Convert Image from 72 DPI to 300 DPI

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by Toronto Web Pro, Apr 8, 2005.

  1. (crossposted)

    There are several ways to do this but unfortunately I only have time to
    explain one method.

    If anyone wants to make a tutorial of this, it would be nice because I
    don't have the time to do that either. If you need my help in
    figuring this out, just email me! :)

    And if you come up with other ways and/or using other app's - all the
    power to ya! If it doesn't work for you, I don't know what to say --
    it works for me, so I'm telling you about it!

    Problem

    You have an image that you created for the Web and its dpi is 72. You
    now want to print this out for a portfolio presentation. Here comes
    the pain: it needs to be 300 dpi.

    Solution

    1. Launch Photoshop
    2. Open up the image
    3. Select the rectangular marquee tool
    4. Edit copy or copy merged
    5. Create a new document
    6. Change the resolution to 300 dpi
    7. Click OK
    8. Paste the image to the untitled document
    9. Voila, it's now 300 dpi
    10. Now sometimes the image will not fill the new document, so what you
    do is...
    11. Use the transform in either Photoshop or Word to max out the size
    to the original.

    Don't want to print it until you have proof?

    1. Save the image as a .jpg - not Web graphic - by doing this you
    keep the 300 dpi
    2. Launch Microsoft Word
    3. Insert the picture from file
    4. Increase the magnification to 300%

    See any jaggies? No? Then it will print just like you see it, with no
    jaggies. With this method the image cannot increase beyond its
    original size without losing quality.

    I hope this helps someone.
     
    Toronto Web Pro, Apr 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Toronto Web Pro

    Eric Gill Guest

    I'm hoping no one submitting graphics to any of my publications tries this.
     
    Eric Gill, Apr 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Toronto Web Pro

    PH Guest

    Won't help the printing office, that's for sure.
     
    PH, Apr 8, 2005
    #3
  4. Toronto Web Pro

    xxxx Guest

    If that is the case how would you like to see it done. Pls share some of
    your knowledge with us.
    J.
     
    xxxx, Apr 8, 2005
    #4

  5. no method i have ever seen, and i've seen several, ever produced
    satisfactory results. I've never seen an image at 72 get "converted"
    to 300 and not look like a pile of pixelated shit.

    Your mileage may vary.

    I've heard stories about Fractal whatever it is but I've never seen
    it. That might work.
     
    PeeVee_Hermann, Apr 8, 2005
    #5
  6. this.

    The responses are not anything less than expected. It's a newsgroup
    afterall -- full of cynical people. ;-)

    Anyway, if it works -- you wouldn't know, now would you? And it works
    for me. There might be a "slight" difference in quality but the naked
    eye can't notice it and no jaggies are produced. Try it first before
    you put it down!
     
    Toronto Web Pro, Apr 8, 2005
    #6
  7. It works in the printing service bureau I use, so I'm really not sure
    what to tell you other than try it for yourself.

    Again, this method isn't about increasing the size of the orginal image
    -- it's about converting the dpi and no, there are no jaggies.
     
    Toronto Web Pro, Apr 8, 2005
    #7
  8. The traditional way. :) Which means, it can't be done! hehe
     
    Toronto Web Pro, Apr 8, 2005
    #8
  9. But did you try my solution? And no, there is no pile of pixelated
    crap that comes out. *grin*

    It's really a simple solution.
     
    Toronto Web Pro, Apr 8, 2005
    #9
  10. Toronto Web Pro

    Stephan Guest

    Funny to see somebody calling himself pro come up with such a "solution"...

    Stephan
     
    Stephan, Apr 8, 2005
    #10
  11. Toronto Web Pro

    Scruff Guest

    Just tried it with your instructions and I reluctantly have to say that I
    wasn't to impressed. While it come close it is all to blurry to use.
    I'll mess with it more later.
     
    Scruff, Apr 8, 2005
    #11
  12. Toronto Web Pro

    tacit Guest

    There is no differnce between doing this and setting the resolution to
    300 pixels per inch using the "Image Size" command with "Resample Image"
    turned off. The image is now 300 pixels per inch, but its physical print
    size in inches is smaller.
    Saving as JPEG degrades the quality of the image. JPEG uses"lossy"
    compression.
    There is no differnce between doing this and using Image Size with
    "Resample Image" turned off and setting the image resolution to 100
    pixels per inch. If you take a 300 pixel per inch image, and you blow it
    up by 300%, it prints at 100 pixels per inch.
     
    tacit, Apr 8, 2005
    #12
  13. Toronto Web Pro

    tacit Guest

    It's simple, but it produces results dot-for-dot and pixel-for-pixel
    identical simply to converting the image to 100 pixels per inch without
    resampling and then printing from Photoshop. Microsoft Word does not do
    any magic when you enlarge an image; it simply reduces the image's
    resolution in pixels per inch.
     
    tacit, Apr 8, 2005
    #13
  14. "There is no differnce between doing this and setting the resolution
    to
    So when the physical print size looks smaller, use the transform tool
    to enlarge it back up to its original size -- no more but it can be
    less.
    I understand what you are saying but I'm trying to explain this in a
    way that most people, i.e. non professionals, will understand it. The
    bottom line is that it will print as 300 dpi. Really. Try it.
     
    Toronto Web Pro, Apr 8, 2005
    #14
  15. And that means... :)
     
    Toronto Web Pro, Apr 8, 2005
    #15
  16. Why is it funny? I'm a professional Web designer, not a professional
    Graphic Designer. :)
     
    Toronto Web Pro, Apr 8, 2005
    #16
  17. Cool. When I do it, it doesn't blur at all. The point IS to mess with
    it and find something that works for you because there are a number of
    ways of tackling the problem.

    Maybe you can show a before and after screenshot?

    And thanks. Thanks for trying first without dismissing it altogether.
    That's a sign of a well adjusted person. *grin*
     
    Toronto Web Pro, Apr 8, 2005
    #17
  18. Toronto Web Pro

    Scruff Guest

    If I have time I'll try it again and post it, not sure when though.
     
    Scruff, Apr 9, 2005
    #18
  19. I hear you. I'm in the same boat or I would put a tut together. If
    you ever want to email me off-Usenet to figure it out for yourself,
    please feel free to do so. Just find my Web site (pretty simple to
    do). :)
     
    Toronto Web Pro, Apr 9, 2005
    #19
  20. Toronto Web Pro

    Eric Gill Guest

    If "cynical," you mean "imaging professional with fourteen years of
    experience," you'd finally be right.
    Yes, I certainly would.
    Oh, I'm sure.
    I see it "tried" on a regular basis by any number of neophytes, and radical
    upsamplig and jpeg compression, especially throwing Word in the mix,
    mangles graphics no matter how many yahoos try it.
     
    Eric Gill, Apr 9, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.