘Resample Image’ and change the resolution from 72 ppi to 300 ppi.

What part of *reducing* the resolution in my last statement did you not understand?
if you change the resolution from 72 to 300, you are increasing not reducing.
if you *REDUCE*, you do this by discarding image data which can never be recovered again.
It’s perectly simple. You don’t need to be particularly smart to grasp the concept.

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

LOL – you guys stop picking on Johan. I think you all know what he means.

Quite frankly, I doubt that. Resolution versus file size is the most common misunderstanding of Photoshop in my experience. In all the workshops I’ve given, that question pops up again and again. I partly blame Adobe for that, for not making two different dialogs: an ‘image size’ dialog for resampling, and a ‘print size’ dialog for setting the resolution. Combining thses dialogs made it convenient for people who understand the subject, but it causes a lot of confusement for others. As shown in some of these reactions…

You are the only person who is talking about image size. The OP asked about increasing resolution of a 72dpi image to 300dpi so that he doesn’t get pixelisation in a printout.
The simple answer, which you keep avoiding is that while this is possible, it doesn’t give particularly good results, because you simply cannot replace image data that isn’t there to start with.

Mike Russell wrote:

LOL – you guys stop picking on Johan. I think you all know what he means.

Oh, I know what he means.
It appears however that he hasn’t got a clue what the rest of us mean.

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:

Utter nonsense.
Once you reduce the resolution, you throw away pixels and image data.

No, you don’t. Like so many people, you confuse changing the resolution with resampling, because you can do that in the same Photoshop dialog. Those are two different things however. Try the following: Go to ‘Image Size, *UNCHECK* ‘Resample Image’ and change the resolution from 72 ppi to 300 ppi.

What part of *reducing* the resolution in my last statement did you not understand?
if you change the resolution from 72 to 300, you are increasing not reducing.
if you *REDUCE*, you do this by discarding image data which can never be recovered again.
It’s perectly simple. You don’t need to be particularly smart to grasp the concept.

OK, you’ve got your point, but it doesn’t matter. Everything I said applies to reducing the resolution *or* increasing the resolution. Resolution is just a number telling the printer how many pixels should be printed on an inch of paper. Changing that doesn’t change the file in anyway. Resampling does and resampling can be done in the same dialog at the same time, but resampling is still something different.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

LOL – you guys stop picking on Johan. I think you all know what he means.

Quite frankly, I doubt that. Resolution versus file size is the most common misunderstanding of Photoshop in my experience. In all the workshops I’ve given, that question pops up again and again. I partly blame Adobe for that, for not making two different dialogs: an ‘image size’ dialog for resampling, and a ‘print size’ dialog for setting the resolution. Combining thses dialogs made it convenient for people who understand the subject, but it causes a lot of confusement for others. As shown in some of these reactions…

You are the only person who is talking about image size. The OP asked about increasing resolution of a 72dpi image to 300dpi so that he doesn’t get pixelisation in a printout.

Exactly. And that he can do without altering the image in any way by increasing the resolution without resampling, period. It does change the size of the print however, and that is why I advised him to get the original image if he recieved a small version. If he uses this image, it may become a very small print when printed at 300 ppi, but that is all.

We all *assume* that the OP received a small image because it was emailed to him, but the OP never said anything about how big or small the image was. All he said was that it is 72 ppi. Who knows, maybe he received a 2000 x 3000 pixels image @ 72 ppi. In that case he can just change that to 300 ppi and he will get a nice print of 6.7 x 10 inch. If he only wants a 4 x 6 inch print, all he needs is 1200 x 1800 pixels, which may very well be what he’s got already. We just don’t know, and that is why we should give him the correct information and not suggest that changing the resolution of an image is the same as resampling an image, because it is not.

The simple answer, which you keep avoiding is that while this is possible, it doesn’t give particularly good results, because you simply cannot replace image data that isn’t there to start with.

See above. We *assume* he’s got a small image @ 72 ppi. If that is so, printing it @ 300 ppi will produce a very small print. If he thinks that print is *too* small, he may be tempted into enlarging it by means of resampling. THEN and only THEN you are right talking about data that cannot be created from something that wasn’t there in the first place.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

LOL – you guys stop picking on Johan. I think you all know what he means.

Oh, I know what he means.
It appears however that he hasn’t got a clue what the rest of us mean.

But I do. I know you are all saying that interpolation doesn’t give good results. Of course that is so. My point is that you guys are suggesting that changing the resolution means you are resampling as well. That is not true, period. It is only true if you also check ‘Resample Image’.

The other point is that we don’t know the size of the image. We *assume* it is too small to print at 300 ppi and get a decent size print at the same time, but we don’t know that. *IF* the OP received a very small image, he can still print it at 300 ppi, but he will get a print the size of a postage stamp. But if the image is big enough, all he needs to do is change the resolution to 300 ppi and send it to the printer. That is why I keep stressing that changing the resolution and resampling are two different things. Don’t confuse the OP by suggesting otherwise.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

LOL – you guys stop picking on Johan. I think you all know what he means.

