Setting Resolution in Camera or in Lightroom 5

[jmaphotography]

<p>Can someone advise how I can set the resolution when exporting from Lightroom 5, apart from the export dialogue box provided for 'resolution setting? <br /> If my Lightroom 5 plugin 'Image Sizing' options are: Resize to fit (Long Edge...etc), Don't Enlarge, and a Pixel box option, how would I set an image resolution of 300ppi? The plugin doesn't have a specific 'Resolution' box option.<br>

<br /> Many thanks.</p>

[phule]

<p>Resolution of a digital image is defined by the number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical direction. Resolution is not defined by dpi or ppi. The value of the number is meaningless. </p>

[jmaphotography]

<p>Thanks for such a quick response. So if my Creative Director asked me to submit images with a resolution of 300, how would I do that?</p>

[phule]

<p>Tell your creative directory to better educate him or herself? </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Unfortunately "resolution" is one of those terms like "sharp" that may mean different things in different contexts, and may mean nothing at all in some contexts.</p>

<p>Lightroom does indeed use the term "resolution" in the export box in reference to image sizing. By default it's 240 pixels per inch on my version, LR 4.4. But in this context "resolution" applies only to printing, and the correlation between physical print size and desired quality based on the digital photo file.</p>

<p>The term "resolution" is also often applied to digital image file in pixel dimensions, and is also often expressed in megapixels. So a 4 megapixel camera like my old Nikon D2H has pixel dimensions of 2464x1632 (multiplied together for 4,021,248 pixels, or 4 meagerpickles).</p>

<p>It's confusing.</p>

<p>It's more confusing when an art director, editor or printer asks for something that really isn't relevant to actual usage. If they want a print, all they need is the maximum resolution photo file. A few examples:</p>

<ul>

<li>Specify, let's say, a 300 dpi print from my D2H file at maximum native resolution, and I'll get a print measuring 8.2" x 5.4".</li>

<li>Or, if I want an 8" x 12" print from the same file, the dpi must be changed to 200.</li>

<li>If I want an 8" x 10" print, that's still 200 dpi, but the photo must be cropped from the native 3:2 aspect ratio.</li>

<li>If I want a 16" x 24" print at 300 dpi, from my D2H, well... first of all, I should get a better camera with more pickles. But the only way to satisfy that demand - 16x20 at 300 dpi - is to upsize the file using interpolation software to increase my pixel dimensions to 7200x4770. The end result will be compromised. Increasing the file dimensions through interpolation will not equal a photo from a better camera at a higher native resolution.</li>

</ul>

<p>It just depends on what your creative director actually needs as an end product. A resolution of 300 dpi isn't a particularly useful image parameter by itself. A teensy 1" x 1" print, or even a single pixel can be assigned a "resolution" of 300 dpi.</p>

[jmaphotography]

<p>Thanks for the replies. Since my Lightroom 5 Plugin has only the options i mention above, and that my Creative Director was to print images in a typical fashion magazine, what 'dimensions' or otherwise should I set to export the images?<br>

I export to Dropbox, from LR5 (defaulted at 300ppi within Preferences) but on 'Downloading' from Dropbox, I see from Photoshop that the image comes in at 240ppi. Am I doing something wrong, or is that the nature of the animal? Is it Dropbox? </p>

[tim_mcmahon]

<p>If your creative director hasn't told you what size (in inches or cm or whatever) the images are to be, then, as explained above, the resolution question cannot be answered. The numbers 72ppi (default in LR's export) 300ppi, 240ppi are meaningless and, as you say, in the nature of the animal.<br>

I would simply export at maximum dimension: give them all the data, because it's likely that in page layup they're going to fiddle with sizes (thus changing from any 'resolution' that you try to set up) anyway.<br>

I suspect what will be more critical is want colour space they need the image in. Has the creative director told you that?</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Well I would check back with your creative director. The 300 ppi most likely means 300 dpi. Which is a setting for the printer that is independent from ppi. I believe the "resolution" setting in Lightroom also uses the technically wrong naming of dpi as ppi. 300 dpi is a dot per inch and is a "print resolution" as it were. A lot of editors require 300 dpi as standard for submissions. Its a misnomer to ask for 300 ppi, though typically the terms gets tossed around as if they are interchangable. So applied to the discussion above, in the "Image Sizing" dialogue you can choose your longest size either width or length in ppi or inches, etc. if you want to resize your images. The resolution setting is your "DPI" setting you would submit at 300 Dpi which on LR is mis-named "resolution" and wrongly expressed in Ppi. Generally you will get a request to submit an image that is x" by y" at 300 dpi (though most everyone says ppi, again, incorrectly.) Usually if they don't designate image size, you would submit your full sized image at 300 dpi. At least that's been my experience in the very few submissions I've had. So bottom line, no matter what size you choose for your image, in light room select the resolution of 300.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>There are several posters that hang around here that can give you a very through explanation of these issues, but basically you want to set the "resolution" in LR at 300.</p>

