Basic Settings for prints in Lightroom/CS5

kshays

Hi,
Probably a silly question, but I'm beginning to second guess myself here for some reason. I shoot in RAW only. I have a canon eos 40d so I don't have the largest mp to play with.

Do you guys make sure the .cr2 or psd stays in 16bit ? Do you all adjust the resolution to 300 from the 72 to start with from the beginning when you open the file up?

My goal is to sell prints or give the images to clients on a cd and have them print them. I'm thinking if photoshop brings it in at 72 then change it to 300 and of course when you export it as a jpg it will become 8bit.

Just some thought as I'm going to be doing a few family portraits in the next few weeks.

ty,

kevin

RevLinePhoto

You should be able to set our raw import settings to 16bit so it does not convert it to 8bit. When you convert from 8bit to 16bit photoshop is generating information which is not as accurate as actually keeping the images 16bit. Same thing goes with the 72ppi and 300ppi especialy if you are planning to print large. For printing more ppi/dpi (pixle per inch aka computer screen) (dots per inch aka print) the better more image quality at larger sizes. So in short if you are selling prints or CD's try and keep it 16bit and 300ppi/dpi or more also tiff file formating is nice to pring from for less compresion and are not lossy format.

WinkXR6T

If your files are being exported to PS at 8 bit and 72DPI then you need to change your external editing preferences in LR.

The standard DPI/PPI for LR is 240, but it doesn't mean anything to a file that you'll select the print size of later anyway.

For example your 40D has a resolution of 3888 × 2592 pixels. If you set the DPI to 300 the physical print would be 12.96" x 8.64". If you changed the DPI to 200 the physical print size would be 19.44" x 12.96".
I lot of people suggest the lowest DPI you should go is 150 for general photo prints viewed at "normal" distances. So by that theory you can print a 40D file up to 25.92" x 17.28" without needing to upscale it in PS. You can probably get away with a little more than that and stretch it to 30" x 20".

DPI/PPI doesn't effect the pixel size of your photo. It will always be 3888 x 2592 (uncropped). DPI/PPI will only change how physically big the print is. You can see this in action in PS and here's how...
- Open a file is PS, look at the Image Size and take note of the Document Size.
- Now uncheck Resample Image (this stops PS adding/subtracting pixels). You'll now see the Pixel Dimensions box is locked.
- Go to the Resolution and change the value. Try 72, 240 and 300 pixels/inch as a good test.
- You'll see the Document Size has changed (ie: print size), but the pixel dimensions haven't.

If you upload or visit a lab and you select the print size for each of the files when you're there then the DPI set in the file is being ignored because you're telling the printer to use a different DPI in order to achieve the print size you've selected.

What's your work flow?
I always edit in PS via LR so when the file is saved the PSD is returned to LR.
The file goes to PS as a DNG file (or CR2 if you're not converting) and then saves back to LR as a PSD. It stays 16 bit throughout that entire process. The file is only converted to 8 bit once it's exported from LR as a JPEG.

kshays

WinkXR6T wrote: »

If your files are being exported to PS at 8 bit and 72DPI then you need to change your external editing preferences in LR.

The stand DPI/PPI for LR is 240, but it doesn't mean anything to a file that you'll select the print size of later anyway.

For example your 40D has a resolution of 3888 × 2592 pixels. If you set the DPI to 300 the physical print would be 12.96" x 8.64". If you changed that the DPI to 200 the physical print size would be 19.44" x 12.96".
I lot of people suggest the lowest DPI you should go is 150 for general photo prints viewed at "normal" distances. So by that theory you can print a 40D file up to 25.92" x 17.28" without needing to upscale it in PS. You can probably get away with a little more than that and stretch it to 30" x 20".

DPI/PPI doesn't effect the pixel size of your photo. It will always be 3888 x 2592 (uncropped). DPI/PPI will only change how physically big the print is. You can see this in action in PS and here's how...
- Open a file is PS, look at the at the Image Size and take note of the Document Size.
- Now uncheck Resample Image (this stops PS adding/subtracting pixels). You'll now see the Pixel Dimensions box is locked.
- Go to the Resolution and change the value. Try 72, 240 and 300 pixels/inch as a good test.
- You'll see the Document Size has changed (ie: print size), but the pixel dimensions haven't.

