# I Want To Print a 16 x 20 Photo



## Desire

I want to print a 16 x 20 photo from a camera store. 
I've read all about this dpi stuff, and I was curious what dpi is needed for a 16 x 20 photo. I checked the resolution of the photo I want to print and it is at 240. Will this be okay? I don't want to spend money on something that might not work out. Any tips and tricks you have would be awesome!

:thumbup: Thank you for your time.


----------



## KmH

Desire said:


> I want to print a 16 x 20 photo from a camera store.
> I've read all about this dpi stuff, and I was curious what dpi is needed for a 16 x 20 photo. I checked the resolution of the photo I want to print and it is at 240. Will this be okay? I don't want to spend money on something that might not work out. Any tips and tricks you have would be awesome!
> 
> :thumbup: Thank you for your time.


First, dpi=ppi.....What are the pixel dimensions of your image?

The popular online consumer print lab www.mpix.com requires a minimum of 100 ppi.

That means the pixel dimensions of your image must be no less than 1600 x 2400 pixels. (16 inches times 100 ppi= 1600 pixels x 24 inches times 100 ppi= 2400 pixels). To print a 16x24 at 240 ppi your image would need to be 3840 x 5760 pixels. (16 inches times 240ppi ppi=3840 x 24 inches times 240ppi=5760 pixels)

Mpix also requires your image be in the sRGB color space and have no imbedded ICC profiles.

Don't forget the image you want printed also has to be in the proper aspect ratio, in this case 5:4. Most DSLR's make images in a 3:2 aspect ratio and most point & shoot cameras are 4:3.


----------



## Desire

KmH said:


> Desire said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to print a 16 x 20 photo from a camera store.
> I've read all about this dpi stuff, and I was curious what dpi is needed for a 16 x 20 photo. I checked the resolution of the photo I want to print and it is at 240. Will this be okay? I don't want to spend money on something that might not work out. Any tips and tricks you have would be awesome!
> 
> :thumbup: Thank you for your time.
> 
> 
> 
> The popular online consumer print lab www.mpix.com requires a minimum of 100 ppi.
> 
> That means the pixel dimensions of your image must be no less than 1600  x 2400 pixels. (16 inches times 100 ppi= 1600 pixels x 24 inches times 100 ppi= 2400 pixels). To print a 16x24 at 240 ppi your image would need to be 3840 x 5760 pixels.
> 
> Mpix also requires your image be in the sRGB color space and have no imbedded ICC profiles.
> 
> Don't forget the image you want printed also has to be in the proper aspect ratio, in this case 5:4. Most DSLR's make images in a 3:2 aspect ratio and most point & shoot cameras are 4:3.
Click to expand...


Okay, I'm not printing at mpix.com I'm printing from here: Wells Camera and Sound foto source, Moose Jaw: All Services

A local store where I live. I don't know the requirements they don't really say. So going by what you said here my picture should be okay  I don't understand the aspect ratio thing... I took the photo with a Canon Rebel XTI if that matters... 

Thank you for your reply!


----------



## astrostu

KmH said:


> First, dpi=ppi.....



First, *NO*.

DPI &#8800; PPI

"DPI" stands for "dots per inch."  "PPI" stands for "pixels per inch."  PPI is used when figuring out the resolution of the image on the screen -- how many pieces of information are you going to display per inch?  DPI is used by a printer in how many dots of ink/pigment/color it is going to lay down per inch.  Most printers these days are a minimum of 600 DPI, while many photo printers can get up past 4000 DPI.

300 PPI is the default standard for what to print at.  I believe that it is the pixel density needed so that the average person holding the photo at arm's length cannot see the pixels.

240 PPI should be fine.  I've printed as low as 150 PPI and as long as you're not within a yard/meter of the image, you should not be able to see pixelation.


----------



## KmH

I used Mpix as an example and a recommendation of a quality lab you can access online.

Your XTi makes images in the 3:2 (8x12, or 16x24) aspect ratio. You'll need to crop to a 5:4 (8x10, 16x20) aspect ratio. If your image is a horizontal format (10x8) you'll need to lose some from the sides to get to a 5:4 AR. If it's vertical (8x10) you'll need to crop some off the top/bottom  to get to 5:4.

You still didn't mention the pixel dimensions of your image. What counts is the pixel dimensions AFTER you have it cropped to the 5:4 aspect ratio. 

Astrostu,

Agree. Using DPI when talking images is wrong.

But, it has become the defacto term of use. I don't know why!

I only added the dpi=ppi to avoid confusion since the remainder of my post refered to ppi.

I had an image that got printed on a billboard at 5 ppi. Looked great from the highway, not so great standing on the scaffold at the bottom of the billboard.