[jmaphotography]

<p>Thanks again for the replies. However, the LR 'Dropbox Export Plugin' that i use only has the options i described earlier - it doesn't have the option of a 'Resolution' box, only a 'Long/Short side....Megapixels...Width/Height...and Dimensions that I can select.<br>

I defaulted LR's preferences for external editing to 300, but when i then download the image, it comes back as 240. it's so frustrating not knowing what's going wrong.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>It's not going wrong. It's an arbitrary number. If you know the print size, just multiply it times 300 and you know what to set in the pixels dimension. Those numbers are completely meaningless unless you have inch dimensions.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>"Tell your creative directory to better educate him or herself."</p>

<p>Career limiting response!</p>

<p>Relative (i.e., pixels/inch) resolution means nothing unless you specify the size of the image. For publication, that would be the published size, unless the specifications refer to the size of the submittal.</p>

[photomark]

John, all the responses are basically right, but it doesn't help if you have an art director that's asking for

something specific that you can't deliver. You can try explaining the he just needs to multiply the physical dimensions by

240/300 or some such nonsense, but as Edward mentioned these kind of solutions, while technically

correct, may not represent the best business move.

 

It sounds to me like whoever designed this plugin left out the standard feature found in the normal

Lightroom export that allows you to tag an image with a print resolution. If that's the case, there's not

much you can do with the plugin. You said it's a DropBox plugin? Can you just use the regular Lightroom

export, which lets you set the resolution and then just add them to DropBox yourself? I frequently export

directly into my Dropbox with the normal Lightroom export.

[Uhooru]

<p>Another try is just don't resize at all, just export with the 300ppi in the LR export box. Export to Tif. Open the Tif in Photo Shop, look at the "image size" menu in PS that's Image>Image Size and see what the resolution is. You'll probably see a large dimensioned file and a resolution at 72. Now uncheck the resample switch and type 300 in the resolution. Your pic will then size itself with 300. The print resolution is an important number and it not meaningless. The printer needs that number. When you do what I just wrote, you will se the image size (set for inches) is about what you would expect for your camera and the print res is set at 300. Save the changes and you are set. The only problem is that your editor did not seem to tell you the dimensions for the image.</p>

[wayne_larmon]

<blockquote>

<p>"Tell your creative directory to better educate him or herself."<br>

Career limiting response!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed! All the "PPI is meaningless" responses are short sighted (to be kind.) If you are talking about "art" or "creative" directors, they are most likely the liaison between the people that capture the images (photographers) and the people that use images when preparing content for publication. </p>

<p>Which means using a program like InDesign. When you use InDesign and "place" an image, InDesign refers to the DPI (not PPI!-check the specs for <a href="http://www.jpeg.org/public/jfif.pdf">JPG</a> and <a href="http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/tiff/TIFF6.pdf">TIFF</a>. Resolution in the JPEG and TIFF specs is DPI not PPI.) when initially sizing the image on the display. Typically InDesign is configured for 300 DPI. So if an image is placed and displays larger than the space on the page where the image will be going (calculated at 300 dots per inch), then the designer knows that there are pixels to spare, so the image can be cropped or downsampled. But if the image show up smaller then the space where is to be placed, then the designer knows instantly that the image does not have enough pixels. So it is deleted and another image is tried. </p>

<p>People using InDesign really, really want this process to work smoothly. Generally, there isn't much slop in print deadlines. If the photographer has ignored instructions and has not put the proper value in the DPI field, then the process breaks down.</p>

<p>Uh, yeah, filling the DPI field can be meaningless if you are only printing to a printer that is connected to your own computer. But if you are preparing images for others, then it is wise to pay attention to the specifications that they give.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>But DPI is still meaningless unless you know the size of the space on the page. Just doing it at 300DPI doesn't translate to the box size unless you already know the dimensions. It doesn't matter what tool someone is using, a digital image is x pixels by y pixels. DPI is simply a translation between that and a physical size.</p>

[wayne_larmon]

<blockquote>

<p>But DPI is still meaningless unless you know the size of the space on the page.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But we do know the size of the space on the page. I was referring to people doing layout using InDesign. The page size is defined. The resolution that is being used for the layout is defined (usually 300 DPI.) When an image is imported to be placed, the number of pixels in the image is known (by InDesign.) If the DPI field in the image is set to 300, then InDesign will display the image at the size it would be at 300 DPI. If it shows up on the page larger than is needed, then good--there are pixels to spare for cropping (if needed.) It can always be resampled down to 300 DPI at the final size. But if it shows up on the page too small, then it is immediately obviously that there aren't enough pixels for the intended purpose. </p>

<p>If the image shows up at an unreasonable size (say, if the DPI field was set at 72 DPI), then this louses things up and the layout person will need to take extra time to solve the problem.</p>

<p>It is all about fitting the <em>customer's</em> workflow--not your workflow.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I was referring to people doing layout using InDesign. The page size is defined</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The photographer has no idea. And that is what the question is about. The photographer was told to deliver at 300 but has not given any other information. And this is common, I get asked to deliver at 300 but with no sizing. It's meaningless without a size, and given that the photographer does not appear to know the size, it's a pointless specification.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the image shows up at an unreasonable size (say, if the DPI field was set at 72 DPI),</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is not a serious issue. It doesn't matter what the DPI field is set at if the number of pixels works out to the image size at 300. In that case, i.e., when there are enough pixels, you can just change the field to 300. It has no meaning beyond the relationship between pixels and inches.</p>

[wayne_larmon]

<blockquote>

<p>...you can just change the field to 300.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the point is that the customer doesn't <em>want </em>to have to set this field him(her)self. I described how people use InDesign and how InDesign uses the DPI field. If the DPI field in the image is set to 300, then, when the image is placed (imported) in InDesign, the layout artist can instantly see if the image has enough pixels for their need. If the DPI field isn't set to 300, then they can't. Unless they open the image in PhotoShop and set it themself.</p>

<p>Yes, they could write a Perl (etc.) script that calls EXIFTool and auto-sets the field to 300 DPI for all incoming images. But maybe they don't know how to write scripts. Or don't trust ExifTool writing to images. They don't want to set this field. They want you to set it. They have a need for it being set to 300 DPI.</p>

<p>I don't <em>know</em> that the InDesign scenario I described is the reason why you are being asked to set the DPI field to 300, but I use InDesign and if I were buying images, I would want the DPI field to be set to 300. For the reasons I described. If it isn't set to 300 DPI then it means added work to manually set it. Times however many images.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>But if the photographer is just told 300dpi, it's meaningless. I can send over a 600x1200 image at 300dpi. If the designer asks for that and doesn't tell me anything else, I will do that. Of course, if the space is bigger than 2 inches by 3 inches, there's a problem, but I've met that 300dpi request.<br>

<br />This is simple. DPI is meaningless without either pixels or interest. DPI is a ratio, pure and simple. You need two of the three factors (DPI, pixels, inches) to do anything remotely reasonable.</p>

[photomark]

<blockquote>

If the DPI field in the image is set to 300, then, when the image is placed (imported) in InDesign, the layout artist can

instantly see if the image has enough pixels for their need. If the DPI field isn't set to 300, then they can't.

</blockquote>

 

<p>

The designer can (and should) look at the links panel where resolution is reported. It's very unlikely that a designer will receive and image that is exactly the DPI and print size required for a layout.

They will almost certainly need to resize the image for the particular layout (this is even more true if they are asking

for 300 DPI and no dimensions). What this means is that regardless of the image dimensions, the designer needs to

know what the final resolution will be as scaled to the final layout size. This is instantly available in the link info box in InDesign's Links panel—

both actual ppi and effective ppi after scaling. Good designers will always have their eyes on that panel when they

resize. There's no need to open photoshop for this information. </p>

 

<p>An image placed into InDesign is one ⌥⇧⌘E keystroke away from fitting to the box in the layout. At which point

the effective resolution will be available. Unless somebody has asked for an image a a specific dimension and

resolution, this process will happen with virtually every image used in a layout.

</p>

 

<p>Having said that, the easiest thing for everyone involved when you get "we need 300 DPI", which as Jeff points

happens happens a lot, is simply to ask: roughly, what's your final print size going to be? </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Yes, if you don't know the dimensions the editor wants, it makes the dpi worthless. In that case all you can do is give the biggest size you can get at 300dpi and hope it works and that the editor will size it to the dimensions they want and hope there is enough pixels to do it. But if they don't tell you the size you don't know if for example, you have to up-fez the photo or not. It makes it very difficult. The OP should contact that person and ask him the dimensions or he's really just spitting into the wind and cannot ensure a result. It will mean, all the process of setting up, taking and then post-processing the image is just rolling the dice.</p>