Another rookie question on my part. Is there an easy way to export an image as a specific size inches ie, 4x6 8x10?
Yes.
Crop to correct ratio.
Choose side and then pixel, cm or inches as unit.
1 Like
In addition, be sure to use an image that has adequate size at the print resolution you need.
Despite what some may say about a need for 300dpi, this is totally unnecessary for most home printers.
To start with, image resolution should never be measured in dpi. This relates to the dot density on the paper, not the pixel density of the image. For example, if a pixel is of a colour that cannot be represented by just one of the coloured inks in the printer, only having one dot of one of the printer ink colours would never be right.
In fact, the maximum printing resolution of newer Epson printers is up to 5760 x 1440 dpi and, for Canon printers, it is 2400 x 1200 dpi.
Take a 24Mpx camera and you will get an image of 6000 x 4000 pixels. In which case, if pixels and dots were equivalent, you would get a maximum print size of 2.5" x 1.6".
So, there is no direct correlation between dpi (dots per inch) and ppi (pixels per inch)
If the maximum size you are likely to print at is 10" x 8", to be viewed at armâs length, 240ppi will suffice perfectly. In fact, that is the resolution I use for any size print.
Since the physical size of a full frame sensor is usually around 36mm x 24mm (1œ " x 1") you can calculate that, for a 24Mpx sensor, the pixel size of 6000 x 4000 px translates, without any interpolation, to a maximum physical print size of around 25" x 17".
However, if you have cropped the image, you will need to do a simple calculation to work out the minimum pixel dimensions you will need to fill the paper area.
So, for a 10" x 8" print, at 240ppi, you are going to need a minimum cropped pixel size of 2400px x 1920px. If your crop is smaller than that, you are either going to have to either enlarge the image to fit the paper, or reduce the expected print size and leave a margin.
Now, PhotoLab can do a reasonable job of downsizing but, if you want to enlarge, you may be better off exporting at the cropped size in pixels and then using an external dedicated enlarging app. I use Topaz Photo AI, which also takes care of adjusting sharpening, depending on print size.
So, after all that, I would recommend you export as a TIFF file, 240ppi with no compression, to the expected print size in inches multiplied by 240, at a resolution of 240ppi.
But, take into account what @Required has said about setting the ratio for the print aspect.
Oh, and for printer resolution, print to the highest dpi the printer can do.
3 Likes
The quantity of ppi in a photo is just a command to the printer âprint me at 300 ppiâ.
The quality of the printer is expressed in dpi. Sometime they are mixed up. Look at the properties of an image in Windows, it mentions for the vertical and horizontal resolution 72dpi. Should be ppi. When this image is send to the printer just as it is the printer will create an output with 72ppi and a quality of 5760x1440 dpi to use one of @Joanna example.
George
But not if you export a TIFF from PhotoLab at 240ppi, which is what I would recommend.
Excellent info, thanks!
Thanks Joanna, think I have it figured out!
Iâm using a MAC must in the wrong forum.
I mean that windows is using the wrong units. And many other programs too. It should be ppi.
Itâs just a request to the printer to use that setting, itâs an initial value that normally is overwritten by âfit to pageâ.
If youâve an image of 6000x4000 pixels, be it a crop or not, and you want a print of 10"x8" just divide the pixel amount through the print size. So (6000/10) and (4000/8) becoming 600x500, different ratio. The original sensor size is of no relevance. But by doing so you leave the resizing to the printer.
George
At which point, you get a distorted image.
But Warren wants to export for printing, presumably with layout software.
Added to which, PhotoLabâs print dialog is rubbish.
1 Like
Something will chance if your input ratio is different from the output ratio. So he has to chooice between 600 and 500.
That where weâre talking about.
You introduced the sensor size. But the image in pixels is just in pixels. No dimension. The dimension is gained by using resolution units.
George
@Joanna
Reading your post over you calculate the crop size for a given print resolution and output size. I didnât see that at first glance.
George
But there is a difference between what is recommended for Epson and Canon. You can divide the ppi numbers in the printers for Epson with 360 or 720 and for Canon with 300 or 600.
Today I wonder if these figures are relevant though when we have variable size of the droplets the printers produce.
Why wouldnât one just export at full size and then drop the image into Canon Professional Print & Layout or Epson Print Layout? Surely those programs would do the math and send the best possible optimised version to the printerâŠ
Iâm a newcomer to home printing so if the answer is obvious, my apologies for the question.
Arenât those numbers the dpi numbers? Thatâs about printing quality.