----------



## Desire

Hmmm - this is so technical. Printing it at the studio there would they tell me that my photo needs cropping or what not? A noob would have no clue about these and would maybe end up spending 30 dollars on something that doesn't look good.

Oh and the pixel dimention is 3888 x 2592 - sorry, I thought you meant the resolution  (it is horizontal)


----------



## Garbz

KmH said:


> But, it has become the defacto term of use. I don't know why!
> 
> I only added the dpi=ppi to avoid confusion since the remainder of my post refered to ppi.



Not attacking you, but just some advice. These defacto standards are by people who don't know. I don't think I have ever explained the difference between PPI and DPI twice to the same person. Misinformation is no better than the original wrong information. The more people who know the difference between the terms, the more likely we are to not have to deal with it in the future 

Next challenge HDR vs tonemapping


----------



## Rifleman1776

Avoid the confusion.
I recently had two 24X36" prints made from my 6mp camera. The images were cropped and saved in .jpg format.
The experts will claim you can't get a sharp print after all that.
I'm not an expert so I got beautiful, incredibly detailed and sharp prints from a business that uses a plotter for poster sized pictures and photos. Up close there is not a single hint of 'grain' or 'pixel' breakdown, just great detail.
BTW, I'm a former professional photog from the film days and am very-very fussy about print quality.
If I had fudged around with all the 'expert' techniques, I would still be looking for a way to get my prints.
Look in the Yellow pages for someone who prints posters. Of course, look at their work before committing.
BTW, I only paid $15.00 each for these prints which are now framed and hanging proudly on my family room wall.
Remember: KISS


----------



## Desire

Rifleman1776 said:


> Avoid the confusion.
> I recently had two 24X36" prints made from my 6mp camera. The images were cropped and saved in .jpg format.
> The experts will claim you can't get a sharp print after all that.
> I'm not an expert so I got beautiful, incredibly detailed and sharp prints from a business that uses a plotter for poster sized pictures and photos. Up close there is not a single hint of 'grain' or 'pixel' breakdown, just great detail.
> BTW, I'm a former professional photog from the film days and am very-very fussy about print quality.
> If I had fudged around with all the 'expert' techniques, I would still be looking for a way to get my prints.
> Look in the Yellow pages for someone who prints posters. Of course, look at their work before committing.
> BTW, I only paid $15.00 each for these prints which are now framed and hanging proudly on my family room wall.
> Remember: KISS



Yes, KISS is what I thought this would be, till I heard stuff about it and whoa?? There isn't "anyone" out there but stores that I want my photo printed from. I'm not sure what you mean by look at their work before committing. The ones here are ones like Wal-Mart and a grocery store. And I think going to a photography store would be better than those. The price doesn't worry me much, I just want something that looks good for the price I'm paying. Thanks muchly for your reply!


----------



## IgsEMT

I have a portrait from my wedding 16x20 hanging on my wall. My wedding was shot with D70 (6megapix) camera with average dimensions of 3000x2000.
I often do use mpix though that image wasn't printer there but nonetheless it was done and looks great.

Enjoy your prints


----------



## CCarsonPhoto

Wow, I work in a lab and our 16x20s are only $5.99. I can't believe the people in the lab you were mentioning couldn't tell you about the image resolution or cropping. If they are printing it, they ought to know what they are doing and educate their clients.


----------



## Rifleman1776

CCarsonPhoto said:


> Wow, I work in a lab and our 16x20s are only $5.99. I can't believe the people in the lab you were mentioning couldn't tell you about the image resolution or cropping. If they are printing it, they ought to know what they are doing and educate their clients.


 

  "ought to know" is quite different than an employee actually knowing what they are doing these days. Too often, unless you speak in very simple, 1st grade words, there won't be any real communication. This morning I gave my name twice to a secretary. Then she asked me my name.


----------



## BlackWolF

It's the automation now a days that makes it so people operating the machines hardly need ANY schooling in actual photo needs or dpi or ppi or any pi  ... They just enter the data and poof out comes the photo on the other end ... If you have someone working the machine that day that you send in your pictures that actually knows something about photography then  you are lucky ... Other then that, you get what the machine spits out


----------



## CCarsonPhoto

Rifleman1776 said:


> CCarsonPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I work in a lab and our 16x20s are only $5.99. I can't believe the people in the lab you were mentioning couldn't tell you about the image resolution or cropping. If they are printing it, they ought to know what they are doing and educate their clients.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "ought to know" is quite different than an employee actually knowing what they are doing these days. Too often, unless you speak in very simple, 1st grade words, there won't be any real communication. This morning I gave my name twice to a secretary. Then she asked me my name.
Click to expand...

