2

How do I get the highest resolution my camera can take a photo at? I want to be able to have a picture as Photoshop-ready as I possibly can.

For example, if I need to upload high resolution art at 300 dpi for screen printing. I am using a picture, that when imported into my computer, its resolutionis 1378px x 775px horizontal & vertical resolution at 96 dpi with a bit depth of 24. When I place it on a Photoshop canvas that has the bigger dimensions both horizontally and vertically and has the DPI set at 300, when I zoom in 100% my picture is blurry around the edges of objects.

So my question is how do I set up my camera so that I don't get a blotchy picture when I place it in Photoshop. From one of the answers I take it that DPI is not associated with a camera setting PPI would be.

inkista
  • 52,065
  • 10
  • 88
  • 161
Robert Gomez
  • 23
  • 1
  • 1
  • 5
  • Okay, the question is now no longer unclear, but it is still a little confused. I suggest first reading Does the dpi number reported by camera in JPG have any meaning? — and note that this applies to "PPI" as well — and then refocusing on the actual question of "my question is how do i set up my camera so that i dont get a blotchy picture when i place it in photoshop." – mattdm Sep 11 '15 at 12:55
  • 1
    But there's still a puzzle — you say you have a 1378px × 775px picture. That's not very many pixels — in fact, just about one megapixel. Is that coming from your camera, or somewhere else? – mattdm Sep 11 '15 at 12:57
  • @mattdm, you pointed the obvious problem, which is why is the OP getting such a ridiculous amount of pixels in the first place. Next step is camera manual or extra/interpolation... – Olivier Sep 11 '15 at 16:49

2 Answers2

9

There is no highest resolution as DPI is a meaningless without knowing the print size.

With a given camera, the smaller you print, the higher the DPI. If you need a certain DPI for some given print size than you can determine the resolution needed.

As a simple example, to print a 6" x 4" print at 300 DPI, you need 6 x 300 = 1800 pixels wide and 4 x 300 = 1200 pixels tall. This is required 1800 x 1200 = 2160000 pixels which is 2 megapixels or so.

There are several cameras that capture 50+ MP. For example, a Pentax 645Z can produce a 27" x 20" at 300 DPI or you can decide to make a 13" x 10" at 600 DPI instead. Print smaller and you can get even higher resolution, up to the maximum which your printer can handle.

Itai
  • 102,570
  • 12
  • 191
  • 423
  • But don't most printers require at least 3 dots to reproduce one pixel? And some may require as many as 6 or 8, depending upon the number of ink colors the printer uses? – Michael C Apr 24 '16 at 02:46
  • @MichaelClark - Its much more than that, usually 36 or 49, at least. That's because dots are only only tone of one color, so you need a whole pattern to print any color among the printer's gamut. – Itai Apr 24 '16 at 03:15
  • So then don't you really mean 300 PPI or 600 PPI, not 300 or 600 DPI? – Michael C Apr 24 '16 at 09:05
1

Edited to fit the new question:

You can not change the PPI (or dpi) settings on your camera. Normally they declare 72 PPI, 96, or some do not declare it at all.

The thing you can do is declare the resolution on your canvas in Photoshop to fit the one your camera is declaring, before loading a photo.

So, the main part of this question is about the configuration of a Photoshop file.

The previous answer (Was totally different, so this part looks out of place)

You are really confusing different things here.

1) PPI

DPI is in reality a unit used in printers to define how small the dots are (and how many dots can be in an inch)

In photography, the unit is not a dot (per inch), but a pixel (per inch). The number you are referring to, 300, is this unit: PPI, and it is a relationship between the actual pixels of an image and the physical print size.

Here are 2 photos:

One is about 700 ppi and the other is 10 ppi.

In terms of image size on screen, or photos taken out of a camera they are the same.

PPI is just a number inside the photo and it's only used in print or when viewing the metadata using the software. It has no meaning in the photo itself.

2) Photo resolution.

Some High-end cameras cost several thousand dollars and can go for some 100 Megapixels or more.

Very big files.

3) Composite images.

There are some techniques that combine different photos of smaller sections, into one stitching them. They are often used on astronomy, where the telescope has a limited resolution.

One example is the Andromeda galaxy by the Hubble.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/hs-2015-02-a-hires_jpg.jpg or: http://360gigapixels.com/london-320-gigapixel-panorama/ 320 gigapixels.

Rafael
  • 24,760
  • 1
  • 43
  • 81
  • 3
    I don't think this terminology is correct at all. Exif metadata, for example, very clearly uses dpi — even though that also makes no sense. Further, the images you have posted have been stripped of all metadata anyway. These images are displayed at whatever PPI and/or DPI they happen to be displayed at on various users' systems. – mattdm Sep 07 '15 at 23:48
  • The use of dpi is basicly wrong. 2) Yes the photos are the same, I can modify that little number inside (ppi) and the photo is the same, that is the point. 3) The images are displayed at whatever... yes. But the photo resolution its the same. Yes. This terminology is correct.
    • – Rafael Sep 07 '15 at 23:52
  • I don't disagree with your basic point, but I also don't want things confused further by introducing PPI into the mix and then representing that in a confusing way. – mattdm Sep 07 '15 at 23:59
  • My apologies — I see you have set X Resolution and Y Resolution in the JFIF application segment metadata, rather than in the EXIF format normally recorded by digital cameras. So there is descriptive metadata there, just not of the normal sort. – mattdm Sep 08 '15 at 00:08
  • :-) The normal recorded data (72) is just an historical value defined by apple on old macintoch computers. And I added a brief explanation on the ppi part. – Rafael Sep 08 '15 at 00:11
  • No, EXIF is a standard (used by most — in fact, I think all mass-market — cameras), and JFIF is a different one. When you use these values in JFIF, you can also set Units — either in dots per inch (DPI) or dots per centimeter (DPC, I guess, although I've never seen that) — see http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/JFIF.html. – mattdm Sep 08 '15 at 00:16
  • Whether or not the number in metadata should be called PPI or DPI is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, but it usually actually is called DPI. – mattdm Sep 08 '15 at 00:17
  • Note that I'm not arguing about 700/10 vs. 72. I'm noting that whatever software you used to do this stored those DPI values in a place which meets a standard but which is not the typical standard used for JPEG files from a digital camera. – mattdm Sep 08 '15 at 00:50
  • 2
    From an update to the question: "From one of the answers i take it that DPI is not associated with a camera setting PPI would be." — exactly why I felt this answer wasn't helpful. – mattdm Sep 11 '15 at 06:53
  • Well. The question is a totally new one now. Xo) You owe me 2 points. – Rafael Sep 11 '15 at 07:01
  • 1
    It was obvious to me from the original question that throwing in an argument of PPI vs. DPI was just going to add confusion. And then it exactly did. You can have your two points back when you make that part of your answer less confusing. And your new answer still doesn't actually make the important part clear. – mattdm Sep 11 '15 at 12:53
  • Well part of your answer didn't age well. I just looked on B&H and I can buy a 100 MP Hasselblad for $8,200, or a 102 MP Fujifilm for $6,000 – Peter M Aug 20 '23 at 01:40
  • Hi Peter M. I am editing that part. Ty. – Rafael Aug 21 '23 at 01:20