Photoshop Resolution to Print Questions

[geokatz]

Hi,

I am learning Photoshop in the hope of printing posters. I have questions regarding printing. Originally, when you create an image the resolution is set to 72 pixels/inch. I have learned I need to switch that to 300 pixel/inch.

1)Will I have to recreate all my images from scratch in 300 resolution?​

2)Do I lose a lot of quality on the final product if i convert 72 -> 300.​

3)My images are 11x17, when i hit 100% and view rulers, it shows my image at roughly a 3:1 ratio, why does it do this?
​

4)Can I view what a final printed image will look like with in Photoshop?​

5)How do I preserve quality when switching to 300 resolution?​

6)Say I use an image that is originally 600x600, will switching to 300 resolution make the new image horrible?​

I may have more questions with as these get answered,
Thank you,
Geokatz

 

[MrToM]

Oddly enough I've recently [< 24hrs ago] explained this very thing in another thread....

https://www.photoshopgurus.com/foru...e-question-post1533705983.html#post1533705983

Have a read of that post and my one after it and see if that answers some of your questions.

If not we can fill in the blanks here.

Regards.
MrTom.

 

[geokatz]

Hi, I appreciate the fast response, I am still a bit confused! Let me show an example of my deal.

I found this poster, , from there shop, "Each print uses archival pigment inks on a 140 lb - 300g archival and acid free Aquarell Matte Paper." 300g refers to 300 resolution if i am correct. I did some research and found that they simply used this image, , which is 600x600. I created a new photoshop file, 11x17 300 pixel/inch, and resized the last image to very similar proportions of the first posted poster, this is what i got, (left is fit to screen, right is 100%) assume I printed this image would the quality be as bad as it is at 100% (using the ruler it shows 3 inches per 1 inch, when i make it a 1:1 ratio, 11x17, its slightly better) if so, how do i avoid this to create something similar to the originaly posted picture? Do you think theirs looks as nice as the image or will theirs be a loq quality final product?

Thank you for your quick response!

 

[MrToM]

Ok...

The image you posted is indeed 600x600px but its at a resolution of 72ppi.
This means if you were to PRINT that it would give you an image approx 8" square.

...I created a new photoshop file, 11x17 300 pixel/inch...

Your NEW document is 11" x 17" (I presume you mean inches?) @ 300ppi.
This gives you a document 3300x5100px.

Fitting the original 600x600px image into that new document gives you this:

...and resized the last image to very similar proportions of the first posted poster...

When you 'resized' I assume you transformed the image up to a size nearer the document size.
Transforming [scale] is actualy 're-sampling' the image, and uses the algorithm you choose to process the pixels.(Bilinear, Bicubic, etc)

ANY transform [scale] will change what you perceive as 'quality'. Re-sampling UP has to ADD pixels, re-sampling DOWN removes pixels.
Re-sampling should be avoided at all costs but if it has to be done then re-sampling DOWN is better as no pixels have to be interpreted....all the information needed is already in the image.

What you have done here, assuming you have made that image fit the width of your new document, is to re-sample the image by OVER 600%....!!!!!!
This is not good.

What you could do is make your NEW document the same 72ppi as the image....you would then not have to transform the image so much to fit...



The problem here though is that you may need more than 72ppi when you send it for printing....your printer (Of the human kind) may require a minimum of say 300ppi.
In this case you have no alternative but to scale the image by over 600% to fit and live with the results....good or bad.

You can use the VIEW > 'Print Size' option in PS which will show you the image at its PRINT size but that does require entering correct settings in the PS preferences.
If you have not already done this I can go through it with you.

This will give you a 'rough' idea of how it look when printed but you have to remember you are viewing it on a DIGITAL device....your monitor....which has its own 'resolution', not on paper which will have a resolution dependant on the printer (As in the mechanical kind) settings.....(Its DPI setting)

Thats probably confused you even more but its a simple case of there are only so many pixels in an image.... the 'resolution' you set will determine how big that image will be printed.

What you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts.

Regards.
MrTom.

 

[ALB68]

Hi, I appreciate the fast response, I am still a bit confused! Let me show an example of my deal.

