What Resolution is best for printing?

[TooLoose_LeTrek]

I am about to embark on assembling my music book, now that I have the software issue resolved, and need to know what is the best resolution for images I'll use. My music notation program exports as TIFF files and I have a number of options for the resolution, up to about 1200 I think. The book is entirely B&W. Would say 300 dpi be sufficient?

Thanks.

[Steve Rindsberg]

First, find the resolution at which the book will be printed, along with the linescreen (your printer can tell you this).

Are your music notation files pure B/W or grayscale? I'd assume the former but you know what they say about acting on one's assumptions.

[ktinkel]

I am about to embark on assembling my music book, now that I have the software issue resolved, and need to know what is the best resolution for images I'll use. My music notation program exports as TIFF files and I have a number of options for the resolution, up to about 1200 I think. The book is entirely B&W. Would say 300 dpi be sufficient?300 dpi is commonly recommended for photos and other continuous-tone images. For line art, especially if they are fine lines or curves (as musical notation is likely to have), use 1200.

This assumes you are not enlarging the art after you create it (if you have a choice, output at larger size than needed for printing, then reduce to the desired print size at 1200 dpi).

[Benwiggy]

You have said elsewhere that you use Finale. That can export EPS files, which are vector data. Vector data is resolution independent, meaning that it displays the same at ANY size.
EPS files are much smaller (in Kb) than 1200dpi TIFFs, and still look sharper, crisper and cleaner when printed.

[Steve Rindsberg]

You have said elsewhere that you use Finale. That can export EPS files, which are vector data. Vector data is resolution independent, meaning that it displays the same at ANY size.
EPS files are much smaller (in Kb) than 1200dpi TIFFs, and still look sharper, crisper and cleaner when printed.
Assuming that the EPS are not just TIFFs in an EPS wrapper, absolutely.

Easy enough to test ... export as both TIF and EPS. If the resulting files are roughly the same size, it's probably TIF wrapped in EPS. Better to use the TIF instead. If the EPS is notably smaller, then ...

IF the final printing process uses PostScript, use the EPS. The printer can advise on that.

Or if you're making PDFs using Acrobat or GhostScript or the like and handing the PDFs to the printer, use the EPS.

[ktinkel]

You have said elsewhere that you use Finale. That can export EPS files, which are vector data. Vector data is resolution independent, meaning that it displays the same at ANY size.
EPS files are much smaller (in Kb) than 1200dpi TIFFs, and still look sharper, crisper and cleaner when printed.Vector EPSes would sure beat 1200 dpi TIFFs. I thought he had to make bitmaps.

[deB]

Yikes, it's moi, returned from the ether. Christmas season will do that!

This is a reasonable thread to post this thing, which has been driving me insane for almost 3 years.

In my day job, magazine and PR people routinely request that photos be submitted at 300 dpi. I ask "For what final size?" because I know that a 600x800 photo at 300 dpi will be 2x2.67" at 300 dpi and if they make it 7.5x10 it'll be 80 dpi.

They all get irritated at me and say "It just needs to be 300 dpi."

And when I look at a file's properties in the folder, it does list horiz & vertical res, as well as dimensions.

It's giving me a headache to even think about this. I hate cluelessness, y'know?

So what am I missing?

[Steve Rindsberg]

You can't argue with cluelessness.
They've been told 300dpi, they're going to insist on 300dpi.
Bludgeoning them with reason will not help you here.

So send them 300dpi images.
48" oughta do it.

[deB]

Hi Steve!

So send them 300dpi images.
48" oughta do it.

But but but, what's up with what the file system shows? It's saying 300 dpi; what is that talking about??

I'm sure I've missed something somewhere along the line. It might be a WRONG something, but I'd still like to know.

[ktinkel]

My best guess is that they do not understand the pixels v inches relationship, and are just reporting what they have heard. Because it makes them nervous, they snap at you.

How do they generally turn out (assuming you get to see the printed copy afterwards)?

[deB]

Sometimes they come back and ask for something better, other times they don't; they always turn out okay, suggesting the production people bounce it. Still wanna know what the file system properties are talking about.

[terrie]

deB: Still wanna know what the file system properties are talking about.Can you give us a screen shot? What imaging/layout software are you using?

Terrie

[deB]

Um, I hate to say this, one-time E-stud that I once was, but when I click Insert Image, it doesn't let me upload, it just asks me for a URL. What am I missing?

[ktinkel]

Um, I hate to say this, one-time E-stud that I once was, but when I click Insert Image, it doesn't let me upload, it just asks me for a URL. What am I missing?You can attach an image by uploading it from your computer. A thumbnail appears at the bottom of your message; clicking on it presents the enlarged version on another page.

Or you can insert an image by linking to one that is stored on a server somewhere.