 
LOL...funny and far too true, sadly.


----------



## Desire

CCarsonPhoto said:


> Wow, I work in a lab and our 16x20s are only $5.99. I can't believe the people in the lab you were mentioning couldn't tell you about the image resolution or cropping. If they are printing it, they ought to know what they are doing and educate their clients.



Why so cheap??? That's crazy. I guess it depends on paper?

 I didn't bother to ask the guy what the information needed was, I just asked him for the price. I do plan to call them up and ask a few more questions, however.



BlackWolF said:


> It's the automation now a days that makes it so people operating the machines hardly need ANY schooling in actual photo needs or dpi or ppi or any pi  ... They just enter the data and poof out comes the photo on the other end ... If you have someone working the machine that day that you send in your pictures that actually knows something about photography then you are lucky ... Other then that, you get what the machine spits out



Haha - I'm thinking this is what I'm gonna get


----------



## janessa

There's two big reasons to get the D80. One is the extra resolution, and the other is the much larger viewfinder. (There's also a bunch of smaller reasons.)
Regarding the resolution, with 16x20 you'll see a difference. You'll start to see a difference with anything larger than 8x10.
Here's why. A high quality printer will be set for 300dpi. That's about as fine as the human eye can resolve. So when you print, ideally you'd have 300x300= 90,000 pixels to work with for every square inch. That works out to a whopping 34.5 mega-pixels for 16x24 inches (from which you'd crop a 16x20 print.)


----------



## CCarsonPhoto

Its so cheap, because we're competing with Sams and Walmart. I work for Costco, and the prices are set by corporate. The paper is good quality, and its still done in one hour. Sams and walmart do 1 week send out turn around.


----------



## Desire

janessa said:


> There's two big reasons to get the D80. One is the extra resolution, and the other is the much larger viewfinder. (There's also a bunch of smaller reasons.)
> Regarding the resolution, with 16x20 you'll see a difference. You'll start to see a difference with anything larger than 8x10.
> Here's why. A high quality printer will be set for 300dpi. That's about as fine as the human eye can resolve. So when you print, ideally you'd have 300x300= 90,000 pixels to work with for every square inch. That works out to a whopping 34.5 mega-pixels for 16x24 inches (from which you'd crop a 16x20 print.)



Huh?



CCarsonPhoto said:


> Its so cheap, because we're competing with Sams and Walmart. I work for Costco, and the prices are set by corporate. The paper is good quality, and its still done in one hour. Sams and walmart do 1 week send out turn around.



Haha - that's crazy. Pretty lucky though!


----------



## Garbz

Desire, ignore janessa.



janessa said:


> Regarding the resolution, with 16x20 you'll see a difference. You'll start to see a difference with anything larger than 8x10.
> Here's why. A high quality printer will be set for 300dpi. That's about as fine as the human eye can resolve. So when you print, ideally you'd have 300x300= 90,000 pixels to work with for every square inch. That works out to a whopping 34.5 mega-pixels for 16x24 inches (from which you'd crop a 16x20 print.)



You need to lay off the grog before posting 

300ppi is not the limit for how the human eye can resolve. It's is by definition the point at which someone with 20:20 vision stops resolving individual pixels at a standard arms reading length (about 50-70cm ish).

A high quality printer will not be set to 300ppi. A high quality printer will be set to the highest resolution that can be printed for a given file and desired print size. For instance the very very expensive and exceptionally high quality print on my wall is 200ppi, my very cheap but still high quality 6x4 are 640ppi. 

As for your maths, read ppi out load: "Pixels Per Inch" 300 Pixels Per Inch on an image that is 8 inches by 10 inches gives you 300ppi x 16in = 4800pixels wide, and 300ppi x 20in = 6000pixels high. 4800*6000 = 28megapixels. Assuming 300ppi. Where did you get 34.5 from?

Now the average person would look at an 8x10 from about 50cm or so. Do you really think someone looking at a 20" wide image would look at the photo from 50cm too? Given the focus of the eye they wouldn't be able to even see the entire image at once clearly. So lets for arguments sake say they want to look at the picture and not the quality of the print. They decide like any sane person that they need to stretch their arm out a bit to ooooh say about 1m. Now you only need to print 150ppi or about 7mpx to make this high quality 16x20" picture. 

Pixel peepers will always complain about your print. If you print at 600ppi all they will do is start carrying a magnifying glass.


