Photo print resolution

What is the minimum resolution required for a decent print for a photo print
on photographic paper using a service such as kodak.com

Thanks

Here's a reference for you:
http://www.photoworks.com/Support/Le...ntQuality.aspx

"Mike McCloud" wrote in message
...
What is the minimum resolution required for a decent print for a photo
print
on photographic paper using a service such as kodak.com

Thanks

"larrylook" wrote in message
...
Here's a reference for you:
http://www.photoworks.com/Support/Le...ntQuality.aspx

From another post today:
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/pixels.html


"Mike McCloud" wrote in message
...
What is the minimum resolution required for a decent print for a photo
print
on photographic paper using a service such as kodak.com

Thanks

"larrylook" wrote in message
...
Here's a reference for you:
http://www.photoworks.com/Support/Le...ntQuality.aspx

From another post today:
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/pixels.html


"Mike McCloud" wrote in message
...
What is the minimum resolution required for a decent print for a photo
print
on photographic paper using a service such as kodak.com

Thanks

Mike McCloud wrote:
What is the minimum resolution required for a decent print for a photo print
on photographic paper using a service such as kodak.com

Thanks



As others have said, It all depends on what YOU consider a "decent
print" My rules of thumb a
300-250 Pixels/inch = Excellent
200 ppi = Very Good
150ppi = Good
100ppi = decent.
A lot depends on the detail in the image.
Bob Williams

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:34:36 -0700, Bob Williams
wrote:

Mike McCloud wrote:
What is the minimum resolution required for a decent print for a photo print
on photographic paper using a service such as kodak.com


As others have said, It all depends on what YOU consider a "decent
print" My rules of thumb a
300-250 Pixels/inch = Excellent
200 ppi = Very Good
150ppi = Good
100ppi = decent.
A lot depends on the detail in the image.

The suggested PPI values (minimum) in from an earlier post, are BARE
MINIMUM.

The old rule of thumb I remember (for scanned images) is 200 pixels
per inch, or 1/3 of the printer resolution.

200-300 is a decent close-viewing print.

The basic rule, though, is for any available number of image pixels,
it won't hurt to double the print size if you also double the viewing
distance - perhaps oversimplified.

If making a poster size enlargement though, rather than allowing the
pixels per inch to go through the floor, I'd suggest enlarging the
image yourself, unless they are going to enlarge it with something
better.

Of the methods in my favourite free tool (Irfanview), I favour:
1. Lanczos - best at holding on to detail, but unforgiving of JPEG
artifacts.
2. B-Spline - soft-ish, and does not emphasize artifacts like Lanczos

I suppose you could try feeding them back into a program with layers
and mask blend the two, or selectively sharpen the B-Spline or blur
the Lanczos.

That is really why you should enlarge the image yourself, as you can
then look for any defects that are revealed.

--
I may be dozzzy, but take the ZZZ's out to mail me
http://www.junkroom.freeserve.co.uk/jvc2080.htm - 2x2x24 CD-RW troubles

If you drop a cactus, don't try to catch it!

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:34:36 -0700, Bob Williams
wrote:

Mike McCloud wrote:
What is the minimum resolution required for a decent print for a photo print
on photographic paper using a service such as kodak.com


As others have said, It all depends on what YOU consider a "decent
print" My rules of thumb a
300-250 Pixels/inch = Excellent
200 ppi = Very Good
150ppi = Good
100ppi = decent.
A lot depends on the detail in the image.

The suggested PPI values (minimum) in from an earlier post, are BARE
MINIMUM.

The old rule of thumb I remember (for scanned images) is 200 pixels
per inch, or 1/3 of the printer resolution.

200-300 is a decent close-viewing print.

The basic rule, though, is for any available number of image pixels,
it won't hurt to double the print size if you also double the viewing
distance - perhaps oversimplified.

If making a poster size enlargement though, rather than allowing the
pixels per inch to go through the floor, I'd suggest enlarging the
image yourself, unless they are going to enlarge it with something
better.

Of the methods in my favourite free tool (Irfanview), I favour:
1. Lanczos - best at holding on to detail, but unforgiving of JPEG
artifacts.
2. B-Spline - soft-ish, and does not emphasize artifacts like Lanczos

I suppose you could try feeding them back into a program with layers
and mask blend the two, or selectively sharpen the B-Spline or blur
the Lanczos.

That is really why you should enlarge the image yourself, as you can
then look for any defects that are revealed.

--
I may be dozzzy, but take the ZZZ's out to mail me
http://www.junkroom.freeserve.co.uk/jvc2080.htm - 2x2x24 CD-RW troubles

If you drop a cactus, don't try to catch it!

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:34:36 -0700, Bob Williams
wrote:

Mike McCloud wrote:
What is the minimum resolution required for a decent print for a photo print
on photographic paper using a service such as kodak.com


As others have said, It all depends on what YOU consider a "decent
print" My rules of thumb a
300-250 Pixels/inch = Excellent
200 ppi = Very Good
150ppi = Good
100ppi = decent.
A lot depends on the detail in the image.

The suggested PPI values (minimum) in from an earlier post, are BARE
MINIMUM.

The old rule of thumb I remember (for scanned images) is 200 pixels
per inch, or 1/3 of the printer resolution.

200-300 is a decent close-viewing print.

The basic rule, though, is for any available number of image pixels,
it won't hurt to double the print size if you also double the viewing
distance - perhaps oversimplified.

If making a poster size enlargement though, rather than allowing the
pixels per inch to go through the floor, I'd suggest enlarging the
image yourself, unless they are going to enlarge it with something
better.

Of the methods in my favourite free tool (Irfanview), I favour:
1. Lanczos - best at holding on to detail, but unforgiving of JPEG
artifacts.
2. B-Spline - soft-ish, and does not emphasize artifacts like Lanczos

I suppose you could try feeding them back into a program with layers
and mask blend the two, or selectively sharpen the B-Spline or blur
the Lanczos.

That is really why you should enlarge the image yourself, as you can
then look for any defects that are revealed.

--
I may be dozzzy, but take the ZZZ's out to mail me
http://www.junkroom.freeserve.co.uk/jvc2080.htm - 2x2x24 CD-RW troubles

If you drop a cactus, don't try to catch it!