«

I (with the help of the group) managed to get the photo that I wanted to
print, properly set at 8x10. I just spoke with the printer and they
said that they request the photo to be at 300 dpi, which I thought I
used. I think it might be at 240 dpi, however.

I just tried making a new file, and set it at 8x10x300dpi. When I
dragged the original untouched photo to the new "frame", it was smaller
than usual. I tried printing the photo (both cropped and uncropped) and
it looks like it's printing the photo on a sheet with a good inch above
and below the photo.

What did I do wrong? Since the resolution is set at 8x10, I don't see
why it was a smaller image. Is there any way to get it at 300dpi but
still print as a true 8x10 (which it did at 240dpi).

Thanks again!!

Open your 240dpi image and use 'image size' with resample turned on and set
300dpi - this will throw in another 60 guesstimated dots per inch. A slight
sharpen and this might be a little better than just the 240dpi original.

10in @ 240dpi = 2400 pixels
at 300dpi, 2400 pixels becomes 8in

Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com

Great... Thanks for the quick reply!


Gadgets wrote:
> Open your 240dpi image and use 'image size' with resample turned on and set
> 300dpi - this will throw in another 60 guesstimated dots per inch. A slight
> sharpen and this might be a little better than just the 240dpi original.
>
> 10in @ 240dpi = 2400 pixels
> at 300dpi, 2400 pixels becomes 8in
>
> Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
> Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com

>I just tried making a new file, and set it at 8x10x300dpi. When I
>dragged the original untouched photo to the new "frame", it was smaller
>than usual.

Corrct. Of course it was.

Think about this for a minute: A picture in Photoshop is nothing but a grid of
little tiny squares. Each square is a pixel.

A picture that is 8 by 10 at 240 pixels per inch is 1,920 pixels wide and 2,400
pixels deep. A picture that is 8 by 10 at 300 pixels per inch is 2,400 pixels
wide and 3,000 pixels deep.

You have a grid of little tiny squares. It is 1,920 pixels wide and 2,400
pixels deep. You drag it into another grid of little tiny squares that is 2,400
pixels wide and 3,000 pixels deep. It will not fill that second grid of
squares. There will be 240 pixels of empty space on the top and 240 pixels of
empty space on the bottom, and 300 pixels of empty space on the left and 300
pixels of empty space on the right.

A pixel is just a square of color. Think of a picture as a tile mosaic. Each
tile is one pixel.


--
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

>Open your 240dpi image and use 'image size' with resample turned on and set
>300dpi - this will throw in another 60 guesstimated dots per inch. A slight
>sharpen and this might be a little better than just the 240dpi original.

Interpolating an image will never make it better. Ever. No technique, no
program, no algorithm can increase the number of pixels in an image and produce
information that was not in the original.

A picture that is created at too low a resolution is doomed; taking an image
and increasing its resolution through interpolation does not increase its
quality.

The best way to solve the problem of an image with too low a resolution is to
throw it away and begin again. If you can't do that, then you have to accept
that the image resolution is lower than ideal, and you can't really improve its
quality.

--
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus....com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Open your 240dpi image and use 'image size' with resample turned on and
> set
> 300dpi - this will throw in another 60 guesstimated dots per inch. A
> slight
> sharpen and this might be a little better than just the 240dpi original.

No it won't be better. Not a bit.

Create a crop option?

Open an image - any image then:
1 - click the crop tool

2 - enter 10 in (yes the in is important too especially if you do not want
10cm) in one box

3 - enter 8 in in another box (that is not a typo - brare I know but the in
and in mean two different things)

4 - enter 300 in the other box

5 - click the tick

6 - not finished yet - click the teeny-weeny itsy-bitsy triangle (find it
once and you'll never overlook it ever again) and creat a new crop tool
option

7 - hey! PSCS has beaten you to it! The tool has a name crop 10 by 8 in 1

8 - guh-roovy or wot!

Aerticus

"Tacit" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >I just tried making a new file, and set it at 8x10x300dpi. When I
>>dragged the original untouched photo to the new "frame", it was smaller
>>than usual.
>
> Corrct. Of course it was.
>
> Think about this for a minute: A picture in Photoshop is nothing but a
> grid of
> little tiny squares. Each square is a pixel.
>
> A picture that is 8 by 10 at 240 pixels per inch is 1,920 pixels wide and
> 2,400
> pixels deep. A picture that is 8 by 10 at 300 pixels per inch is 2,400
> pixels
> wide and 3,000 pixels deep.
>
> You have a grid of little tiny squares. It is 1,920 pixels wide and 2,400
> pixels deep. You drag it into another grid of little tiny squares that is
> 2,400
> pixels wide and 3,000 pixels deep. It will not fill that second grid of
> squares. There will be 240 pixels of empty space on the top and 240 pixels
> of
> empty space on the bottom, and 300 pixels of empty space on the left and
> 300
> pixels of empty space on the right.
>
> A pixel is just a square of color. Think of a picture as a tile mosaic.
> Each
> tile is one pixel.
>
>
> --
> Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
> http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
>

PS - due acknowledgements to news:(E-Mail Removed)...

Aerticus

"Aerticus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsdPfd.1506$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Create a crop option?
>
> Open an image - any image then:
> 1 - click the crop tool
>
> 2 - enter 10 in (yes the in is important too especially if you do not
> want 10cm) in one box
>
> 3 - enter 8 in in another box (that is not a typo - brare I know but the
> in and in mean two different things)
>
> 4 - enter 300 in the other box
>
> 5 - click the tick
>
> 6 - not finished yet - click the teeny-weeny itsy-bitsy triangle (find it
> once and you'll never overlook it ever again) and creat a new crop tool
> option
>
> 7 - hey! PSCS has beaten you to it! The tool has a name crop 10 by 8 in
> 1
>
> 8 - guh-roovy or wot!
>
> Aerticus
>
> "Tacit" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >I just tried making a new file, and set it at 8x10x300dpi. When I
>>>dragged the original untouched photo to the new "frame", it was smaller
>>>than usual.
>>
>> Corrct. Of course it was.
>>
>> Think about this for a minute: A picture in Photoshop is nothing but a
>> grid of
>> little tiny squares. Each square is a pixel.
>>
>> A picture that is 8 by 10 at 240 pixels per inch is 1,920 pixels wide and
>> 2,400
>> pixels deep. A picture that is 8 by 10 at 300 pixels per inch is 2,400
>> pixels
>> wide and 3,000 pixels deep.
>>
>> You have a grid of little tiny squares. It is 1,920 pixels wide and 2,400
>> pixels deep. You drag it into another grid of little tiny squares that is
>> 2,400
>> pixels wide and 3,000 pixels deep. It will not fill that second grid of
>> squares. There will be 240 pixels of empty space on the top and 240
>> pixels of
>> empty space on the bottom, and 300 pixels of empty space on the left and
>> 300
>> pixels of empty space on the right.
>>
>> A pixel is just a square of color. Think of a picture as a tile mosaic.
>> Each
>> tile is one pixel.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
>> http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
>>
>
>

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) (Tacit) wrote:

> Interpolating an image will never make it better. Ever. No technique, no
> program, no algorithm can increase the number of pixels in an image and
> produce
> information that was not in the original.
>
> A picture that is created at too low a resolution is doomed; taking an image
> and increasing its resolution through interpolation does not increase its
> quality.
>

I agree entirely, but IME 240 ppi is just fine for most images when
reproduced by most common methods (e.g. inkjet print, 150-lpi offset
printing). If someone were to insist he needs such an image at 300 ppi,
sure, I'd upsample it -- not because I'd expect it to improve anything,
but just to make him happy.

--
Odysseus