Most use attachments.

[deB]

You can attach an image by uploading it from your computer.

THUD: I did not see that waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay below the rich text editor, there's an attachment section.

Well, now I know.

[terrie]

Those property values look like the camera's data for the image--vs. say Photoshop's Image > Image Size or InDesign's values for the image...

Basically, the key data is the number of pixels.

The image is 3569 pixels wide and 1574 pixels high. The 300dpi is essentially meaningless in the context of your attachment. If you think in pixels, that tells you something--doesn't tell me much because I don't think or visualize in pixels except that the image is a bit over 2 times wider than it is high so it's a long narrow image...


Most people think about how big the image is on their screen or how big the image is in on paper and that's where dpi/ppi come into play. If you print this 3569 pixels wide and 1574 pixels high image, the common dpi/ppi to use for printing is 300 and that will get you an printed image of 11.897" x 5.247" (wxh)--at 72dpi/ppi it's 49.569" x 21.861" (wxh) but no one prints at 72dpi/ppi...


I think in the end, it's a matter of how the image is to be used. If you are printing image, how large is (your usual) the paper/page?

Let's say that you always use 300dpi/ppi to print your images and they are always 8x10". If that's the case, then you would want your images have at least 2400 pixels X 3000 pixels ((8" * 300dpi/ppi) X (10" * 300dpi/ppi)) or thereabouts...

If your paper/page size is smaller (but you are still printing at 300dpi/ppi), then you can get away with fewer pixels. The same consideration is true for screen based images because at 72dpi/ppi (sort of the standard for screens although with LCD monitors, that number is probably a bit larger...I have my 1600x1200pixel 20" LCD set to 100ppi/dpi) can have fewer pixels and are still viewable (not pixelated).


Sooo...in the end, looking at the image's Properties, can tell you something but not much because you need a context for the image:

1. How will the image be used--will it be displayed on a screen and/or be printed?

2. How large is the screen and/or page/paper size?

3. What resolution is appropriate for the use to which you are putting the image?


With answers to the context questions, the image Properties can provide you with somewhat helpful info...


Not sure if the above helps at all...'-}}

Terrie

[deB]

That answers it just fine: all those people ARE stupid when they ask for dpi. Good.

I wish there were an article somewhere online I could steer those idiots too. I hate clueless people who insist on something without knowing why!

[terrie]

deB: That answers it just fine: all those people ARE stupid when they ask for dpi. Good.LOL!!!


>>I wish there were an article somewhere online I could steer those idiots too. I hate clueless people who insist on something without knowing why!

Sounds like a job for...Education Man!!! <<<---you...in other words...'-}}

Here you go:

1. DPI vs. Pixels & The Printed Page (http://www.highchairdesign.com/studio/lesson1) -- has good example images on the page


2. Resolution Explained (http://www.pptxtreme.com/help/psdimport/ResolutionExplainedPixelsDPIInches.html)


Terrie

[BobRoosth]

dpi is simply one item that is stored in the image properties. pixel count divided by dpi = inches. The image properties could store inches instead of dpi, but it doesn't. Most desktop publishing software uses the resulting image size (in linear dimensions) to determine the default images size when it is placed.

Just try placing a 3000x2000 image with 300 dpi vs one with 72 dpi....

[Steve Rindsberg]

What kind of images are they? Some image formats permit storing a few bits of data that carry the "I'm 300dpi" lie. Others don't. Absent that information, apps that *insist* on a DPI value supply their own defaults. Windows seems to use 96dpi (or perhaps it uses the display adapter's default setting, which happens to be 96dpi on my computer).

So give 'em *two* 300dpi images ... one at 150 pixels (and therefore .5") wide and another at 15000 pixels or 50" wide. *Really* screw with their heads.

[Steve Rindsberg]

That answers it just fine: all those people ARE stupid when they ask for dpi. Good.

I wish there were an article somewhere online I could steer those idiots too. I hate clueless people who insist on something without knowing why!
>> That answers it just fine: all those people ARE stupid when they ask for dpi. Good.

And what's your kind uncle Steve been trying to TELL you all this time?

>> I wish there were an article somewhere online I could steer those idiots too. I hate clueless people who insist on something without knowing why!

There are articles out there. Do you really think they'd read 'em if pointed there? OK, try this:

What's all this about DPI and INCHES and RESOLUTION?
http://www.pptfaq.com/FAQ00075.htm

[Steve Rindsberg]

LOL!!!


>>I wish there were an article somewhere online I could steer those idiots too. I hate clueless people who insist on something without knowing why!