I found this poster, View attachment 53216, from there shop, "Each print uses archival pigment inks on a 140 lb - 300g archival and acid free Aquarell Matte Paper." 300g refers to 300 resolution if i am correct. I did some research and found that they simply used this image, View attachment 53217, which is 600x600. I created a new photoshop file, 11x17 300 pixel/inch, and resized the last image to very similar proportions of the first posted poster, this is what i got, View attachment 53218(left is fit to screen, right is 100%) assume I printed this image would the quality be as bad as it is at 100% (using the ruler it shows 3 inches per 1 inch, when i make it a 1:1 ratio, 11x17, its slightly better) if so, how do i avoid this to create something similar to the originaly posted picture? Do you think theirs looks as nice as the image or will theirs be a loq quality final product?

Thank you for your quick response!

300 g = the paper weight not the resolution. What it sounds to me is that you have re-sampled the image. If your planning on selling these posters I suggest you re-think your workflow. I also posted some information in the same thread Mr Tom referred to, please read it and maybe it will clarify things a bit. I'm afraid that what your doing here is not going to produce the quality you need for this type work.

Also, take a look at this article http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/print-size/

 

[geokatz]

Ok...

The image you posted is indeed 600x600px but its at a resolution of 72ppi.
This means if you were to PRINT that it would give you an image approx 8" square.


Your NEW document is 11" x 17" (I presume you mean inches?) @ 300ppi.
This gives you a document 3300x5100px.

Fitting the original 600x600px image into that new document gives you this:

View attachment 53223



When you 'resized' I assume you transformed the image up to a size nearer the document size.
Transforming [scale] is actualy 're-sampling' the image, and uses the algorithm you choose to process the pixels.(Bilinear, Bicubic, etc)

ANY transform [scale] will change what you perceive as 'quality'. Re-sampling UP has to ADD pixels, re-sampling DOWN removes pixels.
Re-sampling should be avoided at all costs but if it has to be done then re-sampling DOWN is better as no pixels have to be interpreted....all the information needed is already in the image.

What you have done here, assuming you have made that image fit the width of your new document, is to re-sample the image by OVER 600%....!!!!!!
This is not good.

What you could do is make your NEW document the same 72ppi as the image....you would then not have to transform the image so much to fit...

View attachment 53224

The problem here though is that you may need more than 72ppi when you send it for printing....your printer (Of the human kind) may require a minimum of say 300ppi.
In this case you have no alternative but to scale the image by over 600% to fit and live with the results....good or bad.

You can use the VIEW > 'Print Size' option in PS which will show you the image at its PRINT size but that does require entering correct settings in the PS preferences.
If you have not already done this I can go through it with you.

This will give you a 'rough' idea of how it look when printed but you have to remember you are viewing it on a DIGITAL device....your monitor....which has its own 'resolution', not on paper which will have a resolution dependant on the printer (As in the mechanical kind) settings.....(Its DPI setting)

Thats probably confused you even more but its a simple case of there are only so many pixels in an image.... the 'resolution' you set will determine how big that image will be printed.

What you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts.

Regards.
MrTom.

I appreciate your continued help. Would it be possible that I may contact you on an instant messenger to discuss this more? Facebook/skype? if not I can keep it to this forum.

 

[geokatz]

300 g = the paper weight not the resolution. What it sounds to me is that you have re-sampled the image. If your planning on selling these posters I suggest you re-think your workflow. I also posted some information in the same thread Mr Tom referred to, please read it and maybe it will clarify things a bit. I'm afraid that what your doing here is not going to produce the quality you need for this type work.

Also, take a look at this article http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/print-size/

I see what youre saying, i can see the difference and the coincednce in the number alone. 300ppi is needed for print though. I would like to make a print for my self and not pay that store for there poster. From what I understand, using the image I have shown, if someone were to buy that stores print, it would be low quality correct? This is my conclusion because they would have to resample the image from 72ppi to 300ppi, like mentioned before a transformation of 600%. is theres any way to keep the quality along with an 11"x17" print?

 

[ALB68]

I hope your not planning on selling these. This is a copyrighted image. http://boombam500.deviantart.com/art/Tokyo-Ghoul-Ken-Kaneki-Render-507701921 . It is my duty to inform you of same and the risk of being sued for a copyright infringement is probably not worth it.
I believe if I were you I would be sure I had all the permissions to sell these commercially. Your probably OK with using the original size for personal use but my reservation would be in making enlargements and then using them for financial gain.