Large tradeshow poster, size, resolution

JH
Posted By
Jules_Hammond-Casablancas
Sep 5, 2008
Views
829
Replies
11
Status
Closed
Hi.
Working with PS7 & on XP.

If I want to have a poster be 30×36" (300 dpi) is it safe to create the file in PS one third it’s size (10×12") at 600dpi?

Or do you create it at one third its size at 300dpi & then enlarge it by 300%?

Thank you.
Jules

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

JM
J_Maloney
Sep 5, 2008
10 x 12 at 900 ppi = 30 x 36 at 300 ppi. Which, in my opinion, would be bigtime overkill for a poster.

10 x 12 at 600 ppi sounds like a pretty good size if you insist on rasterizing everything – that’s 43 megapixels! Only scanning cameras (beaucoup bucks) will be capturing images this size. You’re really only keeping the poster this big to hold "vector" objects. If you can keep vector objects vector (export PS PDF), then I would work at 100 ppi at size (10 x 12 at 300 ppi).

Here’s a chart < http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/print_viewi ng_distance.html> with ppi to viewing distance ratios. 200 ppi would probably be as high a resolution as you need for 2 ft viewing. Your miscalculation was just right! 🙂

Make sure the printer understands the file needs to be printed at 300% size.

Or do you create it at one third its size at 300dpi & then enlarge it by 300%?

Do not do this. Unless you’re working with someone else’s art and you know what your doing. In general, you want to avoid upsampling (enlarging).

J
BL
Bob Levine
Sep 5, 2008
If I want to have a poster be 30×36" (300 dpi)

The real question is why would you want that? Anything that size is going to be viewed from a distance. I would think anything from 75-100 ppi would be way more than enough.

Bob
JJ
Jay Jhabrix
Sep 5, 2008
Like J and Bob said… there’s no need to do a 30" x 36" poster @ 300 ppi.

However, apart from viewing distance the print materiel also needs to be taken into consideration. Cheap ‘flex’ 72 /75 ppi is more than ample. As material quality gets better you need to start upping the ppi a bit. For really good quality (photo) 150 is more than enough.

However, check with the printer what resolution he requires… Also, confirm if he wants CMYK or RGB.

Also, i find, it’s always better to make the artwork in final size (you can always work at a reduced viewing size). That way, there’s no room for error.

Cheers,

JJ
JH
Jules_Hammond-Casablancas
Sep 5, 2008
Thanks. I guess it’s just in college we were always taught USE 300 USE 300!!! But in college we didn’t usually design large tradeshow posters….

Then I started making these PS files that were too big to fit on CD..

JJ-
when you say work in the final size, what do you mean by a reduced viewing size?

I really appreciate all your help here.
Guess I was mixing dpi up with ppi earlier..sorry.

Thank you very much.
Jules
JM
John_Mensinger
Sep 5, 2008
Loosen your grip on that 300, Jules. It’s quite often not necessary.
GH
Gernot_Hoffmann
Sep 5, 2008
Jules,

for large format printing operators these Photoshop
posters are a horror.

If it is a poster with text, line art and separate
photos then it should be made by InDesign.
The photos should have about 200ppi resolution. Mostly
enough for the rasterizer (RIP) and good for near view.

If the poster has additionally a background raster image, then it should be made as well by InDesign (!).
Such a background ist often little saturated and without detail. 75-100 ppi would be sufficient, as Bob says.
Not so for the accurate images, especially not for product photos.

Now we see: Photoshop is the wrong tool. Here we can
define only ONE resolution for all raster images.

Use color space sRGB for raster images and define text+
line art by CMYK, using any offset space for coated paper, like ISO Coated.
The inkjet colors will be near to your design (or even
accurate, if the printing operator honours your definitions).

In your design you should think in pixels per inch for the final size. Just provide images with enough pixels (simple mental arithmetic).
An InDesign file can be made for the final size and then Exported as PDF with these settings:
Downsample to 200ppi if above 200ppi.
No compression or lossless compression ZIP/LZW (not JPEG). Embed all fonts.
Leave colors unchanged.

The original size PDF can be test-printed for instance
by an A3 toner printer (297mm x 420mm) by scaling or
automatical page fitting. It’s NOT necessary to downsample anything for this test.

Best regards –Gernot Hoffmann
who is occasionally a large format printing operator:
<http://www.fho-emden.de/~hoffmann/hagiasophia.html>
JH
Jules_Hammond-Casablancas
Sep 5, 2008
Wow & here I thought PS was the best. I didn’t know people supplied .pdfs that large to printers.

(I do love that in IND you can set the bleed & crop marks a little bit more easier than PS, but that’s just me.)

THanks for all your help you guys.
Going to print this post out.

Jules
JH
Jules_Hammond-Casablancas
Sep 5, 2008
Gernot,

Jw.. I usually would send out a flattened .psd file to the printer. Is that okay or do I still need to do things in IND?

Thank you!
JM
J_Maloney
Sep 5, 2008
You don’t _need_ to do things in Indesign, but you’ll get _much_ improved quality for all vector art (line work, fonts, etc). Plus your file sizes will be smaller, more manageable, and your workflow should be more accommodating.

Of course the trade-off is a whole mess of problems that many here love to pretend don’t exist for beginners. It’s your call.

If you’re comfortable enough with InDesign and you’re going to see a proof from the printer, I’d go ahead and do it there. You can always export a PDF and open in PS, if you have to rasterize everything to sort an issue out.

I think the defining term for me would be "live transparency". If you’re going to use it (i.e., you see a checkerboard icon next to your page thumbnail in Indesign) and your printer can’t handle it, your screwed. Call them and ask. Flattening transparency is as easy as pie until it isn’t. If they (the pre-press folks, not the account manager or sales) say "Huh?" or "We require flattened EPS," I’d stick with PS.

It’s a poster, after all. Anyone who approaches close enough to notice the blown line art is already examining your poster. "Noticed" is the key, not the type of impression you make to a pre-press geek.
JH
Jules_Hammond-Casablancas
Sep 5, 2008
Well I am not really going to be using a lot of vector art..mostly images & text & probably some kind of wild gradient background.

I am comfortable with IND. I love it, but I always thought it was more for news ads, booklets,..etc..

I always try to avoid doing anything with transparecies in IND. I always do something in PS & then place it into IND. Sometimes I don’t have time to look things up, sometimes I do..it’s on my list.

I do agree tho, IND runs a little more smoother. Sometimes PS takes toooooooooooooooo longggggggggggggg.

Thanks.
GH
Gernot_Hoffmann
Sep 6, 2008
Jules,

if you use Photoshop then I would recommend Export as PDF with retained vector art. This works fine for text.
For other vector graphics the situation has been discussed elsewhere in this forum.
Layers should always be flattened in PhS. The file becomes smaller, and you can be sure about what you’ll get.
IMO, you could use 200ppi for the whole poster, if near view quality is required.
Don’t upsample background images. A RIP can interpret lower resolution not-JPEG-compressed sources without producing pixel blocks.

Normally, large format RIPs can’t read PhS PSD, but layered PDF. The RIP has to flatten, and the result is sometimes unexpected. PDF can be flattened by Acrobat Pro.

Errors happpen often in customer files if transparency,
gradients and mixtures of colorspaces are used.
I’m generally printing tests by a PostScript toner printer in advance to inkjet.

Best regards –Gernot Hoffmann

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections