-
Archive: Artist’s Cafe
-
That’s great news Brad, well done
-
Hi – I have a camera question if anyone can help me. I have had work photographed at 300dpi but am now looking to do this myself. I have a Panasonic lumix which takes great shots and also a Pentax Kr which shoots at 12MB but only seems to save at 72dpi on highest setting. I have researched the internet and there appears to be some confusion as to the necessary dpi if the MB size is larger and even a suggestion that you can resample at 300dpi as it doesn’t really make much difference if MB is high enough. (I realise 12 MB may not be high enough)
Can anyone tell me what cameras they use to achieve 300dpi shots (or even what MB size is equivalent)?
Thank you, Beverley
-
Hi Beverley,
You’re right in that shots taken at 72dpi can be made into 300 dpi. But unless the camera has very high resolution, this is not a good practice.
I would focus on the other camera – which is an excellent brand.
I did a quick google search for “best cameras to shoot artwork” and also “best practices to shoot artwork.” There were a ton of suggestions and some good pointers. Lenses and lighting are important.
But once you get your system down, it’s yours!
-
Thank you Crista – my lumix is a great camera but it is 10 years old and unfortunately both cameras save no higher than 72dpi at high resolution it seems. I had thought the SLR would go higher, but it is also a few years old. I checked out the search you suggested which worked much better than my previous searches for cameras that take 300 dpi photos, so thank you – it is something to bear in mind. I keep coming back to the 1 year,
I checked out the search you suggested which worked much better than my previous searches for “cameras that take 300 dpi photos”, so thank you – it is something to bear in mind. I have looked into the whole lighting thing before and will certainly check out some tips for the future. I keep coming back to the 1 year, 3 year plan etc as I need to pace myself. I have a mix of exhibitions, submissions and invited submissions coming up and am in a pleasant position of having to decide which gallery space to prioritise – so things are on the move.
Every blessing to you – with continued gratitude that you “jumped” and used your gifts this way! – Beverley
-
Hi Beverley
DPI relates to printing and not digital capture. DPI actually refers to <u>printer</u> dots per inch. Even though your camera says 72dpi, that doesn’t really mean anything. The important thing is the pixel size, which i think on your Pentax is 4288 x 2428, that determines the size you can naturally print at. To get the best quality you have to set the camera to it’s largest setting, this will give you the maximum resolution for your camera. I assume you won’t want to shoot in RAW (as that needs more post processing) so set it at the Highest JPEG you can. I used to have a 12MB camera and took great photos with it that were enlarged quite a lot and still look good (although I only shot in RAW). The important thing is to keep your ISO as low as possible so you aren’t introducing any ‘noise’ (which is like grain) into your image and to make sure it is not underexposed as that also gives issues when making large prints.
What size are you hoping to print at? I just found this info on your Pentax camera which may help. Are you taking photos for inventory purposes or so you can make Giclee (or similar) prints to sell?
<b>Print Quality</b>
<i>ISO 100 to 400 images look great at 20×30 inches</i>ISO 100 to 200 shots look great at 20×30 inches, with excellent detail and color.
And I just found this explanation on the internet for you which probably explains it better than I can!
——–
I’m going to offer my explanation from the print-industry POV:
1) Images captured via a digital camera are usually 72ppi. If you bring this image into a post-processing program without changing its values, it will remain as a 72ppi image, and the physical size is huge (eg: an image from the K10D is 136.03cm x 90.88cm. That’s over a metre wide).
2) For professional printing purposes, an image being prepared for print should be no less than 300ppi in resolution if pristine image quality is to be preserved.
Effectively, this means if you were to “squash” a uncropped K10D image so that it contained 300 pixels to every physical inch (300ppi), the actual size of the image would be about 32cm x 21.6cm.
From a practical point of view, this means that your photograph won’t lose any evident image quality provided its print-output size doesn’t much exceed the size of an A4 sheet of paper.
In reality, loss of image quality is not usually evident to the naked eye(unless you’re looking really hard) until print-resolution has dipped below about 200ppi. So you could get away with printing an image from the K10D to a physical size of about 50cm x 33cm (larger than an A3 sheet).
However, if you were to print the image at its unaltered onscreen size (136.03cm x 90.88cm) it would be printing at its original resolution of 72ppi, and of course the image quality would suck!
———-
I hope that has made sense and hasn’t confused you further! However if your Lumix takes great shots, that may be an easier one to start with. -
Thank you so much, Sandra for taking the time to send me all that. I didn’t realise about the low ISO – so that’s a quick change I can make. Re the images – I want them to be 300dpi for giclee/print purposes (and in line with Crista’s recommendations also!). My Pentax Kr and 10 year old Lumix both only give photos to 72dpi at highest resolutions so just to confirm – does that mean I will need a different camera to create print images at 300dpi? I imagine I could get away with 72dpi for now as my portraits are mostly around A4 size anyway so any prints would still be actual size, but I need to be looking at a different camera (or return to the professionals) to create 300 dpis don’t I? Can I just ask you re RAW images – I had my camera on this accidentally for a while and the images looked terrible on my MAC – do you need a particular programme to view them on a computer? – and If I took them in RAW would they transfer for print purposes even if my computer wouldn’t display them properly
Can I just ask you re RAW images – I had my camera on this accidentally for a while and the images looked terrible on my MAC – do you need a particular programme to view them on a computer? – and If I took them in RAW would they transfer for print purposes even if my computer wouldn’t display them properly?
Thank you, Sandra. I have taken a while to look at your website and your work is beautiful. The whole feel of your site and work is very cohesive too. Well done! I will visit it again. Are you on FB (I will check after this)
Thanks again, Beverley
-
Hi Beverley
My pleasure. I have to say I am not the most technical photographer in the world but I know that that 72dpi out of camera is something that a lot of people misunderstand.
The higher the ISO you use the more chance of noise you get in your images. Some cameras are very good at handling this at high ISOs but they tend to be the more expensive cameras. It’s always best to keep it as low as you possibly can. ISO is one part of the exposure triangle, the other two being aperture (the size of the shutter hole) and shutter speed (the amount of the time the shutter is open). The best bet for you starting out is to keep your ISO at 100 if possible and start with automatic setting to see if that gets a good enough image. You need enough light in the room to allow a good exposure and to make sure the shutter closes quickly. The longer it stays open the more chance of you getting blurry images due to camera shake (a tripod can help with this but I am assuming you don’t have one).
No you won’t need a different camera to get images at 300dpi, this is something that your software programme does when you output to the printer (Photoshop, Lightroom, Elements – whatever it is you have). What programme do you have on your computer? Out of interest have you imported an image into it and checked the dimensions of the image. It will say 72dpi but what is the length and width of the image? If you change the size of the image in the box, what does the dpi change to?
You can take images on your camera and get prints outputted at 300dpi but, if you are going to consider selling the Giclee prints of your work, it may be better to get a professional to photograph the artwork, of course I guess that depends on cost, but light, exposure, focus point etc all affects the quality of an image and you want to start off with a very good quality image 🙂
Regarding RAW images, yes they do look absolutely terrible on a computer – very flat! Basically RAW images capture absolutely everything you have shot but you have to then process them to bring out the best of them. They capture all the details but they need tweaking!! I always shoot RAW, it gives much more latitude in the processing to make a better image and I then have the control of how I want to process an image. With a JPEG you are shooting the same thing but the camera decides what bits to throw away and they get processed in camera by compressing everything. I process mine in Lightroom, which has a built in RAW ‘reader’. Photoshop is another option and there are others too.
Before deciding to get a professional in or getting a new camera I am happy to do some experiments with you if you want. You could take an image in JPEG on your pentax and the same one on your lumix. You could then send them to me, I will make the correct size and dpi for you to do a test print. You could also take one photo in RAW (or if they have DNG option even better as I don’t have a Pentax raw converter so my computer may not read them). I could process that too to look like your work. Then you can test print all three and see what differences there are, if any.
Thanks for you nice comments about my website/work. I’ve had most of the year off from photography due to personal circumstances but am now raring to get back into it!
-
Thanks Again Sandra – I will get back to you on this certainly. Speak soon, Beverley
-
Hi Beverly. I wanted to ask you if you are going to print the images yourself or are you going to work with someone else? It sounds like your goal is for you to create the digital versions of your original work (using your camera) in order to create digital prints of your paintings. If someone else is going to do the actual printing, what services to they provide? Can they take your raw images and do all the post production in order to print, or are you going to have to give them the “finished” image and all they do is take your file and print from it? These are crucial questions because they really impact how much work you do on your end and some of the equipment you need to get the best results. Sandra’s points about the lighting conditions under which you shoot your work cannot be overlooked – and Crista has made a strong point about this in the course. Larger pieces are notorious for screwing up lighting (dark edges and bright spots in the center). So, if you are confident that you can get good shots of your work, then it becomes an issue of how much processing you need to do in order for your digital prints to be good reproductions of the original. If this is going to rest on your shoulders, then I have to stress how ciritcal it is that your post production is done on a “calibrated” monitor, otherwise the files you hand off may not be anywhere near the true colors, tones, and brightness of the original. Laptops and tablets are naturally set to high briteness settings in order to make it easy to view what’s on screen. Some monitors run “cool” or “warm” which influences the color tones. For instance, if you are trying to work on a tablet that has a bright screen, then it is more than likely all your prints will turn out dark because you will over-compensate for the brighter screen view. Calibrating your monitor (using a hardware device and software) is necessary to getting good print results. I know this because I print all my work and have to make my prints look like my digital originals. As for your camera questions, I believe Sandra has done a great job of explaining things. I would caution against shooting in jpeg only because you lose a bit of color/resolution information that could be crucial in some of your reproductions. I am happy to elaborate on any of this if you have any questions. Good luck!!!
-
photographing my work is something i need to address. one of my last bigger projects (for now). thanks everyone for all the info.
-
Hi Michael – Thanks for all your input. I have a whole series of work photographed professionally and I work with a printer already on those. He is happy to work with me to alter colours on initial print but otherwise they are print-ready, so maybe that would cover the calibration issues(?). Re the work I need photo’d now – I always photographed my portraits myself as they are smaller and flatly painted and using natural light to do this has worked well so far. A few people had asked for prints and I was considering sorting this out – they wouldn’t be large so my photos may actually be ok for A4, but after listening to Crista’s talk on the the Working Artist kit I thought now was the time to get the portrait paintings (or at least those I still have access to), photographed to the same level as the others (300 dpi tiffs). So in short – I am doing it for the working artist kit and to get good A4 prints of them at the moment but with the view of being able to take good shots of newer work should I go larger on that! I have to go one step at a time though – partly due to budget and partly due to being so overwhelmed by technical stuff that I end up retreating! ( I sometimes imagine I am living in a different century to give my head some peace!! – I realise from your work – which is great by the way – that you are probably not of the same ilk!!) I would prefer to pay someone to do it again, but not within my budget right now and maybe it will serve me well in the future to sort it myself.
Thank you, Beverley
-
Log in to reply.