If you upload or visit a lab and you select the print size for each of the files when you're there then the DPI set in the file is being ignored because you're telling the printer to use a different DPI in order to achieve the print size you've selected.

What's your work flow?
I always edit in PS via LR so when the file is saved the PSD is returned to LR.
The file goes to PS as a DNG file (or CR2 if you're not converting) and then saves back to LR as a PSD. It stays 16 bit throughout that entire process. The file is only converted to 8 bit once it's exported from LR as a JPEG.

Thanks Wink and Revline!

Here was my workflow before reading the post.

Lightroom (has resolution set to 240) and make any changes needed. If I don't need to go to photoshop then I'll export to jpg with 240 setting. If I need to use photoshop I'll do a ctrl+E and have photoshop open up the image from lightroom, do any changes and save it.

What I noticed was when it was opened up in PS the resolution was set to 72 and when it saved it I assume it saved it at 72 instead of the 240 originally in lightroom.

What do you use as the color space in LR, sRGB, ProPhotoRGB? How about PS?

Thanks,

Kevin

WinkXR6T

Not that it really matters but double check the DPI setting in the Edit > Perferences > External Editing. Sounds like your export setting is 240 and your external edit might be 72. Mine is the standard 240 and the files opened in PS from LR are also 240.

LR uses ProPhotoRGB so I use the same for exporting to PS.

kshays

WinkXR6T wrote: »

Not that it really matters but double check the DPI setting in the Edit > Perferences > External Editing. Sounds like your export setting is 240 and your external edit might be 72. Mine is the standard 240 and the files opened in PS from LR are also 240.

LR uses ProPhotoRGB so I use the same for exporting to PS.

Will check that out to make sure. And from exporting either from LR or PS -> jpg it will use sRGB correct?

ty!

WinkXR6T

Providing it's set for sRGB, yes.

RevLinePhoto

I would recommend turning your camera to adobe1998 rgb along with your computer, It has a much larger and generally more accurate color space compared to sRGB. If you google color space settings it can give you a visual comparison between sRGB, Adobe1998 RGB, ProPhotoRGB.

ProPhotoRBG is the better and largest varieties of available color of all but few cameras can produce images with that color space and few monitors and printers can reproduce the full ProPhotoRBG. So basically it is just safe to shoot and edit in Adobe1998 RGB and try to keep your use of sRGB to web only.

WinkXR6T

Adjusting the color space on camera has no effect on RAW files. It only applies to JPEG.

The Internet works in sRGB and most print labs do too.

I'd only suggest exporting to AdobeRGB if your printer/lab requires it.

LR and PS will work in ProPhoto. The colour space is only changed on export.

kshays

WinkXR6T wrote: »

Not that it really matters but double check the DPI setting in the Edit > Perferences > External Editing. Sounds like your export setting is 240 and your external edit might be 72. Mine is the standard 240 and the files opened in PS from LR are also 240.

LR uses ProPhotoRGB so I use the same for exporting to PS.

Everything looks good in LR/PS now Thanks for the info guys.

Kevin

WinkXR6T

No worries mate. Glad you got it all sorted.

Sam

I was seriously hoping this thread would go away, but alas no such luck.

Please don't take everything I post here personally, but posts like this do tend to make me cringe.

Before you offer to charge folks for photography services, prints and files I really believe one should have a very good base of knowledge.

It is incumbent on us to have the understanding necessary to provide at lease some minimum quality standard.

We do need to know what PPI, DPI, resolution, file types, 8bit versus 16 bit, color space, icc profiles, soft proofing, etc are.

Also, are you working on a good quality color calibrated monitor? Have you prepared image files and have them printed at several different labs? Are the results consistent? Do they match your monitor? Are they acceptable? If not do you know how to remedy the situation?

Taking a nice photo and having that photo display well on a monitor is one step. Printing that image is another level of knowledge and understanding.

My thoughts are practice and run trial prints to ensure there aren't any glaring omissions in your workflow.

Sam

kshays

Sam wrote: »

I was seriously hoping this thread would go away, but alas no such luck.

