300 DPI photos for Canon 6D

[parklandphotos]

How do I program my Canon 6D camera to get 300 dpi photos?

[ebiggs1]

B from B

"I'll try again:"

I'll try again, too.  It can't be 72 dpi or any dpi until it is printed.

"... a size not exceeding 1920 pixels on the long side..."

This is the pixel resolution size.  It has nothing to do with dpi.  Here is where folks go wrong.

This is the Image Size menu in PS.

The Resample checkbox changes how many pixels fit into a linear inch, actually  PPI.   If you turn off resample an image, the only way to change the image’s size would be to enlarge or reduce its pixels for printing.

If a person unchecks the Resample Image box, changing the Resolution box would alter the image’s physical size when printed, but not its number of pixels or in other words the size on a monitor.  When it is printed, the image would appear larger or smaller.   But on a monitor, it would be the same size also when you email it to whomever.

Resample is the key word here. You say it must be 1920 PPI, OK, whatever. The top menu 'Pixel Dimensions' and 'Document Size' are totally different.  The top one tells you the image size and the bottom tells you what it would be when "printed".  

Whenever an image file is created with PPI that differ from the dimensions of the original, pixels must be added or removed to produce the final pixel dimensions for the new image.  This is a destructive process.  Make sure you save the original in a safe place.

For instance, a 1900 x 1200 pixel image that is viewed/printed at 8" x 10" would be 190dpi. Whereas, if it was printed at 16" x 20 ", it would be 95dpi.  DPI only matters if you are going to print something out

Homework;

Open up an image in PS at 72 DPI.  Then in the image size box, change the DPI to 300.  Now type the original pixel size back in.  You will see that the image does not change in size or quality at all, just the rulers.  This is because you've changed the amount of pixels it will print per square inch, not the amount of pixels in the digital image. But only if "resample" is not checked.

If it does resample going to 300 DPI, will add pixels. Resampling back to 72 DPI, will throw out pixels.  This is destructive so make sure you try it on a copy of the original.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

B from B

"I'll try again:"

I'll try again, too.  It can't be 72 dpi or any dpi until it is printed.

[Extensive disquisition omitted] 

---

All true, I suppose; all irrelevant.

Believe it or not, I do understand the relationship between resolution. number of pixels, etc., and their function in printing. What I also understand is that the resolution appears in the Exif data and can, in principle, be used by a display program to determine the size of the displayed image. More importantly, it can be seen by the judges in a contest or juried show and can be used to reject an image that doesn't conform to the rules. Since you don't care about such things, you can afford to ignore these factoids. Since I do, I can't.

[ebiggs1]

Bob, my friend, from Boston,

In a digital file it is just a number.  A place holder if you will.  But have it your way.  Nobody really cares if you are right or incorrect. Apparently the judges don't mind don't either!  I am sure you are capable of reading the myriad of discourse on the ole inner web that refute the long standing myth of DPI.  If you so desire to know that is.

[kvbarkley]

I got a repy from Griffin, two actually. I did not mention your name, Robert.

The first

"File dimensions: No smaller than 1920 pixels on the longest side This is what we are looking for.

I do not want to argue with you. File size and transfer speeds are an important issue when you have to support 2000 images and more. Curators are trained to look at imagery. If the final image supplied is not crafted well it will not be hung on the wall.

Changing your resolution wouldn't have helped or hurt you.

The required setting just help all of us manage a burdensome task.

You have a good day."

The second:

"In reading this again the dpi and framed size are two different things. We are asking what the framed size would be on the wall. That is not determined by the size of the jpg as the print size would come from a different jpg, the artist's jpg that we are not receiving."

I am guessing they get this question a lot, so I am going to drop it. 8^)

It really does appear that the 72 dpi is there just to keep the judge from having to resize - or at the very least resize consistently.

[Waddizzle]

"I am guessing they get this question a lot, so I am going to drop it. 8^)

It really does appear that the 72 dpi is there just to keep the judge from having to resize - or at the very least resize consistently."

In other words, the 72 DPI requirement "levels the playing field."

[RobertTheFat]

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

I got a repy from Griffin, two actually. I did not mention your name, Robert.

The first

"File dimensions: No smaller than 1920 pixels on the longest side This is what we are looking for.

I do not want to argue with you. File size and transfer speeds are an important issue when you have to support 2000 images and more. Curators are trained to look at imagery. If the final image supplied is not crafted well it will not be hung on the wall.

Changing your resolution wouldn't have helped or hurt you.

The required setting just help all of us manage a burdensome task.

You have a good day."

The second:

"In reading this again the dpi and framed size are two different things. We are asking what the framed size would be on the wall. That is not determined by the size of the jpg as the print size would come from a different jpg, the artist's jpg that we are not receiving."

I am guessing they get this question a lot, so I am going to drop it. 8^)

It really does appear that the 72 dpi is there just to keep the judge from having to resize - or at the very least resize consistently.

---

And, you may notice, what she told you is almost exactly what I had already said at least twice. Obviously Ernie didn't believe me, and I guess you didn't either.

The one respect in which what she said and what I said differed was that she stood by the rule that says "no smaller than 1920 pixels", while I'm pretty sure they meant to say "no larger than 1920 pixels". I had questioned that back in March and got a somewhat waffling answer; our compromise was to stipulate that it meant "exactly 1920 pixels".

[kvbarkley]

I believed you, I just wanted to know where the "72 dpi" came from and what its purpose was. Note she also says that

"Changing your resolution wouldn't have helped or hurt you.

The required setting just help all of us manage a burdensome task."

So there is no *technical* reason for the setting, it just makes it marginally easier for the judges.

[ebiggs1]

Bob from Boston,

"Obviously Ernie didn't believe me, and I guess you didn't either."

Obviously, you are a suborn man Bob from Boston!     I did and do understand you don't understand what dpi is.  I tried anf failed to help you understand. For that I am sorry but people like those 'judges' don't help when they consistently ask for something that doesn't matter.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Bob from Boston,

"Obviously Ernie didn't believe me, and I guess you didn't either."

Obviously, you are a suborn man Bob from Boston!     I did and do understand you don't understand what dpi is.  I tried anf failed to help you understand. For that I am sorry but people like those 'judges' don't help when they consistently ask for something that doesn't matter.

---

If you actually don't think I understand what dpi is, I can't think of anything more to say on the subject.

[ebiggs1]

B form B,

"I can't think of anything more to say on the subject."

That is the point and problem, Bob.