Setting the ppi is setting a (re)size value.
George
1 Like
When it comes to this there is a discusson among Epson P700 and P900 users that this might not be necessary since the resolution in these printers prints are so high now that the second best option really is good enough. They claim they canât see any difference anyway.
I think I agree on that because it is really impossible to see any diffrence on a normal distance of viewing these prints. It is really overkill and I like Alec consider this a none issue these days with my 33 Mp. The printers will take anything we throw on them and interpolate it if necessary. Iâm talking about A2.
2 Likes
Iâm printing on Canon like Joanna. My early experiments have indicated that on most paper, High Quality is worse than Standard Quality as the paper canât absorb that much ink without very lightly puddling (just enough to blur fine detail). Standard Quality is sharper and cheaper (much less ink used).
1 Like
Indeed, they are totally irrelevant in relation to the ppi resolution of the image, which can be set to whatever you want. As I said before, I use 240ppi, regardless of printer make or dot resolution.
The important thing to remember is to frame the image to suitable proportions for the frame in which you want to mount it. That way you can buy ready made frames from; someone like Nielsen and and up with a well proportioned matt. For example, if you want to buy 40x50cm frames, in order to have a balanced 5cm matt, you are going to need to proportion the image to 3x4. My regular frames are 60x80cm, so I am proportioning to, virtually, 5x7, which is as near as darn it to the A2 paper proportions.
But, whereas a 5cm margin might suit a 40x50cm frame, for my 60x80cm frames, I prefer about 10cm.
I work out the final print size on paper, in pixels at 240ppi, given the anticipated border or matt board margins.
e.g. For my A2 portrait oriented prints, I frame the image to 420x594 proportions and export to 3780px on the short side. Importing that 3780x5346px TIFF file into Canon LayoutâŠ
⊠gives me a nice margin to tuck behind the matt board that I will cut out of a 60x80cm sheet of card.
Hereâs what such prints look like when hungâŠ
Thatâs interesting because I have been printing on my Pro 1000 for three years now, always at high quality, on both Canson Baryta Photographique II and Fotospeed PF Lustre and have never had a problem with too much ink.
The only time I got puddling was when I accidentally put the paper in back to front 
Are you sure you are using a paper that matches the paper type you are selecting in Canon Layout?
2 Likes
The word puddling is partly metaphoric. What I mean is the paper is oversaturated and the fine detail which should come with HQ printing and extra ink is lost to the borders melting ever so slightly. Itâs not that HQ looks worse. It doesnât look any better.
A high end paper like Canson Baryta Photographique II should be able to handle the extra ink and look at least as good and perhaps a bit better (just a touch higher saturation/intensity). Iâm not sure about Fotospeed PF Lustre. Looks at first touch to be a paper that would look the same with either HQ or Standard. When the final image would look the same, I prefer to print Standard Quality and save ink to print more photos.
My tests were run on paper like Canson Infinity Photo RC Premium and Canson Infinity Photographique Duo. RC Premium looked identical. Photographique Duo could handle the extra ink and perhaps looked a tiny bit better. Ilford Galerie Premium Matte Duo could not handle the extra ink and looked worse. Permajet Photo Matte 240 looked much worse when printed HQ.
Not that Permajet Photo Matt 24o is any great shakes at SQ, the 4x6 cards I bought were a mistake, thankfully not an expensive one, learned my lesson about inexpensive matte papers, inexpensive RC papers are much better if money is an issue. A side benefit of the purchase, when as a test I tried the profile for Photo Matt 240 on IGPMD, it turned out to be much better than Ilfordâs own profile, takes IGPMD from a mediocre matte paper to a very close match with Canson Infinity Photographique Duo (printed with Cansonâs profile). Ilford should up their profile game, as itâs spoiling photographersâ impressions of the paper. I donât want to be too hard on Perrmajet. Their Oyster271 is excellent as an inexpensive large format RC paper.
My point would be that anyone who likes to print their work should test each specific paper against both SQ and HQ. Many papers look the same or better printed SQ. A few high end papers do benefit from the extra ink.
Yes, I know IGPMD and Oyster271 and CI Photo RC Premium all have OBA. The prints look great now but may not last. Iâm just reaching the longevity bridge. With pigment inks, quality RC papers seem to offer about twenty years or more of great looks as long as they are not on a sunny wall. Is that enough or do I want to spend four times more on paper for prints which will probably long be lost to the landfill before they start to deteriorate physically.
1 Like
Yes, and this tread is about printing isnÂŽt it?