# Need Help with Utterly Simple Problem  (aka unsure of basic photography knowledge)



## MicheleT (Jan 13, 2014)

Let me start out by just getting this out there...I do not consider myself a photographer.  I consider myself as someone who can take pictures well.  Reason being I am ignorant to the technical aspects of photography.  I have tried to learn on my own but some of these things just don't make sense.  My dilemma du' jour is about pixels and resizing.  I am selling my art on a website that offers mugs, totes, etc. in addition to prints.  The problem I have is that not with the the prints, it's for some of the other products they offer.  For instance, this is what they want for: 

Throw Pillows / Tote Bags 												Please select a maximum quality JPG (RGB Color) that is  a  perfect square of at least 3500px (width) X 3500px (height); up to  6500px X 6500px for optimal resolution.

Mugs

 												Please select a maximum quality JPG (RGB Color) that is exactly 4600px (width) X 2000px (height).

Laptop & iPad Skins / iPad & iPad mini Cases
 												Please select a maximum quality JPG (RGB Color) that is exactly 4600px (width) X 3000px (height).

I shoot at the largest file size.  I am using a Nikon D60 which is my backup camera.  I also have a Nikon D5100 which is having major shutter issues right now.    So, (and here comes the ignorance) if my file is 3872 x 2592 pixels can I create a file that will work with the mugs, skins or cases?  And if I can, how?  Do I just resize them?  I have been trying to figure this out for weeks and have been too embarrassed to actually put it out there.  (I can hear some of you laughing as you are reading this and that's okay!)  I figured I would just bury my pride and ask for help.  I have only been into photography for about three years and have been so busy just shooting pics that I haven't taken the time to learn the technical parts.  I am a very visual person so that when I read about ISO and Fstops it just doesn't sink in.  I know I need to find someone in whom I can learn from in person, but for now I just need to see if there is someone who could explain these measurement issues that I am having.  I have had some of my images made into 48 x 60 canvases and they are beautiful so I just don't understand why a simple mug would need to be 4600 x 3000.  Unless, of course, I am totally not understanding the whole concept of pixels, which I am now thinking that is the case.  I hope someone can help me and in the simplest terms because I feel like I took about ten steps back in my photography knowledge.  I know I take beautiful photos, but, I am embarrassed to say that I don't, technically, know how.  Is anyone understanding my problem?  I sure hope someone can help me.  Thanks for listening, at least.


----------



## lennon33x (Jan 13, 2014)

I know some other guys are more versed than I am with this, but if your raw file is 3800 x 2500 px (or there round about), making it 3500x3500px is going to cause major distortion. I think it would cause a vertical stretch. If you shoot with say a Nikon D800, it wouldn't be so much of an issue. But from my understanding, the image size is what your camera is doing. Yeah you can manipulate it, but not without cost of distorting your product.


----------



## MicheleT (Jan 13, 2014)

Thanks, Revasce.  I may not have described my issue as well as I should have.  I understand about resizing to a square is going to definitely distort it.  I guess what I should have asked is why would the mug require 4600 x 2000?  That just seems like such a big file for a mug.  I don't know if my conception of sizing and resizing is totally off but I would think that a much smaller file would give great results.  In fact, I have used smaller files in another store that I sell through and my mugs turn out great.  And if my files are 3872 x 2592 pixels does that mean I can never design mugs for this store?  This is what I just can't seem to grasp.  Anyone get me?


----------



## ph0enix (Jan 13, 2014)

MicheleT said:


> Thanks, Revasce.  I may not have described my issue as well as I should have.  I understand about resizing to a square is going to definitely distort it.  I guess what I should have asked is why would the mug require 4600 x 2000?  That just seems like such a big file for a mug.  I don't know if my conception of sizing and resizing is totally off but I would think that a much smaller file would give great results.  In fact, I have used smaller files in another store that I sell through and my mugs turn out great.  And if my files are 3872 x 2592 pixels does that mean I can never design mugs for this store?  This is what I just can't seem to grasp.  Anyone get me?



You're right.  In practice, I don't see why images would need to be that big since they're being printed on mugs which are relatively small.  I think whoever prints them is asking for the largest images possible in order to maintain maximum quality but I doubt 4,600 x 3000 (or x 200) is an actual requirement.  Images may need to be cropped to maintain the odd aspect ratios though in order to fit the surface of the mug correctly.  If you don't know how to crop photos to specific sizes, there are some tutorials on the web that can be Google'd pretty easily


----------



## bribrius (Jan 13, 2014)

i shrink mine just by using jpeg and putting them in the windows paint program that comes with computers and clicking resize.
And i totally get you. im not a photographer either.


