When creating a new drawing, I sized it at 8x10". But there was nowhere to set the dpi. Then I found out that drawings in Inkscape are seen at 90dpi (If I understood correctly).

So, I figured that an 8x10" drawing (mixed text and photo) to be printed at 300dpi should be 2400x3000 pixels. So I went to file > document properties, and changed it there, then closed off document properties. Then I went back to the drawing, but the rulers still indicate that the drawing is still at 720x900 pixels. I rechecked the document properties, and it still says 2400 x 3000 pixels just like I typed it in. So now I am confused.

Anyway, I want to know if I print from Inkscape, will I get a document set at 90 dpi? Or should I be exporting the document in another format and printing it from another program?

I want to print at 300 dpi, not 90. I also saved the drawing as a pdf, and don't know what dpi it saved at either. The page size is correct, but what about the dpi?

Totally confused now.........

Oh, I also noticed that I had to really reduce the size of the photo I embedded in the document, so now I am thinking it will print out horribly.....I can't print for a few days as I am out of toner, but I am suspecting the print will be no good.

Even if the document is for 2400x3000 px, the objects will remain the original size until you scale them up to fit the document. I'd select-all in all layers and scale by dragging or transform panel.

You set the dpi when you render the SVG as a raster image. Select File -> Export PNG Image... A dialog will appear where you can set the dpi.

Shawnhcorey, do you mean that even though Inkscape is showing the document as 90dpi, it will become 300dpi when I change it to export as PNG? Will I notice the difference in quality of print when I print an inkscape document versus a png image? But what about the photo object that I had to reduce down to 25% of it's original size? Also, I am noticing that even if I entered 300 dpi in the png dialog box, the pixels still remained at 720 x 900 pixels in the dialog box, I don't understand that...I also got a png that is 2189 kb - is that consistent with having an 8 x 10" document at 300dpi?

Tylerdurden - The strange thing is that when I changed the document properties to 2400 x 3000 pixels, the rulers in the document did not change, they remained at the 720 x 900 pixels, so there was no new background page to scale the document up to. Changing pixel values in document properties only seemed to work in a new blank document where the rulers did change size and the background page changed as well. On top of that, when I change the pixel size doesn't the inch size of the printed document change too, and I will no longer have an 8 x 10" document, but rather a much larger document?
I saved the document as a pdf with 2400 x 3000 pixels, and the document is showing with a tiny image in the bottom left hand corner. I can't seem to attach it here, the pdf is too large. The pdf does say that the file is 26.67 x 33.33" and 1.27 mb

SVG has two ways of measuring images: pixels (px) and real-world measurements (pt, cm, m, in, mm, pc, ft).

If the default units are pixels, then dpi does not make sense. After all, dpi means dots (pixels) per inch. It is used to convert real-world measurements to pixels (dots). Since the image is already in pixels, changing it has no meaning and no effect.

All you can do when you export is change the total number of pixels in the width or height. This will scale the image. And if they are not locked together, the image will scale by different ratios in the X and Y directions.

Shawn, you are confusing the issue... since the document has an embedded bitmap, scaling the image up in Inkscape is paramount. Besides, if the user is outputting to send to a service-bureau, export to a bitmap is a poor choice and negates the point of using Inkscape rather than GIMP to add graphic elements.

Here's the deal: the document size has been set (2400x3000), but if you want to see the rulers change to inches you set those separately or change the default document units to inches or whatever units you prefer. (Sometimes people prefer to mix units.)

When you scaled everything down, you were scaling to fit a 90dpi (or ppi) workspace, because Inkscape uses 90ppi as an internal standard (this is changing, btw).

So, again, if you intend to work at 300dpi/ppi, refer to my post above.

PS
Again, Changing the document size does not change the contents, content needs to be selected and scaled too.

tylerdurden wrote:Shawn, you are confusing the issue... since the document has an embedded bitmap,

Then work in px only. That includes fonts.

Sometimes people prefer to mix units.

Unless they're very good at math, they will only confuse themselves. Stick with px or real-world measurements. Don't mix them.

Tylerdurden, I am quite confused. If I am wanting to make 8" wide x 10" high printable documents, mixed font and photos, which program should I be using? I have Gimp, but found that Gimp cannot make basic shapes like stars, circles, etc. so I thought I was supposed to use a vector-based program. If I am not mistaken, Gimp's fonts are raster-based, not vector based, and it would be preferable to use Inkscape? Should I just be making font elements in Inkscape, flattening them to the background, then importing to Gimp and adding photos to another layer in Gimp to complete the document?

.......my original photo was 4000 x 3200 and 2.15 MB, I had to resize it down to only 25% to fit into the Inkscape 8 x 10, 90dpi workspace, and that little file is 1000 x 800, and 65.9 KB. I am assuming that this tiny photo is not adequate for print quality, am I right?

maisie,

You can use Inkscape for this very well. the vector elements will look great and so should your raster content.

If you scale the embedded image within Inkscape, it should retain all its data and not degrade when printing at 300dpi. Same if you save as PDF and print later. If I were printing directly from Inkscape, I'd set the document for 8x10 and print. Set the dpi in the printer settings.

You want to make 8" wide x 10" a high printable document, then go for it:
set default units to inches or pt.
For the printing you will probably end up saving your work as pdf.
All your embedded images will be printed at their true size -the size defined in your drawing in real world units.
No need to deal with dpi-s any further.
That means, your images can be printed at any random dpi values regarding their px values and the size they are stretched to.
It's up to the printer's rip to render it right with ink dots -at its own probably fixed printing resolution.


If you want to print straight from a raster image, then it would matter what dpi setting is embedded in your raster image, to make it appear in the desired size. I have no experience with that, win systems don't provide too much straightforward settings on it.


