PPI/DPI setting... why do you want it?

I occasionally see requests for a PPI/DPI setting in Aperture and I just noticed a request for the same in the discussion about Adobe's Lightroom. I've posted comments about why a PPI/DPI setting is not needed, so I'm curious to see if maybe I'm missing something and I'd like to hear some feedback on the subject to help educate myself and others along the way. If my examples aren't exactly clear and seem confusing, perhaps someone else can explain what I'm saying in a much more elegant and easier understood way.

Here's a copy of my original post about the subject. I've added a few other examples for further clarification on pixel dimensions in relationship to output.


"An output ppi/dpi setting is not necessary and not relevant and here's why...

Remember, were talking about pixels here, not inches. Pixel dimensions are all that matter when it comes to sizes in digital photography.

So when you export an file from Aperture and want something different from the built-in presets, choose "Edit" from the "Export Preset" pop-up in the Export dialog box. You can then add your own settings based upon the output pixel dimensions you would like to have.

For instance, if you need an 8 x 10 inch image, then take whatever ppi/dpi you would like and times it by those dimensions. A common standard for the web is 72ppi, so your pixel dimensions for an 8 x 10 inch image will be 576 pixels x 720 pixels. A common standard for printing is 300dpi, so then an 8 x 10 inch image will need to be 2400 pixels x 3000 pixels.

Hence, say you have a 2400 pixel x 3000 pixel file, it would equal...

- 8 x 10 inches @ 300 ppi
- 33.333 x 41.667 inches @ 72ppi
- 4 x 5 inches @ 600ppi
- 10 x 12.5 inches @ 240ppi
- 2400 x 3000 inches @ 1ppi

All the above listed dimensions will give you the exact same perfect 8 x 10 inch print from a 300dpi printer. In fact, whatever the dpi of the printer, each of the above listed dimensions will print the same size on the same printer.

Say you gave your favorite printer a file that another image editing application (Photoshop perhaps) says is 33.333 x 41.667 inches @ 72dpi or any of the other combinations I listed above. Well most printers are set to print at 300dpi, so it would output perfectly as an 8 x 10 inch print. If the printer was set to print at 360dpi, then you would have a perfect 6.667 x 8.333 inch print.

Again, if you need an 8 x 10 inch print and the printer prints at 300dpi, then you need a 2400 x 3000 pixel file, if you need a 16 x 20 inch print, and the printer prints at 300dpi, then you need a 4800 x 6000 pixel file. If the printer prints a 240dpi, then an 8 x 10 inch print would need to be 1920 pixels x 2400 pixels and a 16 x 20 inch print would need to be 3840 pixels x 4800 pixels.

So, you see, it doesn't matter what you ppi/dpi is, it can be anything you want it to be. The only thing you need to know is what you want your pixel dimensions to be and choose those based upon what your output device is."

-Robert

PowerMac G5 Quad 2.5Ghz Mac OS X (10.4.3) 4.5GB RAM, Nvidia 7800 GT, 600GB RAID

Posted on Jan 9, 2006 8:32 AM

Reply
41 replies

Jan 16, 2006 9:12 PM in response to Network 23

I understand this concern, but consider this: In
Aperture 2.0, 3.0, etc, Apple will add other
features, and it is likely that compared to this
proposed features, some of those other new features
will lead to steeper slippery slopes of feature creep
than the "horror" of resampling could.


Sure, but as a product manager you have to keep your product as well-defined as possible. What is Aperture? What isn't Aperture?

Aperture is photography.

Aperture isn't print/production.

It's that simple.

Jan 19, 2006 10:17 AM in response to L M

It isn't that simple, because there is also the question of integration. A product manager will strive to increase the value of the product by integrating it into valuable workflows. As I've laid out, this one small change adds value without removing any, at a small cost. Again, there will be bigger bloat battles to be fought than this one. I really didn't intend to draw out the discussion this far, except that there is so much more to be gained by implementing it than by preventing its implementation.

If the anti-dpi crowd is correct, perhaps a case could also be made for removing the print engine that does layouts, since photographers have traditionally had someone else do that.

Jan 19, 2006 11:43 AM in response to Robert Olding

what if my camera gives more than 275dpi not 72?, and what if my client ask for at least 1200dpi, then I have to tansfer the images to a file rezize them one by one in probably photoshop or an automatic program like the one it comes with my camera.. the thing is I am not getting any faster than before.. Is actually slower than before, the thing on owning aperture should be faster instead it has made the contrary and we are slower with our finish product

Jan 19, 2006 12:55 PM in response to L M

Ok, that will be nice.. but is so wierd how now is an issue of people who don't do production as this aperture program is sold as a professional product..? and again we go back to the thing of instead of having one or two programs to do all te post to my work now I have more than 4 programs to do my post, this is incredible guys.. first was just photoshop.. now there is: Nokon viewer, Canon Viewer, Aperture, Lightroom, Bridge, and noww we are in the blink of going to more than this programs.. mmm I wonder instead of post producing 1000 shoots a day this companies have been in the work so We the pros have time enough to post produce just a couple of hundreds a day probably like before some 60 to 90 Shots a day??? we are going backwards.. I will stay with CS2

Mar 2, 2006 3:40 PM in response to Robert Olding

I don't know if this was mentioned earlier (i didn't ready everything posted here) but i found out something interesting and sad (at least to me). Apple Aperture always prints as 72ppi, it doesn't matter if you edit the image in photoshop, changing its ppi and then save it for printing using Apple Aperture, it will be printed as 72ppi.