----------



## MicheleT (Jan 13, 2014)

That is exactly what I mean.  Why so big???  I started questioning everything that I thought I knew about file sizes and such.  I guess I can just try to submit one in those measurements but in a smaller size and see what happens.  Thanks so much for the help!


----------



## lennon33x (Jan 13, 2014)

bribrius said:


> i shrink mine just by using jpeg and putting them in the windows paint program that comes with computers and clicking resize.
> And i totally get you. im not a photographer either.



Windows Paint causes compression issues. Michele is having issues with the image being too small, so resizing in paint will cause a massive reduction in resolution. Photoshop may be your best bet.

Michele, have you thought about contacting the company selling the merchandise and talking to support and finding out what the deal is? We can all speculate, but they may be the best resource. If you have megapixel restrictions due to your camera not taking an image with enough resolution, you may have to look elsewhere to give your clientele similar products.


----------



## MicheleT (Jan 13, 2014)

I am going to contact them right now!  I should have done this in the beginning, I suppose.  Trying to NOT look unprofessional.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 13, 2014)

reavesce said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > i shrink mine just by using jpeg and putting them in the windows paint program that comes with computers and clicking resize.
> ...



My wife informed me that im not allowed to spend any more money on photography unless I sell some photos to pay it or I stop boating and golfing because I cost to much.


----------



## lennon33x (Jan 13, 2014)

bribrius said:


> reavesce said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Ha sounds like my wife. Can you get an allowance of $10/month? Adobe is (was) offering a Photoshop/Lightroom bundle for $10/month.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 13, 2014)

If you need truly square images then you will have to crop the right and left side.  For example, if your D60 creates image files that are 3875 x 2592 then you will have to crop 1,283 pixels from the sides so that the image will be 2592 x 2592.  You can then resize it by 135.03% to get a 3500 pixel square image.

For 4600 x 2000 you need to crop some off the top and bottom to get the image to 3875 x 1683, and then resize it to 4600 pixels wide by 2000 pixels high (118.71% resize).


----------



## KmH (Jan 13, 2014)

MicheleT said:


> why would the mug require 4600 x 2000?  That just seems like such a big file for a mug.


4600 x 2000 (9.2 MP) is not a file size (900 Mb), it's image size (pixel dimensions).

If you could cut the side of the mug and flatten it, it would be a long rectangle. So having the width (long side) pixel dimension be 2.3 times longer than the height of the side of the mug lets the photo wrap around the mug.

You also need to consider the original image aspect ratio and the desired aspect ratio. 3872 x 2592 pixels is the standard 35 mm(full frame or crop sensor) aspect ratio of 1.5 (2:3), or the long side of the photo is 1.5x longer than the short side.
4600 x 2000 pixels is a more rectangular aspect ration of 2.3. To get from 1.5 to 2.3 the 1.5 photo's short side has to be cropped to 1683 px to make it even shorter.
3872 x 1683 pixels is also a 2.3 aspect ratio.

Next you have to think about the print resolution. which is how many pixels per inch (PPI) you want the print to be. Be it a print on a mug or on a piece of photography paper.
Lots say the image will be 3 inches high (short side or height) on the side of a mug that is 4 inches high so there is 1/2" of blank mug above and below the photo.
You have a photo that is 1683 pixels high and we can do some basic math to determine how many pixel per inch is needed - 1683 px / 3 inches = 561 ppi.
Most prints made on paper only need 250 or so ppi to be considered a high quality print. having 2.2x more pixels per inch will make a fine photo on the side of a mug.

As far as why the mug company wants 4600 x 2000 px. I can't tell you, but based on what I just discussed above about print resolution they don't need 4600 x 2000 px.


----------



## lennon33x (Jan 13, 2014)

KmH said:


> 4600 x 2000 (9.2 MP) is not a file size (900 Mb), it's image size (pixel dimensions).  If you could cut the side of the mug and flatten it, it would be a long rectangle. So having the width (long side) pixel dimension be 2.3 times longer than the height of the side of the mug lets the photo wrap around the mug.  You also need to consider the original image aspect ratio and the desired aspect ratio. 3872 x 2592 pixels is the standard 35 mm(full frame or crop sensor) aspect ratio of 1.5 (2:3), or the long side of the photo is 1.5x longer than the short side. 4600 x 2000 pixels is a more rectangular aspect ration of 2.3. To get from 1.5 to 2.3 the 1.5 photo's short side has to be cropped to 1683 px to make it even shorter. 3872 x 1683 pixels is also a 2.3 aspect ratio.  Next you have to think about the print resolution. which is how many pixels per inch (PPI) you want the print to be. Be it a print on a mug or on a piece of photography paper. Lots say the image will be 3 inches high (short side or height) on the side of a mug that is 4 inches high so there is 1/2" of blank mug above and below the photo. You have a photo that is 1683 pixels high and we can do some basic math to determine how many pixel per inch is needed - 1683 px / 3 inches = 561 ppi. Most prints made on paper only need 250 or so ppi to be considered a high quality print. having 2.2x more pixels per inch will make a fine photo on the side of a mug.  As far as why the mug company wants 4600 x 2000 px. I can't tell you, but based on what I just discussed above about print resolution they don't need 4600 x 2000 px.