Sounds like a job for...Education Man!!! <<<---you...in other words...'-}}

Here you go:

1. DPI vs. Pixels & The Printed Page (http://www.highchairdesign.com/studio/lesson1) -- has good example images on the page


2. Resolution Explained (http://www.pptxtreme.com/help/psdimport/ResolutionExplainedPixelsDPIInches.html)


Terrie
I'm not real thrilled with either of these links. The first ladles even more voodoo over the basic misapprehension. The second is less profligate with the dead chicken, but relates specifically to PowerPoint, which has its own peculiar set of rules that don't relate to print at all.

[ktinkel]

I wish there were an article somewhere online I could steer those idiots too. I hate clueless people who insist on something without knowing why!Why not send them here to this thread (http://www.desktoppublishingforum.com/bb/showthread.php?p=76914#poststop) with Terrie’s message?

[terrie]

steve: I'm not real thrilled with either of these links. The first ladles even more voodoo over the basic misapprehension.I didn't actually read the first link in detail but what attracted me was the fact that it had images showing something of the differences--what can I say...gimme a picture every time...'-}}


>>The second is less profligate with the dead chicken, but relates specifically to PowerPoint, which has its own peculiar set of rules that don't relate to print at all.

Yeah...I knew it had a PP emphasis but the statement:

"A person creating graphics for print often says "I need it at 300 DPI." That really doesn't tell us much."


seemed to dovetail neatly with Dave's situation--note that I actually scanned this article...'-}}

Terrie

[Michael Rowley]

Steve:
And what's your kind uncle Steve been trying to TELL you all this time?And what's your kind uncle Steve been trying to TELL you all this time?I notice the Kind Uncle Steve mentions LPI (I assume that's line/in) in para. 4 of his FAQ, and I thought, 'Good: the concept seems to be still alive'; but it seems that kindness stops when it comes to explaining things to Grandpa, because Uncle Steve doesn't mention l.p.i. again.

[Steve Rindsberg]

Michael,

I wanted to mention that DPI has meaning in certain contexts (scanning, for example) and that LPI can come into play as a meaningful number and having done so, move on to the main point of the article. That DPI=BS.

PowerPoint is used mostly to put presentations on a screen, much less so for print purposes, so I didn't want to confuse things by delving into LPI.

I figure that anyone who needs to know about LPI in PowerPoint needs even more to learn why they shouldn't use PowerPoint for whatever they're planning. ;-)

[Michael Rowley]

Steve:
I figure that anyone who needs to know about LPI in PowerPoint needs even more to learn why they shouldn't use PowerPoint for whatever they're planning.Umm: fair enough, I suppose.

Though (number of lines)/(unit length) is clear enough, I don't know what dpi is supposed to mean: is it the number of dots (= number of bits) supposed to be the number in unit area or in unit length? And I have no idea what BS could be.

[Steve Rindsberg]

Michael,

Dots per Inch is a ratio, the number of dots (pixels, rgb triplets, etc) per linear inch.

It's meaningless when applied to an image in pure digital form (ie, a JPG file for example). You can know how many dots there are, but how big, in inches, is some numbers in a computer file? It's not a meaningful question.

When the image is first sampled (scanned, for example) from physical artwork to digital file, the number of samples ( --> pixels) per inch is meaningful, since we do know the size of the original we're scanning.

When the image is again converted from file to physical ... when it's printed, for example ... DPI takes on meaning again since we know how many dots there are in the file and we know how many inches we're spreading it out over on the paper.

BS is an abbreviation for a term describing the male equivalent of cow manure.

[Michael Rowley]

Steve:
Dots per Inch is a ratioThe number of dots divided by a length in inches can never be a ratio, unless you re-define what a ratio is. Don't be too surprised, for a lot of medical practitioners describe as a 'body mass index' what is actually given as body mass in kilograms divided by (body height in metres)².

But I know now that BS stands for what we in England would usually describe as a bull, or as my late great-uncle Jack used to say, a load of old codswallop.

I think one can say that requiring 300 d.p.i. is equivalent to specifying that a picture must turn out to have a linear resolution of 300 d.p.i. when the size of the final size of the picture is unknown to an outsider; i.e. it's anyone's guess.

[Steve Rindsberg]

I'll leave it to you to redefine "ratio" in any way you like.
And meanwhile, I'll leave.

[Benwiggy]

Asking "300dpi at what size?" is a clear way of working out whether the person knows anything about print/graphics. Very often, PR or marketing people who get involved in print don't know the mechanics, and similar problems occur when communicating other specs -- particularly Pantone colours.

I had one marketroid ask me if I could "convert this JPG into a Photoshop .psd document", because that was the format she'd been told to ask for. I replied: "Here is the Photoshop file, which I created by opening your JPG in Photoshop." The irony seemed to be lost on her.

What is worse is when people take an unsuitably small image and "make it 300dpi" in Photoshop, because they think they are complying with your request.....:evil: So you get an image that's been resampled to 300dpi, but still looks rubbish.