Please don't take everything I post here personally, but posts like this do tend to make me cringe.

Before you offer to charge folks for photography services, prints and files I really believe one should have a very good base of knowledge.

It is incumbent on us to have the understanding necessary to provide at lease some minimum quality standard.

We do need to know what PPI, DPI, resolution, file types, 8bit versus 16 bit, color space, icc profiles, soft proofing, etc are.

Also, are you working on a good quality color calibrated monitor? Have you prepared image files and have them printed at several different labs? Are the results consistent? Do they match your monitor? Are they acceptable? If not do you know how to remedy the situation?

Taking a nice photo and having that photo display well on a monitor is one step. Printing that image is another level of knowledge and understanding.

My thoughts are practice and run trial prints to ensure there aren't any glaring omissions in your workflow.

Sam

Sam,

If you were hoping the thread would go away then just why did you post? I'm a professional watercolor artist, have been since the age of 18 and I know how to price my originals and prints for those. I've sold many photographs earlier in my career, but it was from black and white prints that I have developed myself in the film days. That is not what I do for a living now so I asked for a little guidance

I have printed the images on a few different labs to make sure how they came out and if the monitor was calibrated. I have researched quite a bit before I even posted this question to make sure I was correct in what I have learned.

One has to start somewhere and to some you may come across as insulting because someone didn't know their stuff to start with. I would have taken your post as constructive criticism if your opening line wasn't what it was.

Wayupthere

Easy there Sam, none of us are born with any knowledge we have to learn it somehow. I am just moving into getting digital photos printed myself..I thought I knew..but I barley know enough to ask questions at this point.
Look at the differing opinions on this thread alone.
Gary

Sam

kshays wrote: »

Sam,

If you were hoping the thread would go away then just why did you post? I'm a professional watercolor artist, have been since the age of 18 and I know how to price my originals and prints for those. I've sold many photographs earlier in my career, but it was from black and white prints that I have developed myself in the film days. That is not what I do for a living now so I asked for a little guidance

I have printed the images on a few different labs to make sure how they came out and if the monitor was calibrated. I have researched quite a bit before I even posted this question to make sure I was correct in what I have learned.

One has to start somewhere and to some you may come across as insulting because someone didn't know their stuff to start with. I would have taken your post as constructive criticism if your opening line wasn't what it was.

Kshays,

My opening line was probably more to myself than anyone reading it. I knew I would come across anywhere from grumpy to harsh. That was my emotional response. The recommendations are more constructive.

I reread your post and it still reads the same to me as when I originally read it. This is really how it reads to me.

Here is what I read: Hi, I have this old camera and want to sell photos to people. I don't know anything about resolution, PPI, color space, bit depth, printing etc. What do I do?

Now with the additional information of having an artistic background, shooting film and developing your own prints, and having test prints done does provide information that changes my interpretation of your original post that lacks this info.

I Have ABSOLUTELY NO ISSUE with beginners or people that don't have a large base of knowledge and are seeking to learn more! I am and will be learning for the rest of my life!

What does concern me is the large number of people who pick up a camera and decide they are going to make some easy money. That is detrimental to clients, photographers, the general reputation and impression of photography. As a hobby photographer you / we are free to do anything you / we want. When you start charging folks is where I believe some minimum standards and level of knowledge should apply.

As an example the next post in the thread by, Wayupthere, is to me more straight forward and clear. While Gary my have thoughts of selling his services in the future he indicated no intent to immediately try to start charging anyone.


Easy there Sam, none of us are born with any knowledge we have to learn it somehow. I am just moving into getting digital photos printed myself..I thought I knew..but I barley know enough to ask questions at this point. Look at the differing opinions on this thread alone.
Gary
Them's me thoughts!

Sam

ps: I you ever see me trying paint and sell any water colors feel free to beat the heck out of me.

kshays

Sam wrote: »

Kshays,

My opening line was probably more to myself than anyone reading it. I knew I would come across anywhere from grumpy to harsh. That was my emotional response. The recommendations are more constructive.

I reread your post and it still reads the same to me as when I originally read it. This is really how it reads to me.

