<p>I searched the internet and for some reason they usually recommend 300dpi for printing, but the problem is most of the images I have of my stuff are too small when placed onto 300dpi, and I’ve already done all my work for 72dpi. However, it looks fine on my computer screen and most people just seem to print with 72dpi and it looks fine, so it should be fine when I print it out, right?</p>
<p>Sorry, I meant to say that I am currently working in 72ppi (pixels per inch), but recommendations are to print in 300dpi (dots per inch).</p>
<p>Yes, you will see a difference if you compare an image at 72 ppi v 300 ppi (if scaled to the same size). But since it’d be a huge hassle to re-scan/re-shoot all the images, 72 ppi is generally good enough. It’s not like you’re doing high-grade professional prints.</p>
<p>hankddd, no 72 dpi is NOT good for printing. I am in that industry so I know. What kind of camera did you use? When you open the image in photoshop, what is the size in pixels? What kind of printing are you planning to do? This all depends. 72dpi images is only good for screen viewing. PM me if you need more help.</p>
<p>wait, are these prints for your portfolio? In that case, you should definitely be doing at least 200 ppi. Even 150 at min.</p>
<p>A variety of cameras were used, all digital and good enough for most purposes. In any case, my works are currently a few thousand miles away from me, and it would not be advisable to re-photograph all of my works with a high-end camera fit for producing photographs that would work well at 300ppi or whatever. Some of my images work fine at 300ppi/200ppi/150ppi, but many are too small (especially for 300ppi), including images created digitally that did not have a higher resolution to begin with.</p>
<p>When I open an image in Photoshop, the image size statistics are as follows:
Pixel Dimensions: 1.39M
- Width: 792 pixels
- Height: 612 pixels
Document Size: - Width: 11 inches
- Height: 8.5 inches
- Resolution: 72 ppi</p>
<p>Let’s say I increase the resolution to 200ppi with image resampling. The image is now 2200x1700 pixels, but as I mentioned, many of my images will be too small for this size, assuming I don’t just stick with the resampled images that would still turn out blurry when printed on the same size document.</p>
<p>Now let’s say I increase the resolution to 200ppi withOUT image resampling, such that the size of the document would change … that is, to a size of 3.96x3.06 inches. Definitely not suitable.</p>
<p>I have tried the above with 150ppi and the same issues occur.</p>
<p>However, there are resolutions in between 72ppi and 150ppi that, without image resampling, result in clear images yet also document sizes that are suitable. Why does the document have to be at least 150ppi if something not far below that on a proportionally-sized document will look just as good to anyone without a magnifying glass? Is there some inherent trait in printers that will automatically result in garbled images if the documents are below 150ppi?</p>
<p>Or is it still recommended that I print at 150+ppi [with image resampling, and thus, on the same size document that I had been working with], even if it must result in somewhat blurry images?</p>
<p>Since you can’t exactly reshoot your works, you shouldn’t be going to a higher ppi if you’re getting fuzzy images. Granted, you should use your own judgment as to the size of said images. What you really should be doing is printing out test prints, playing around with the ppi.</p>
<p>Success - for most of the images I have discovered larger originals that will work great on 200dpi. For those that lack larger originals, Photoshop doesn’t seem to do too bad of a job resampling (bicubic) an image that is scaled up [after going from 72dpi to 200dpi], at least for photographs (doesn’t tend to work as well with digital work, but there are work-arounds for the digital work that I am including).</p>