Kmh, because you know a lot about this stuff, I have a question for you. Wouldn't enlarging the photo to meet a certain pixel requirement call some loss of resolution?


----------



## MicheleT (Jan 13, 2014)

Wow!  So much great info!  Thank you sooooo much!  I truly appreciate all of you taking the time to help!  :hug::


----------



## KmH (Jan 13, 2014)

What type of resolution are you asking about?
There are 2 kinds of resolution.

1. The resolution needed for electronic display, which is just the pixel dimensions of a digital photo.
 My 24" computer display is set to show 1600 px by 1200 px. But, I can change that display resolution if I want to. 1600 x 1200 fills both the shape (width and the height, or aspect ratio) of my display.
If a photo is 3872 x 1683 pixels I can't see the entire image at 1 pixel to 1 pixel on my display because the image is bigger than my display is set to show.
For that reason, most web pages automatically reduces the zoom factor for a photo so the photo will fit in the space the web page code allows for photos.

2. The other resolution is print resolution. Print resolution is the pixel dimensions AND the pixels per inch (ppi) value. PPI has no meaning for electronic display.
To simplify matters lets use even numbers - a photo that is 3000 pixels by 2000 pixels.
A 3000 x 2000 photo set to 100 ppi will be a print that is 30 inches by 20 inches. Here is the math 3000 px / 100 ppi = 30 inches (pixel units are on both sides of the equations - and cancel, leaving just inches from the denominator) 200 px / 100 ppi = 20 inches.

The same 3000 x 2000 pixel photo set to 300 ppi will be a print that is 10 inches by 6.67 inches.

So to get a bigger print we didn't have to change the pixel dimensions at all. Plus, a larger 30 x 20 print will be viewed from a greater distance than a 10 x 6.67 print so the fewer pixel per inch the bigger print has likely won't even be noticeable.

Back to increasing just the pixel resolution of a photo.
To do so pixels have to be invented that didn't existed in the original photograph.
There are software applications that look at the original pixels and then guess what new pixels need to be created to increase the pixel resolution of the photo.
Some of those applications do a pretty good job.


----------



## lennon33x (Jan 13, 2014)

KmH said:


> What type of resolution are you asking about? There are 2 kinds of resolution.  1. The resolution needed for electronic display, which is just the pixel dimensions of a digital photo. My 24" computer display is set to show 1600 px by 1200 px. But, I can change that display resolution if I want to. 1600 x 1200 fills both the shape (width and the height, or aspect ratio) of my display. If a photo is 3872 x 1683 pixels I can't see the entire image at 1 pixel to 1 pixel on my display because the image is bigger than my display is set to show. For that reason, most web pages automatically reduces the zoom factor for a photo so the photo will fit in the space the web page code allows for photos.  2. The other resolution is print resolution. Print resolution is the pixel dimensions AND the pixels per inch (ppi) value. PPI has no meaning for electronic display. To simplify matters lets use even numbers - a photo that is 3000 pixels by 2000 pixels. A 3000 x 2000 photo set to 100 ppi will be a print that is 30 inches by 20 inches. Here is the math 3000 px / 100 ppi = 30 inches (pixel units are on both sides of the equations - and cancel, leaving just inches from the denominator) 200 px / 100 ppi = 20 inches.  The same 3000 x 2000 pixel photo set to 300 ppi will be a print that is 10 inches by 6.67 inches.  So to get a bigger print we didn't have to change the pixel dimensions at all. Plus, a larger 30 x 20 print will be viewed from a greater distance than a 10 x 6.67 print so the fewer pixel per inch the bigger print has likely won't even be noticeable.  Back to increasing just the pixel resolution of a photo. To do so pixels have to be invented that didn't existed in the original photograph. There are software applications that look at the original pixels and then guess what new pixels need to be created to increase the pixel resolution of the photo. Some of those applications do a pretty good job.



I tried to make the two interchangeable in my head. I was thinking how a digital resolution of a photo that had such high pixel requirements would be equal to those that are printed. I guess we are talking about two different animals.