[Bo Aakerstrom]

What is worse is when people take an unsuitably small image and "make it 300dpi" in Photoshop, because they think they are complying with your request.....:evil: So you get an image that's been resampled to 300dpi, but still looks rubbish.

Haven't we all been there! Or they say things like 'Can't you use the picture from our web site?'.

[Michael Rowley]

Steve:
I'll leave it to you to redefine "ratio" in any way you likeI'm not clever enough to define ratio properly, so I'll give the OED definition:

'2. a.2.a Math. The relation between two similar magnitudes in respect of quantity, determined by the number of times one contains the other (integrally or fractionally).'

I'm not entirely sure that 'similar magnitudes' meets the bill, but I'm sure the editors asked a pukka mathematician to define ratio in its modern sense.

Any physical value must satisfy the equation

physical value = number × unit,

so you can only give ratios of two values if the units of each have the same dimension, e.g. length.

[Mac Townsend]

You have said elsewhere that you use Finale. That can export EPS files, which are vector data. Vector data is resolution independent, meaning that it displays the same at ANY size.
EPS files are much smaller (in Kb) than 1200dpi TIFFs, and still look sharper, crisper and cleaner when printed.

Not the whole story.

EPS files can very easily be bitmaps. Simply changing format to eps does not make them vector.

This is extreme;y important to understand.

[Mac Townsend]

Here's my non-diverted suggestion.<G>

If the objects are what we used to call Line Art (all pure black or white --white being lack of any pigment or coloring, paper in other words) then the images ought to be about 1200 pixels/inch @ 100% AND be 1-bit images, not greyscales. more on this later.

If the objects are what we used to cal "continuous tone" or photos or artwork with tonalities other than simply solid black and paper (greys, washes, etc) then the stuff ought to be 8bit greyscale (NOT "grey-looking RGB color!!!--wghich will be 3x the file size) and 300 at 100% of size should work fine.

When there is mixed grey and line artwork in something (like a business card for an ad) I'll usually cheat and make it greyscale at 600 (after twiddling with the contrast curves a little). This seems to help the line art a little buit without messing up the CT part.

My personal belief is that if one is not scanning into Photoshop or a capable paint program like Corel PhotoPaint, one is making a mistake because all scans need to be tweaked. Removing background pixels, adjusting contrast curves, sharpening, etc.

Most scanners scan in rgb color space. HP used to (still does?) scan in rgb even when you select greyscale in their software! For print production, rgb is not your freind. it is a way station only. And needs to be converted forthwith.

a 1-bit image uses 1 bit (1/8 or a byte) to define a pixel. that bit is either 0 or 1, white (no color) or black (color). Greyscale requires 8 bits or one byte to represent the different tonalities. RGB color uses 3 bytes, each byte representing diffrerent tones of that color, and CMYK requires 4 bytes because there are 4 colors to represent.

[Mac Townsend]

Actually, KT...a properly done bitmap of type, for example, output next to an eps of that type and next to type from type, when off the press, would usually be hard to distinguish one from the other without magnification. Or at least with eyes far better than mine, now or 30 years ago<G>

Realize that even type is going to be rasterized at imagesetter/platesetter resolution (2400?) and the 1200 scan rendered at 2400 and then both will affected by ink doing what it does on paper (smearing a little, absorbing a little, gaining a little weight, etc.). Of course the type of stock and the presswork will affect this. But in general most people would see no difference. Note I did say "properly done"--not just scanned directly into InDesign and run with it.<G>

$0.02 (gadzooks, it has been a long time since I'd used that!)

[ktinkel]

Realize that even type is going to be rasterized at imagesetter/platesetter resolution (2400?) and the 1200 scan rendered at 2400 and then both will affected by ink doing what it does on paper (smearing a little, absorbing a little, gaining a little weight, etc.). Of course the type of stock and the presswork will affect this. But in general most people would see no difference. Note I did say "properly done"--not just scanned directly into InDesign and run with it.<G>

No argument, but as you note, “properly done” can cover lots of territory. And the printing/paper factors matter, and there is the standard of quality desired. Type was more problematical, but usually not crisp enough (and unhinted, of course, if that was a factor).

Couple of good texts on 1200 dpi TIFFs from way back when: a scanning guide from Agfa (they had a series on halftones, scanning, and more; they may have given them out to promote their high-end scanners), though they may be hard to come by these days. And Real World Scanning and Halftone by the late Bruce Fraser and David Blatner (the current edition is by Blatner, Glenn Fleishman, Steve Roth, and Conrad Chavez).

[Bo Aakerstrom]

...in general most people would see no difference.

The 'types':) frequenting this forum aren't most people - we would take a CLOSE look, just in case it is possible to see any differences.