Here is what I read: Hi, I have this old camera and want to sell photos to people. I don't know anything about resolution, PPI, color space, bit depth, printing etc. What do I do?

Now with the additional information of having an artistic background, shooting film and developing your own prints, and having test prints done does provide information that changes my interpretation of your original post that lacks this info.

I Have ABSOLUTELY NO ISSUE with beginners or people that don't have a large base of knowledge and are seeking to learn more! I am and will be learning for the rest of my life!

What does concern me is the large number of people who pick up a camera and decide they are going to make some easy money. That is detrimental to clients, photographers, the general reputation and impression of photography. As a hobby photographer you / we are free to do anything you / we want. When you start charging folks is where I believe some minimum standards and level of knowledge should apply.

As an example the next post in the thread by, Wayupthere, is to me more straight forward and clear. While Gary my have thoughts of selling his services in the future he indicated no intent to immediately try to start charging anyone.


Easy there Sam, none of us are born with any knowledge we have to learn it somehow. I am just moving into getting digital photos printed myself..I thought I knew..but I barley know enough to ask questions at this point. Look at the differing opinions on this thread alone.
Gary
Them's me thoughts!

Sam

ps: I you ever see me trying paint and sell any water colors feel free to beat the heck out of me.

Sam,

It is quite hard at times to convey your actual message through email or forums for sure. Sometimes I come across really harsh in which I don't intend to.

On my original post I guess that I just didn't think anything about it, lol. I'm probably too critical of my own work anyway, but I always try to do the best though My approach to watercolor is probably a little different than the normal. I used to control it tighter than most people, but here lately I have loosened up and just tightened up near the focal point to draw the eye to it and keep it there.

I enjoy learning also, great feeling.

I too got a little mad a few weeks ago which I probably shouldn't have. My next door neighbor bought a P&S camera and started emailing me and others I know that he is there for all of our photography needs. I made the comment, "let someone buy a camera and they are now a professional photographer".

Like everyone else here I want to make sure my work is top notch, at least to the best of my ability at that time when I sell them.

Man, I've rambled on here way too much If you want to see what type of watercolor paintings I do and used to do feel free to visit my site at www.kevinhaysphotography.com

Any feedback, suggestions, criticism is welcome from any of you guys.

PS: Oh oh, I've done 2 family portraits in the past week with one of them deciding to go with me, but sorta reluctant. Basically others around my area charge 20-40 bucks for an entire session and cd with pictures. I had to explain why I charge higher prices. Both clients spent $150, session and cd of images. All in all, both were relaxing and easy to process with not a lot of touch ups.

kshays

erg
Ergg, something has happened to my site looks like, half the pictures are gone and not linked correctly.

Actually N/M, just saw in the support it's their site and I reverted 4 changes, DOH

WinkXR6T

I thought it was uncalled for Sam.
I managed to answer his questions without reading into his intentions for his photos or his level of experience.

I don't disagree with you regarding the amount of people trying to be "professional photographers", but that has nothing to do with the questions the OP has posed to us.

Sam

Kashays,

You posted: "I too got a little mad a few weeks ago which I probably shouldn't have. My next door neighbor bought a P&S camera and started emailing me and others I know that he is there for all of our photography needs. I made the comment, "let someone buy a camera and they are now a professional photographer".

I laughed myself silly when I read that. You do get it.

Sam

Sam

WinkXR6T wrote: »

I thought it was uncalled for Sam.
I managed to answer his questions without taking reading into his intentions for his photos or his level of experience.

I don't disagree with you regarding the amount of people trying to be "professional photographers", but that has nothing to do with the questions the OP has posed to us.

Perhaps............................the question asked is not always the question that needs to be answered.

Way too many jump in over there heads and hurt potential clients, and the field of photography. If someone wants to put in the time and effort to learn I am more than happy to help.

If someone posts "I have a wedding this weekend and they know I am not a pro so I am only charging them $500.00, what lenses should I use, and should I invest in a flash?" I have no interest other than to to tell them it's a big mistake and they are hurting the bride and groom.

If you mention charging for your services or selling then your entering the professional arena and are subject to comments regarding that.

Sam

WinkXR6T

The questions have been answered. That's enough of this nonsense.