Options

Montage too small for print?

oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
edited July 19, 2011 in Technique
Seems like i have been getting into all sorts of bother in cs5 using 32bit vista.
I made a montage of pictures i took with my 5d2. Saved all of the images from raw conversion to jpeg into one file. Made a new canvas to work on that is 32 inch by 19 inches. Making sure that the canvas had a resolution of 300 pixels per centimeter would leave me safe to print off the montage when i was finished working on it. Saved my file and now its 1.51 mb which shows up as 2304 by 1368. Surely this cant be the finished size of a picture this size.
I dont know where i went wrong but could someone here help me please?:scratch

Regards
Patrick

Comments

  • Options
    SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited July 18, 2011
    I can't figure out what went wrong with the info provided, but one thing you want to do is check and see if you set the resolution to 300 pixels per centimeter or pixels per inch. You want to make sure to use pixels per inch.

    Nothing I have tried will give me 2304 by 1368 pixels?

    You may have to start over.

    Sam
    www.samlinvillephotography.com
  • Options
    oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
    edited July 18, 2011
    Sam wrote: »
    I can't figure out what went wrong with the info provided, but one thing you want to do is check and see if you set the resolution to 300 pixels per centimeter or pixels per inch. You want to make sure to use pixels per inch.

    Nothing I have tried will give me 2304 by 1368 pixels?

    You may have to start over.

    Sam

    Yes. i did set it to 300 pixels per centimeter. Aww shucks back to the drawing board. Hold on, can i change this if i saved the file as a psd, even after i have the pictures on it? Thanks Sam. My head was on backwards but i will have to finish this tomorrw night as i have a full 2 day course on suicide prevention to do for the next two days. Thanks again.

    Regards
    Patrick:D
  • Options
    puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited July 18, 2011
    Unless you've used 'save as' somewhere in your workflow and you have another file somewhere that's going to give you 9600x5700 'true' pixels - ie no interpolation ... you're going to have to redo, methinks :(

    I'd suggest always doing a rough mental calc first (ensuring dec. point is in right place), so's you've got an accurate ball-park figure for the correct pixel dimensions before doing anything drastic.

    Also - taking a leaf out of the world of 3D modelling, where it's standard practice to save (as) at different stages ... this'd give you the opportunity to backtrack to a suitable point if things've gone pear shaped somewhere.

    To dump the 'extra / inbetween' files when you've finished is a darned sight easier than having to redo - imo, anyway.

    pp
    Website

    Flickr
  • Options
    SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited July 18, 2011
    oakfieldphotography.com wrote: »
    Yes. i did set it to 300 pixels per centimeter. Aww shucks back to the drawing board. Hold on, can i change this if i saved the file as a psd, even after i have the pictures on it? Thanks Sam. My head was on backwards but i will have to finish this tomorrw night as i have a full 2 day course on suicide prevention to do for the next two days. Thanks again.

    Regards
    Patrick:D

    Patrick,

    While it might be a bit exasperating and additional work, I don't believe it rises to suicide.

    But then again better to be safe. :D

    Good luck with the class.

    Sam
    www.samlinvillephotography.com
  • Options
    oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
    edited July 18, 2011
    puzzledpaul wrote: »
    Unless you've used 'save as' somewhere in your workflow and you have another file somewhere that's going to give you 9600x5700 'true' pixels - ie no interpolation ... you're going to have to redo, methinks :(

    I'd suggest always doing a rough mental calc first (ensuring dec. point is in right place), so's you've got an accurate ball-park figure for the correct pixel dimensions before doing anything drastic.

    Also - taking a leaf out of the world of 3D modelling, where it's standard practice to save (as) at different stages ... this'd give you the opportunity to backtrack to a suitable point if things've gone pear shaped somewhere.

    To dump the 'extra / inbetween' files when you've finished is a darned sight easier than having to redo - imo, anyway.

    pp
    Hi PuzzlePaul
    Looks like i will have to restart it all again for the third time. I dont know about rough mental calc first as all i will do is type in 300 pixels per inch to cure my problem. I dont even know what interpolation means and i hope i dont have to learn it either. lol
    Thanks for your help.
    Reargds
    Patrick.:D
  • Options
    oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
    edited July 18, 2011
    Sam wrote: »
    Patrick,

    While it might be a bit exasperating and additional work, I don't believe it rises to suicide.

    But then again better to be safe. :D

    Good luck with the class.

    Sam

    Nice one there, But i was to fill a vacant position left on the course for my daughter. Looks like they dont want me now and i can get this montage finished for tomorrow night. I do help organise a vintage car and tractor run every year for this cause and i will post some pictures after the event on sunday night.
    Thanks for your help Sam

    Regards Patrick.:D
  • Options
    puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited July 18, 2011
    oakfieldphotography.com wrote: »
    Hi PuzzlePaul
    Looks like i will have to restart it all again for the third time. I dont know about rough mental calc first as all i will do is type in 300 pixels per inch to cure my problem. I dont even know what interpolation means and i hope i dont have to learn it either. lol
    Thanks for your help.
    Reargds
    Patrick.:D

    Hope all goes well ...

    Certainly entering the correct data will get you what you wanted, but already knowing that the file should be *about* 9000 x 6000 pixels would then've set off alarm bells if completely different canvas dimensions had subsequently popped up.

