Hi guys,

I want to choose which images to print from a very large selection (different dimensions, dpi).
The choice would obviously be based on personal taste but also eventual print quality (I'll probably have them printed at 150-200dpi, target dimensions 80x60cm and 60x40cm)

I'm on Windows 7.

This is what I'm doing:
Folder view -> Details
Sort by Horizontal resolution
Then I take a look at the dimensions and file size
I then open the images, zoom to actual size to see what it looks like (don't know if this means something or is purely subjective)

Is there a better way of doing this that would take less time? I want to find which images would be optimal to print.

I thought of using inkscape to compare the images but got really confused. I went through the FAQ and still don't get it.

Here's a screenshot of what I have. So which image would be the best to print if I'm going for quality? Can Inkscape be helpful in doing this or not?



Thanks a lot guys

OK, thanks for the help guys. But seriously I realize my question wasn't very clear.

I've done some more reading and learned the following:

1. Inkscape is of no use for what I'm trying to do (it automatically scales the images based on DPI).
2. Dimensions are key - if you have an image that is 800x600 it just won't make a large fine print.
3. PPI over DPI - DPI is up to the printer so it makes no difference what it says in your image details.
4. A PPI over 100 is a good starting point for posters - so I make the selection based on this.
5. Printing over 150 DPI (some suggest that 100-120 is good enough if you don't look at it up close).

So for my case - 80x60cm and 60x40cm.
Using this calculator (Print Size to Pixels Calculator - http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/ ... lators.htm) I get these results:

60cm x 40cm at 100 ppi > 2362px x 1575px
at 150 ppi > 3543px x 2362px

80cm x 60cm at 100 ppi > 3150px x 2362px
at 150 ppi > 4724px x 3543px

I hope this helps someone in the future.

Hi.

Have you seen this related topic?

Use real world units when drawing>>>save as pdf>>>print actual size.
From that on, only the pixel size matters of the raster images - how many of them are stretched to a certain size in the printing process.

Regular A4 sheet resolution is considered at 300 dpi, and 600 for photo quality.

You can do the math that reading an A4 printed page is done at a certain view angle,
and looking at a poster with the same angle, from a different distance requires more drawing space.
Theoretically that would mean a linear connection -viewed from 1m could mean stretching the A4 size to a four times larger print-,
which equals an 1/4 "minimum pixel density" ~~75 dpi.
So yes, those values "could be right".

On a side note brightness of the light sources and distance are in a square connection, so you will need more lighting than for looking at a small print for equal legibility.


On another side note, being in the architect field to some extent myself, I wouldn't print posters below 300 dpi because they are usually containing plans and details that you need to see and read in closeup.

Hi,

That was very helpful, thanks for the tips!

I went through that topic and the other you've suggested and things are clearer now.

Also found out about JPEG Export Extension. Seems like something that should be built-in.

I think that as long as the dimensions are big enough 300dpi would be optimal.

But if that one awesome image is just smaller then you choose between lower dpi or a smaller print. Tough choice

I almost answered your first message. But I get so confused about DPI. I decided to let someone else handle it.

Edit
But yes, there have been regular arguments among developers, over the years, about making a native JPG export. It's requests from users which starts each argument, as far as I've seen. And the last discussion I saw, it was my opinion that devs might be softening to the idea. So users, post to the User mailing list and ask for it. If you know enough to have a technical discussion with developers, post to the development mailing list.

I've followed a couple of these discussions, but darned if I can really understand the devs' opposition. Maybe it they could say in simpler language, those of us who bridge the user and dev communities can help by explaining it to other users.

It's not all devs who are opposed actually. I don't know why some dev who is in favor doesn't just write it into the code. Most of the time, code which is proper, it works, and doesn't break anything else, goes right in, as far as I can tell. (After all, development mantra is "patch first, discuss later"!)

Maybe it's hard to do, I don't really know....

No, I don't think it would be difficult to implement. It's a discussion about values and principles, as far as I can tell.

One of the main benefits of having a forum is getting feedback from the users.

I wouldn't go so far as to try to convince a developer to do anything.

If they've been opposed to adding this specific feature for years then there's obviously a reason.

PNG is generally better for vector graphics than JPG so maybe that has something to do with it.

If I had to I'd export to JPG for convenience. Yes, there are PNG to JPG websites (even batch ones) but still...