----------



## Desire

Garbz said:


> Desire, ignore janessa.
> 
> 
> 
> janessa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the resolution, with 16x20 you'll see a difference. You'll start to see a difference with anything larger than 8x10.
> Here's why. A high quality printer will be set for 300dpi. That's about as fine as the human eye can resolve. So when you print, ideally you'd have 300x300= 90,000 pixels to work with for every square inch. That works out to a whopping 34.5 mega-pixels for 16x24 inches (from which you'd crop a 16x20 print.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to lay off the grog before posting
> 
> 300ppi is not the limit for how the human eye can resolve. It's is by definition the point at which someone with 20:20 vision stops resolving individual pixels at a standard arms reading length (about 50-70cm ish).
> 
> A high quality printer will not be set to 300ppi. A high quality printer will be set to the highest resolution that can be printed for a given file and desired print size. For instance the very very expensive and exceptionally high quality print on my wall is 200ppi, my very cheap but still high quality 6x4 are 640ppi.
> 
> As for your maths, read ppi out load: "Pixels Per Inch" 300 Pixels Per Inch on an image that is 8 inches by 10 inches gives you 300ppi x 16in = 4800pixels wide, and 300ppi x 20in = 6000pixels high. 4800*6000 = 28megapixels. Assuming 300ppi. Where did you get 34.5 from?
> 
> Now the average person would look at an 8x10 from about 50cm or so. Do you really think someone looking at a 20" wide image would look at the photo from 50cm too? Given the focus of the eye they wouldn't be able to even see the entire image at once clearly. So lets for arguments sake say they want to look at the picture and not the quality of the print. They decide like any sane person that they need to stretch their arm out a bit to ooooh say about 1m. Now you only need to print 150ppi or about 7mpx to make this high quality 16x20" picture.
> 
> Pixel peepers will always complain about your print. If you print at 600ppi all they will do is start carrying a magnifying glass.
Click to expand...


Lol  That makes more sense. Kind of funny in a way though. I don't think there are any pixel peepers except me  haha.


----------



## Garbz

Desire said:


> I don't think there are any pixel peepers except me  haha.



That's kind but you're asking too much from this forum


----------



## Rifleman1776

janessa said:


> There's two big reasons to get the D80. One is the extra resolution, and the other is the much larger viewfinder. (There's also a bunch of smaller reasons.)
> Regarding the resolution, with 16x20 you'll see a difference. You'll start to see a difference with anything larger than 8x10.
> Here's why. A high quality printer will be set for 300dpi. That's about as fine as the human eye can resolve. So when you print, ideally you'd have 300x300= 90,000 pixels to work with for every square inch. That works out to a whopping 34.5 mega-pixels for 16x24 inches (from which you'd crop a 16x20 print.)


 

On another thread, I tossed out a challenge to explain exactly what is meant by "quality" with reference to a print.
First, I must qualify what I'm talking about. As a former pro who has used a lot of high dollar equipment back in the film days, I understand what good lenses, etc. mean in final results.
But, since becoming a convert to digi, I believe these lines have become blurred. Small digi cameras often lack controls of expensive DLSRs but are still capable of good photography.
And, printing does not seem to degrade enlargements the same way it happens with film.
For example, my camera is a Sony DSC-H2. This would be laughed at by many who have spent thousands for their DSLRs and lenses. But, I get exceptional, and I do mean *exceptional* results from it. A bonus is that it weighs pounds and pounds less than the big cameras and equipment. I have it with me when others leave the freight train behind.
But, back to the issue of "quality". I have two prints in my TV room taken with the Sony. They are cropped 24"X36" prints which, if full frame would be in the 30"X40" range. They were printed on a poster printer. I believe that type of machine is actually called a plotter. Not sure on that.
Anyone is welcome to come, use a magnifying glass or loupe, and examine these prints. You will not find a hint of grain (I know, it ain't film), pixelation, breakdown, or other degradation anywhere. They are sharp and stunning. One is of an Hawaiian coastline taken from a half mile offshore. You can almost see grains of sand on the land. (that's a tiny exaggeration  ). But, the detail and sharpness are incredible and I am proud of that. (and I'm proud of the photography also. am I allowed to brag?)
Friends are always welcome at my home. If you want to be a friend and want to challenge me on this brag, just contact and we will make arrangements for you to visit.
So, please, someone define how a $5,000.00 piece of digi-equipment can do better than my $300.00 camera.


----------



## Desire

Garbz said:


> Desire said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there are any pixel peepers except me  haha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind but you're asking too much from this forum
Click to expand...


I'm just asking for help on printing large photos, is all


----------



## Flash Harry

Just crop to the desired size, set resolution to 300, the print will be fine. H


----------



## Garbz

Desire said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind but you're asking too much from this forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just asking for help on printing large photos, is all
Click to expand...


hahah I didn't mean it like that. I was just saying don't come in expecting everyone to have common sense here . This forum is full of pixel peepers who will ask why their pictures aren't tac sharp when blown up at 100% on their 12mpx $100 cameras. 