    Interpolation is when p/shop has to 'invent' extra pixels during certain types of image transformation - a typical example being if you want to resize / scale an image to have greater pixel dimensions than its native size - in your case, with a 5D2 - 5616x3744 pixels.

    Too much of this can affect IQ

    pp
    Website

    Flickr
  • Options
    oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
    edited July 19, 2011
    puzzledpaul wrote: »
    Hope all goes well ...

    Certainly entering the correct data will get you what you wanted, but already knowing that the file should be *about* 9000 x 6000 pixels would then've set off alarm bells if completely different canvas dimensions had subsequently popped up.

    Interpolation is when p/shop has to 'invent' extra pixels during certain types of image transformation - a typical example being if you want to resize / scale an image to have greater pixel dimensions than its native size - in your case, with a 5D2 - 5616x3744 pixels.

    Too much of this can affect IQ

    pp


    I may have landed my self with a task here. The final print is going to be difficult. Here have a look.
    5940393811_8301347bf3_z.jpg
    34342 by OakField Photography, on Flickr

    With a background canvas size of 14478 pixels high and 24384 pixels wide the problem is resizing the main picture in the centre to the full height of the background from its original size of 6144 pixels high by 4096 pixels wide.
    Sure i can drag the original into the background but it is nearly 2 1/2 times shorter than the full height it needs to be.
    Sorry for posting this picture here but i am getting frustrated.
    When i done the original montage if thats what you call it on a lower resolution background i pulled the main picture onto the blank canvas. i used the select tool and dragged the image to the height i required. Since our discussion here i got worried about the quality of the final print now that i have upped the resolution of the background.
    Can you help please?

    Regards
    Patrickheadscratch.gif
  • Options
    puzzledpaulpuzzledpaul Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
    edited July 19, 2011
    Patrick - have you shifted the goalposts re what size you intend to print this montage at, because the figures in your post 9 don't 'tie up' with the size you originally mentioned?

    The size you originally mentioned - 32in x 19in @ 300ppi equates to a 9600 x 5700 pixel file.

    The size you're now saying you have - 24384 x 14478 pixels - would - @ 300ppi produce a print 81.28in x 48.26in ... ie approx 7ft x 4ft

    I'm also somewhat intrigued when you mention the size of the 'main picture' being 6144 x 4096 pixels ... since you're using a 5D2 - which produces a 5616 x 3744 pixel file.
    (did this main pic come from somewhere else ... or has it already been 'tweaked' somehow?)

    The reason this main pic 'seems' too small is not because it's too small ... but it's because the main canvas is too big.
    If the main canvas was its correct size for a 32in x 19in pic @ 300ppi (9600 x 5700 pixels) then your main pic (@ 6144px high) would, in fact be a bit too big ... you'd have to crop a bit off :)

    I've no idea how you've arrived at such an enormous canvas ... but my suspicions centre on the fact that 2.54cm = 1in ... and 24384 / 9600 also = 2.54
    hth

    pp


    Edit
    Just to re-state.
    Assuming you still want to print a 32in x 19in canvas @ 300ppi ... then a canvas size of anything other than 9600 x 5700 pixels is incorrect.
    If you use Image > Canvas size to check this, it removes resolution from the 'equation' and thus simplifies things a bit (imo).

    (I only use CS, so am assuming things are similar in CS5, btw)
    Website

    Flickr
  • Options
    oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
    edited July 19, 2011
    puzzledpaul wrote: »
    Patrick - have you shifted the goalposts re what size you intend to print this montage at, because the figures in your post 9 don't 'tie up' with the size you originally mentioned?

    The size you originally mentioned - 32in x 19in @ 300ppi equates to a 9600 x 5700 pixel file.

    The size you're now saying you have - 24384 x 14478 pixels - would - @ 300ppi produce a print 81.28in x 48.26in ... ie approx 7ft x 4ft

    I'm also somewhat intrigued when you mention the size of the 'main picture' being 6144 x 4096 pixels ... since you're using a 5D2 - which produces a 5616 x 3744 pixel file.
    (did this main pic come from somewhere else ... or has it already been 'tweaked' somehow?)

    The reason this main pic 'seems' too small is not because it's too small ... but it's because the main canvas is too big.
    If the main canvas was its correct size for a 32in x 19in pic @ 300ppi (9600 x 5700 pixels) then your main pic (@ 6144px high) would, in fact be a bit too big ... you'd have to crop a bit off :)

    I've no idea how you've arrived at such an enormous canvas ... but my suspicions centre on the fact that 2.54cm = 1in ... and 24384 / 9600 also = 2.54
    hth

    pp


    Edit
    Just to re-state.
    Assuming you still want to print a 32in x 19in canvas @ 300ppi ... then a canvas size of anything other than 9600 x 5700 pixels is incorrect.
    If you use Image > Canvas size to check this, it removes resolution from the 'equation' and thus simplifies things a bit (imo).

    (I only use CS, so am assuming things are similar in CS5, btw)

    Thanks for your help Puzzledpaul. I might have jumped a post in front of you. Yes you are correct and i was glad that i could figure out this one with everyones help. Thanks again

    Regards
    Patrickwings.gif
  • Options
    oakfieldphotography.comoakfieldphotography.com Registered Users Posts: 376 Major grins
    edited July 19, 2011
    Ok guys, here is what went wrong. I had entered 700 pixels per inch but i have since corrected this to 300 and all is ok.

    Regards
    Patrick:D
Sign In or Register to comment.