Quite frankly, I doubt that. Resolution versus file size is the most common misunderstanding of Photoshop in my experience. In all the workshops I’ve given, that question pops up again and again. I partly blame Adobe for that, for not making two different dialogs: an ‘image size’ dialog for resampling, and a ‘print size’ dialog for setting the resolution. Combining thses dialogs made it convenient for people who understand the subject, but it causes a lot of confusement for others. As shown in some of these reactions…

You are the only person who is talking about image size. The OP asked about increasing resolution of a 72dpi image to 300dpi so that he doesn’t get pixelisation in a printout.

Exactly. And that he can do without altering the image in any way by increasing the resolution without resampling, period. It does change the size of the print however,

And that’s why I didn’t think it was worth suggesting, as I presumed the OP wouldn’t want to convert a postcard to a postage stamp.

Although, I take your point about the OP not saying how big his 72dpi image is.
Perhaps he could expand a bit and provide us with that info.

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:

The OP asked about increasing resolution of a 72dpi image to 300dpi so that he doesn’t get pixelisation in a printout.

Exactly. And that he can do without altering the image in any way by increasing the resolution without resampling, period. It does change the size of the print however,

And that’s why I didn’t think it was worth suggesting, as I presumed the OP wouldn’t want to convert a postcard to a postage stamp.

I also presume that he received a rather small image, but even then I think it’s best to always tell the whole story. I like to make people understand what they are doing, rather than to teach them a trick. If I got one dollar for every person who thinks that resolution and pixel size are linked, I’d be a very rich man! I don’t want to add the OP to that list, and some suggestions in this thread did exactly that, IMHO.

Although, I take your point about the OP not saying how big his 72dpi image is. Perhaps he could expand a bit and provide us with that info.

I’m glad we agree after all.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Gary F. Pitel wrote:

I have an image that was emailed to me and it has a resolution of 72 pixels/inch. I would like to print this image so I want to change the resolution to 300 pixels/inch. When I do this do I want to check or remove the check from resample? Also should I do this in the crop mode since it evidently makes this decision for you? Thanks for the help.

I am sorry that I neglected to put the image size in my original question. However, it is really and unknown factor since my question is trying to setup up any image (photo) that my children send me. They use a digital camera and when they take a family photo they send it. It is usually in jpeg format and a resolution of 72 and maybe around 4×6 inches in size. I guess I would be better off letting Genuine Fractals do the conversion in size and resolution. I usually make these photos 8×10 inches and a resolution of 300 ppi for printing purposes. Also no one offered an answer to the other part of the question so let me re ask it. Let’s say that the original size is 11×14 with a resolution of 200 ppi and I want to crop it and and set the resolution for printing. In Photoshop CS3 I can enter all of the information for the crop including the desire resolution. Is it better to enter the new resolution in the crop information or do the resolution under image size dialog box. Thanks and once again sorry for the problem.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:49:05 -0500, "Gary F. Pitel" scribbled:

around 4×6 inches in size

Nice way to add more confusion to the party. What’s the damn pixel size of the stupid picture?

Gary F. Pitel wrote:

Gary F. Pitel wrote:

I have an image that was emailed to me and it has a resolution of 72 pixels/inch. I would like to print this image so I want to change the resolution to 300 pixels/inch. When I do this do I want to check or remove the check from resample? Also should I do this in the crop mode since it evidently makes this decision for you? Thanks for the help.

I am sorry that I neglected to put the image size in my original question. However, it is really and unknown factor since my question is trying to setup up any image (photo) that my children send me. They use a digital camera and when they take a family photo they send it. It is usually in jpeg format and a resolution of 72 and maybe around 4×6 inches in size.

Ah well in that case, whatever you do, you’re going to end up with either of two things.
1. A print that’s a lot smaller than you were hoping for. or
2. A print that’s the size you want, but lacks sharpness and detail.

Voivod wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:49:05 -0500, "Gary F. Pitel" scribbled:

around 4×6 inches in size

Nice way to add more confusion to the party. What’s the damn pixel size of the stupid picture?

Damn you voivod.
You made me laugh and spray my coffee.

Gary F. Pitel wrote:

Is it better to enter the new resolution in the crop information or do the resolution under image size dialog box.

It doesn’t really matter. If you end up with the same pixel dimensions, the quality (or the lack of quality if you interpolate a too small original) will be the same. The only difference is that the crop box will always use the resampling method (bicubic sharper, bicubic, bicubic smoother) that you’ve set in the preferences, while the image size dialog gives you the option to choose another method.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Gary F. Pitel wrote:

Is it better to enter the new resolution in the crop information or do the resolution under image size dialog box.

It doesn’t really matter. If you end up with the same pixel dimensions, the quality (or the lack of quality if you interpolate a too small original) will be the same. The only difference is that the crop box will always use the resampling method (bicubic sharper, bicubic, bicubic smoother) that you’ve set in the preferences, while the image size dialog gives you the option to choose another method.

Thanks for the help.