I don't know why Apple configured the printing quality like that, but it is really bad. I took some shots with a Canon Rebel XT at maximum quality and after some adjustments i printed some images using Aperture. The results were always bad, doesn't matter how small i printed the pictures. Then i tried printing with photoshop after changing the image ppi, and the quality was excellent.

I tried this many times just to be sure, and Aperture don't care about the metadata info related to ppi, 72 is the standard to print. You can edit the image with photoshop and change it to 300ppi, save it (Using photoshop as an external editor) and print with Aperture, the image will be printed as 72ppi. Now, if you export the image, it will have the 300ppi change applied to its metadata.

I also would like to say that 72 points per inch is an old and lousy standard and every "PRO" application should allow the user to configure its image ppi.

About the printers, there is an advice to print the the image with a ppi at 1/3 of the printer's highest dpi (dots per inch). So if your printer provides you a dpi of 1440 you should print an image with 480ppi at most. But it is hard to find a printer that provides a sensible quality improvement after 300ppi.

I'm not really sure, but that advice is probably related to the fact that each pixel is built from the combination of at least 3 color dots. So if you are using a canon i9900 - which uses 8 colors and provides 2400 dots per inch (DPI)- you will get better results at 300ppi (2400/8=300) than a printer that uses less colors or dots per inch.

So the standard for an inkjet printer is 300ppi, but some produce better images than others.


I hope Apple fixes that before reaching the 2.0...

iMac G5 2.0 GHz, 20' (Ambient Light Sensor) Mac OS X (10.4.5)

Mar 2, 2006 4:19 PM in response to Luiz

It's not clear to me why you think Aperture prints at 72 ppi. Are you thinking it's because the metadata is set to 72 ppi?

When Aperture prints your images, it completely ignores whatever the dpi/ppi metadata setting is set to (as it should). Whether the metadata for ppi is set to 72 or 72,000, Aperture will print your photos exactly the same (again, as it should).

If you have problems with the way images print out from Aperture, how about telling us what your Aperture print settings are, what your printer settings are, and what kind of printer you have. Maybe we can help. You should get excellent prints from Aperture.

[Edit]

You'll probably want to start a new thread named "Printing at low resolution" or something, so it's easier to find.

Mar 2, 2006 5:31 PM in response to L M

It's not clear to me why you think Aperture prints at
72 ppi. Are you thinking it's because the metadata is
set to 72 ppi?


Obviously not! I think that because a went through many tests comparing the printed images. Simple tests like print an image with Aperture, then go to photoshop and print the image at exactly the same size (i mean the size on the paper) set to 72ppi. You will notice the image look exactly the same as the one printed by Aperture. Now, print the same image at 300ppi using photoshop and you will clearly notice the improvement. Make sure you have an image which can be printed at the same size with the 300ppi without having to resample to a large pixel size.

The only thing Aperture seems to do is to resize the image to fit the page, if you decide it to be small or large, but it never changes the ppi, it is always 72 eventhough the metadata tells the image should be printed at 300ppi. Aperture just ignores that and prints at 72ppi.



When Aperture prints your images, it completely
ignores whatever the dpi/ppi metadata setting is set
to (as it should).



As it should?? What you mean by that? By the way, dpi is not the same as ppi, and is not found at an image metadata, it is related to the printer only.


Whether the metadata for ppi is
set to 72 or 72,000, Aperture will print your photos
exactly the same (again, as it should).


The same as what? What ppi Aperture will use to print? Nothing can be printed without a ppi specification, so you have to tell the printer how many points per inch should be printed. What Aperture does according to you? Does it automatically select the ppi based on the size you decide to print the image? Could be, but it doesn't seem like that on my tests, but i may be mistaken...

I'll run some more tests later, and see what happens... i accept some test suggestions.

Mar 2, 2006 6:36 PM in response to Luiz

The only thing Aperture seems to do is to resize the
image to fit the page, if you decide it to be small
or large, but it never changes the ppi, it is always
72 eventhough the metadata tells the image should be
printed at 300ppi. Aperture just ignores that and
prints at 72ppi.


Then there is something wrong with your setup - no idea if it's something in Aperture or something in the print drivers. 😟

When I print from Aperture I get the image resized to the paper at the expected ppi, e.g. at 3,000 pixel wide image printed 10 inches wide appears to be at 300 ppi, just the same as using 'Scale to fit media' in Photoshop's print preview window.

Ian

This thread has been closed by the system or the community team. You may vote for any posts you find helpful, or search the Community for additional answers.

PPI/DPI setting... why do you want it?

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple Account.