Inkscape (<0.91) works 90 dpi. That only means the image appears at 100% zoom level exactly as exported by the default 90 dpi setting.
Illustrator and other softwares work at 72 dpi.
More confusingly from 0.92 inkscape is updated to be 96 dpi, matching the javascript's spec concept (?).
Such dpi is more of a theoretical value. Computer screens have various dpi resolutions -divide the px width of the screen with the measured width in inches for reference-.
Most printers are capable to print in way higher resolutions than 72/90/96 dpi.


I'd suggest sticking to real world units and printing from a pdf.
Don't resize the embedded raster images with a raster editor, embed them at their original px sizes. No printers will get hurt if they end up to be 458,5 dpi in the final document instead of 300 dpi.

Lazur are you saying that I can print a really nice quality print (the photo part of the document)? So I should not be worrying about Inkscape being at 720 x 900 pixels for an 8 x 10" document?

Also, I had to scale the original photo down to 25% outside of Inskcape (in a raster program called Photoplus) before I imported it into Inkscape before I scaled it even more in Inkscape because I could not see the edges to scale it within the workspace. Are you saying I should have imported it into Inkscape without scaling it first? Did that make sense........haha!

I saved the document as a PDF, and put the resolution for rasterization at 300dpi - is that the correct way to do it? The PDF document properties says that it is 1.85 MB. I called a Staples printer who said an 8 x 10" document should typically be 3 or 4 MB, so the quality of mine will not be very good. Is he correct?

Thanks!

Tylerdurden - The strange thing is that when I changed the document properties to 2400 x 3000 pixels, the rulers in the document did not change, they remained at the 720 x 900 pixels, so there was no new background page to scale the document up to.

I think here you may have forgotten to zoom out (that's would fit with the image being tiny in the pdf, which always shows the full page area, and the rulers still remaining at the same size). The page area most certainly changed when you changed it in the document properties.

About the file size:
PDFs can contain vector data, in that case their file size in kb can be small.

Yes, Moini, you are right - I did not zoom out properly, and that is why the pdf had a tiny document in the bottom left hand corner.

maisieinforestburg wrote:Lazur are you saying that I can print a really nice quality print (the photo part of the document)? So I should not be worrying about Inkscape being at 720 x 900 pixels for an 8 x 10" document?

It depends on the raster image's pixel size -displayed in the bottom indication i.e "Image 3600 x 4800 embedded in layer1".
The px size in the top box displays the physical units in pixels at 90/96 dpi. The smaller that value is, the denser the same image will be printed at/the higher dpi will it have in a pdf.
It shows what size should the image stretched up to at printing.
Again, more straightforward it is to use real world units for that purpose.
The top values, either 900 px or 10" means the same height. That shouldn't make a difference.

Also, I had to scale the original photo down to 25% outside of Inskcape (in a raster program called Photoplus) before I imported it into Inkscape before I scaled it even more in Inkscape because I could not see the edges to scale it within the workspace. Are you saying I should have imported it into Inkscape without scaling it first?

Definitely. By using a raster editor to scale down the image you decrease the data that can be displayed.
You will end up with less raster image pixels covering the same area. If it is not on purpose, like for saving space I'd really not recommend that.
Even saving in a jpeg format could be better but png-s can be compressed nicely too.

I saved the document as a PDF, and put the resolution for rasterization at 300dpi - is that the correct way to do it?

Only filter effects are affected by that resolution value -resolution for rasterizing filter effect.
Blurring is the most commonly used filter, for like adding drop shadows. However pdf-s don't support filters.
(Filtering is rendered live as the vector content, although technically it's just a gymnastic for the computers on the rendering level. Filters define a process how to calculate each screen pixels in an area instead of the regular way, without affecting the underlying vector content.)
So if you have a dropshadow added somewhere, it needs to be rasterized and that setting refers to the resolution of such a raster image "double".
Can't say how the pdf is structured after that, they can be quite complex without a noticeable structure to the naked eye.

The PDF document properties says that it is 1.85 MB. I called a Staples printer who said an 8 x 10" document should typically be 3 or 4 MB, so the quality of mine will not be very good. Is he correct?

Depends on the content. The actual px size of the embedded raster image -as you see it in gimp or photoplus-, the file type -bmp, png, jpg, tiff, gif etc.-, and what's present on that picture.
A copy of Malevich's White on White as a greyscale gif could be pretty small data compared to Van Gogh's Flowers in a blue vase saved as a 64bit png, even if the number of pixels are the exact same.

maisieinforestburg wrote:Also, I had to scale the original photo down to 25% outside of Inskcape (in a raster program called Photoplus) before I imported it into Inkscape before I scaled it even more in Inkscape because I could not see the edges to scale it within the workspace. Are you saying I should have imported it into Inkscape without scaling it first? Did that make sense........haha!

Yep,
Here's how:

Thanks Tylerdurden, Lazar!

Lazar, are you saying that if I have dropshadows (by blurring a copy of text underneath the top layer of text) in my document and I convert it to PDF, those will not show up? How do I rasterize those dropshadows then? Or did I already do that by setting the rasterization to 300dpi in the dialog box when I saved the document to PDF?

Also, are the vector elements such as text rasterized when I set the rasterization to 300 dpi when saving to a PDF so that if I send it to a printer and they don't have the font it won't print out looking funny?

That is an option in the save as pdf dialog. Tick in the box if you want to preserve the filter's appearance.

Text won't be rasterized, they can still be kept as vectors.
To do that there is another useful option to convert texts to paths in the dialog -as far as I know inkscape cannot embed the font file so that's the workaround if you want to open the pdf on a machine not having the used font installed.
Important if the look of the lettering is part of the design. The downside is that you won't be able selecting text characters in the pdf after they are converted to paths.

Ok thanks, Lazar