# Pixels at 300dpi question.....



## sactown024 (Jul 10, 2013)

I am ordering a wedding album sample from Finao and one album is a 20x8 so the spread is 20x16. In order to print that size at 300dpi i need an image that is 6000x4800 pixels according to Finao. The images coming off my camera are 5700x3700 at the very most, i feel like I am missing something since i have a 5d mark ii and I should be able to print a hell of a lot bigger than 20x16.

help?


----------



## boomer (Jul 10, 2013)

You're not missing anything. You will have a few options. Either you print at a lower DPI than 300 (which would be around 230 DPI for your scenario depending on crop) or upscale your image to fit that dimension at 300 dpi. Also, that 20x16 is a different aspect ratio than your cameras 3:2 aspect ratio. In order to print on that full spread, you will have to crop the sides off your original image.

If you want to upscale your images, you can easily use Photoshop or Lightroom to do that. what editing software do you use?


----------



## boomer (Jul 10, 2013)

Also, I forgot to mention, at 300 dpi your 5D can only print up to 19x12.33. Sure you could print much much larger than that. Just not at 300 dpi. But sometimes people like up scaling the original images to fit their print size at 300 dpi. 

For example, a 36x24 inch print at 300 dpi you would have to up scale the image to 10,800 X 7,200.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 10, 2013)

Dots Per Inch...DPI is a printer thing...how many dots of ink are being put onto the paper.
What you are talking about is PPI...Pixels Per Inch.

But yes...you can either use fewer than 300 pixels per inch of print size...or you can use software to upsize the file.  

I have a 50" by 30" (plus 2" wrap on 4 sides) on my wall at home.  The photo was taken with an 8MP camera.  So don't get too locked into what you 'can' or 'can not' print, based on the size/resolution of your files.


----------



## sactown024 (Jul 10, 2013)

well the album company i use will only print at 300dpi, so I am stuck with sizing my image for that.


----------



## KmH (Jul 10, 2013)

300 PPI is an old, less than valid rule-of-thumb.

Some 5th grade math:

Pixels / inches = ppi 
5700 px / 20 inches = 285 ppi
3700 px / 16 inches = 231.25 ppi

Your 5700 x 3700 image does not have the same *aspect ratio* as a 20 x 16 print has.
You will need to crop some off the long side of your image.

Back to the 5th grade math, using basic algebra;

ppi x inches = pixels
231.25 x 20 inches = 4625
5700 px - 4625 px = 1075

You will need to crop the 5700 px side down to 4625 pixels to have the same aspect ration a 20 x 16 print has, and print at 231.25 ppi if you do not up-res the image.


----------



## AceCo55 (Jul 11, 2013)

A lot of printing companies will do the upscaling for you.
For the moment, get in touch with them and tell them your pixel dimensions.
They can then tell you whether they can work with file or if you need to move on.

For me, I have Perfect Resize (OnOne software) - and would just upscale to what they wanted.


----------



## KmH (Jul 11, 2013)

sactown024 said:


> well the album company i use will only print at 300dpi, so I am stuck with sizing my image for that.



Yes, Finao says 300 DPI, but like many companies that should know better, they use DPI in an incorrectly which perpetuates misuse of the term.

If you use Photoshop, you might note that Adobe has made sure they do use the terms ppi and dpi correctly.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 11, 2013)

^^^ it was Adobe that initiated this confusion in the first place, I am not sure what version they started saying ppi, but for the majority of versions no such discrepancy existed.

Not that any of this matters much.

A pixel is dimensionless until it is interpreted in the physical world.


----------



## KmH (Jul 11, 2013)

unpopular said:


> . . .it was Adobe that initiated this confusion in the first place, I am not sure what version they started saying ppi, but for the majority of versions no such discrepancy existed. . .
> A pixel is dimensionless until it is interpreted in the physical world.


That's why ppi is meaningless for image files on a disc or for other electronic display.

I don't recall that being the case, but if so, that means Adobe was smart enough to correct their mistake. The oldest I still have is Elements 6 and it's ppi, and not dpi.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 11, 2013)

I don't remember if it was there when I used CS2 or not. I am pretty sure it was 'dpi' in PS 7, and I know it was in PS 5.5 and earlier as this was the version that the idea of ppi verses dpi was introduced to me by my college instructor.

At that time though there was much more ambiguity on this subject, and the term 'dots' and 'pixels' were kind of used more interchangeably.

I tend to think of a 'dot' as an elemental representation of a pixel in the physical world, screens have 'dots', printers have 'dots', some halftone screens 'dots'; files have 'pixels'. Though this isn't really an accepted definition, but does solve the pixel/dot problem.


----------



## lenny_eiger (Jul 17, 2013)

You're not missing anything. You've discovered arithmetic. It's why I went back to film and scanning. I went back to 8x10 to start out with but have now lowered to 4x5 because of the weight. 4x5 is easy... especially with wooden field cameras. That said, I am now getting 320 megapixels off of my 4x5's. Despite the fact the resolution makes it a little less, the amount is still overwhelmingly large and the quality speaks for itself....


----------