----------



## orljustin (Jan 16, 2014)

MicheleT said:


> Mugs                                               Please select a maximum quality JPG (RGB Color) that is exactly 4600px (width) X 2000px (height).
> 
> Laptop & iPad Skins / iPad & iPad mini Cases                                              Please select a maximum quality JPG (RGB Color) that is exactly 4600px (width) X 3000px (height).
> 
> I shoot at the largest file size.  I am using a Nikon D60 which is my backup camera.  I also have a Nikon D5100 which is having major shutter issues right now.    So, (and here comes the ignorance) if my file is 3872 x 2592 pixels



This is being made into a big deal, when it isn't.

1. In Photoshop, or other program open Image->Image Size 
2. Type in 4600 for width - hit OK
3. Choose crop tool
4. In options boxes type in 4600px and 2000px
5. Use tool to crop to maximum width, and then crop vertically to select best area up and down
6. Save and upload.


----------



## KmH (Jan 16, 2014)

You gave them a fish they can eat today.

Why not teach them _how to fish_ so they can eat fish every day they fish?


----------



## apaflo (Jan 16, 2014)

KmH said:


> What type of resolution are you asking about?
> There are 2 kinds of resolution.



The two you discuss... are just exactly the same thing!



> 1. The resolution needed for electronic display, which is just the pixel dimensions of a digital photo.



 The electronic display only has so many pixels.  Resolution of a display is measured in Pixels Per Inch, though historically is called Dots Per Inch.  Typically today most LCD displays are close to 100 PPI.  It might be a little more or less.  For example I use a pair of NEC monitors that are 1600x1200 pixels and my video driver says they are 99 DPI.  At 99 DPI that means the 1600 pixels across a horizontal line covers 1600/99 inches, or 16.16 inches.  Those values are cast in concrete and cannot be changed.

Hence a 4000x2000 image, to be displayed on my monitor, *must* be reduced in size by at least from 4000 to 1600 pixels before it is displayed.



> 2. The other resolution is print resolution. Print resolution is the pixel dimensions AND the pixels per inch (ppi) value. PPI has no meaning for electronic display.



That is exactly the same type of resolution as discussed with a monitor.  The only difference is that printers have a higher Pixel Per Inch
parameter.

For example, HP and Canon printers usually print at either 300 or 600 PPI, while Epson printers use 360 or 720 PPI.  That is as compared to the 100 PPI of my monitor, but it is exactly the same thing.  It is also "cast in concrete".   We cannot decide to use some artibrary PPI value for either display on a monitor or a print, and when  we talk about it as if that were true (saying we can get good prints at only 200 PPI but the best is 300 PPI) what we mean are "original pixels" in the image *before* it is resampled for display or printing.

And that leads to gross amounts of confusion!



> To simplify matters lets use even numbers - a photo that is 3000 pixels by 2000 pixels.
> A 3000 x 2000 photo set to 100 ppi will be a print that is 30 inches by 20 inches.



If fact there are no printers that will print at 100 PPI, and setting the image to that will do nothing because all printers will totally ignore it.  

For example, I use Epson printers that mechanically print at 360 PPI.  If I feed the printer a 3000x2000 pixel image it prints a 3000/360 by 2000/360 inch print (8.3"x5.6").  If I want a 30x20in print it necessarily *must* be resampled to produce an image that is  360*30 x 360*20 (10800x7200) even though we typically say it is being printed at 100 PPI.  What we mean is the original image had 100 pixels to make each inch of the eventual print; but in fact the printer necessarily had to see exactly 360 pixels per inch to make a print.



> So to get a bigger print we didn't have to change the pixel dimensions at all.



You do change the pixel dimensions, and just as with the monitor display, the driver will do it automatically if needed.

You can give a  print driver a specific image with whatever the pixel dimensions are and either let it print at the size appropriate to that pixel dimension with it's PPI, or you can tell the print driver what physical size the print should be and it will resample the input image and send the appropriately resized image to the physical printer.  Either way the PPI of the printer doesn't change.



> Back to increasing just the pixel resolution of a photo.
> To do so pixels have to be invented that didn't existed in the original photograph.
> There are software applications that look at the original pixels and then guess what new pixels need to be created to increase the pixel resolution of the photo.
> Some of those applications do a pretty good job.



That's very true.   Resampling to either upsize or downsize is a very complex subject if one wants to be very critical.


----------



## orljustin (Jan 16, 2014)

KmH said:


> You gave them a fish they can eat today.
> 
> Why not teach them _how to fish_ so they can eat fish every day they fish?



I did, thanks.  Now they know how to crop and resize.


----------