Flash Harry said:


> Just crop to the desired size, set resolution to 300, the print will be fine. H


Crop to the desired size, change the printing dimensions to the desired size, and leave the resolution as high as it will go!


----------



## Desire

Garbz said:


> Desire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's kind but you're asking too much from this forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just asking for help on printing large photos, is all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hahah I didn't mean it like that. I was just saying don't come in expecting everyone to have common sense here . This forum is full of pixel peepers who will ask why their pictures aren't tac sharp when blown up at 100% on their 12mpx $100 cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> Flash Harry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just crop to the desired size, set resolution to 300, the print will be fine. H
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crop to the desired size, change the printing dimensions to the desired size, and leave the resolution as high as it will go!
Click to expand...



Ohhh okay - hahaha, yeah, that's true. I don't expect everyone here to have common sense. Just like I don't expect a lot of people in real life to have common sense 

So to get the best results I should crop my picture to the desired size? :O


----------



## Garbz

What I think Flash meant by that, and what I definitely meant by that is, do all your cropping if you need to before you pick your final print size. Because if you pick your print size and then crop afterwards, it'll change.


----------



## Desire

Garbz said:


> What I think Flash meant by that, and what I definitely meant by that is, do all your cropping if you need to before you pick your final print size. Because if you pick your print size and then crop afterwards, it'll change.



I don't really get that, because I've picked my print size already (bought a frame for it)  - which is 16 x 20.

And I'm not sure if I need to do any cropping?


----------



## Garbz

Not just cropping for different frame sizes, but maybe cropping out distractions. Like if someone's face is just visible on the edge of a frame, cropping them out while maintaining a 4:5 size ratio may improve the image. Then after cropping that bit off the side and top set your print size


----------



## Desire

Garbz said:


> Not just cropping for different frame sizes, but maybe cropping out distractions. Like if someone's face is just visible on the edge of a frame, cropping them out while maintaining a 4:5 size ratio may improve the image. Then after cropping that bit off the side and top set your print size




Ahhh. I see. Hehe well there's nothing I don't like about this picture 

I got it printed, and it looks amazing. Thank you all for your help.

Here's the photo I printed.


----------



## grafxman

Desire said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just cropping for different frame sizes, but maybe cropping out distractions. Like if someone's face is just visible on the edge of a frame, cropping them out while maintaining a 4:5 size ratio may improve the image. Then after cropping that bit off the side and top set your print size
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh. I see. Hehe well there's nothing I don't like about this picture
> 
> I got it printed, and it looks amazing. Thank you all for your help.
> 
> Here's the photo I printed.
Click to expand...


You might want to investigate Cokin's graduated filters if you plan on doing much outdoor photography. Here's a link:

COKIN Creative System - Filters A/P/Z/X - Graduated Filters - Graduated Filter Details

They don't cost much and their system is very versatile.


----------



## Desire

grafxman said:


> Desire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just cropping for different frame sizes, but maybe cropping out distractions. Like if someone's face is just visible on the edge of a frame, cropping them out while maintaining a 4:5 size ratio may improve the image. Then after cropping that bit off the side and top set your print size
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh. I see. Hehe well there's nothing I don't like about this picture
> 
> I got it printed, and it looks amazing. Thank you all for your help.
> 
> Here's the photo I printed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might want to investigate Cokin's graduated filters if you plan on doing much outdoor photography. Here's a link:
> 
> COKIN Creative System - Filters A/P/Z/X - Graduated Filters - Graduated Filter Details
> 
> They don't cost much and their system is very versatile.
Click to expand...


Ah - yes, I have read a little about graduated filters ... they are fairly expensive if I remember correctly. Someday I'll be able to afford some more photography equipment. For now I just have to go with what I have and be happy with that . Thank you for the link!


----------



## Garbz

Well since this is a digital forum, fake the ND grad filter.

Set your camera on a tripod, take two pictures, one brighter than the other. Open them in photoshop, paste on one the other as a new layer, and apply a gradient mask to the top image so it fades into the bottom. 

Works for everything except moving subjects.


----------



## Desire

Garbz said:


> Well since this is a digital forum, fake the ND grad filter.
> 
> Set your camera on a tripod, take two pictures, one brighter than the other. Open them in photoshop, paste on one the other as a new layer, and apply a gradient mask to the top image so it fades into the bottom.
> 
> Works for everything except moving subjects.



Haha - neat! Thanks, I will try it!!


----------

