Save 69% on inPixio Photo Studio 11 Ultimate (discount applied at checkout)

Canon 30D Quality Settings


29 Oct 2006 12:55PM
When I take pictures with my Canon 30D set at the highest JPEG quality, the resolution according to PhotoShop CS2 is 72dpi. Isn't this a problem? What am I missing in setting the camera or in knowing what in the cathair I am doing. Thank you in advance for your help. I am facing a Monday night deadline and don't know how to proceed.

Regards,

Linda Hudson
Carabosse 18 41.5k 270 England
29 Oct 2006 12:58PM
The resolution shown in PS of the image as taken is an irrelevance.

It matters only at the printing stage.

It sounds as if you are shooting at least semi-professionally. Are you unfamiliar with RAW?
MikeA 16 1.3k England
29 Oct 2006 3:22PM
Not quite sure what your problem is but if you want to print the image at say 300dpi then Go to IMAGE, IMAGE SIZE untick, Resample Image box and type 300 into the Resolution box

MikeA.
theredbaron 14 394 United Kingdom
30 Oct 2006 11:29AM
My 300D Rebel Used to pull images into photoshop at 180ppi and the 30D does 72ppi.
I asked the tutor on a Canon course about this apparently it is just a number which is shown.
If you print the huge 72ppi image it will squeeze it on to which ever size of print you choose.
If you alter the ppi to 300 it should also work.
I hope that explains it in laymans terms, you may have guessed I don't understand the long answer either!
Chris Brown (Herts)
strawman 17 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
30 Oct 2006 11:37AM
The camera takes the picture X pixels wide by Y pixels high. The DPI just tells the editor program how many pixels per inch it ought to use, just like telling you the scale on a map.

So as CB says the DPI only matters when you come to print the image.
ade_mcfade 17 15.2k 216 England
30 Oct 2006 11:59AM
shoot RAW!
9 Nov 2006 1:16AM
Thank you all for your responses. Yes, I probably should be shooting in RAW, but I don't like to do all the fiddling around. I take LOTS of photos and RAW becomes too time consuming.

I am still unclear about the pixels per inch. Is ppi the number of pixels wide x the number of pixels high? If so, 72 ppi would be - for example - 8 pixel per inch wide and 9 pixels per inch high. Right?

How could that look the same on the screen as 300 ppi?

The screen resolution is no more than 72 ppi. Correct?

I am using photos from three different cameras to create a photo CD of village life. In the past, I have only used photos from my own camera so this never came up. Now, I am totally confused.

I can hear all of you out there who understand this groaning out loud. You are not alone. I am also "in pain" over my own lack of understanding. When I was a kid, my dad threw my science book across the room because I couldn't or wouldn't understand electricity. I think there must be an empty spot in my logic processing when it comes to some facets of science comprehension.

Help!

THANKS!

Linda
ade_mcfade 17 15.2k 216 England
9 Nov 2006 11:20AM

Quote: I take LOTS of photos and RAW becomes too time consuming.


that's not RAW's fault but your workflow - but this is easily cured...

if you use something like Capture One Lite, the workflow for RAW is the same speed as JPG. Takes a few minute to generate its previews - then you're laughing

Using JPG on a 30D is like putting diesil in a ferrari - you may as well have bought a cheap compact IMHO.

Smile
Superficial 14 147
9 Nov 2006 10:40PM
Short answer - Stop worrying, it's irrelevant.

Long answer - The images taken by your camera on the top resolution are 3522 x 2348 pixels (which translates to 8 million pixels). If you were to squeeze all of these onto a stamp, the dots would have to be very close together (I.e. the PPI - pixels per inch - would be high). If, however, you printed onto A1 size paper, the dots would have to be much further apart and the number of pixels per inch would be much less, though the image overal still has the same number of pixels.

The number that Photoshop makes up is really irrelevant. Your picture at 72 ppi will be much larger than if you print it at 300 ppi. But until printing it, it makes no difference at all.
Dave_Canon 14 2.0k United Kingdom
10 Nov 2006 4:02PM

Quote:I am still unclear about the pixels per inch. Is ppi the number of pixels wide x the number of pixels high? If so, 72 ppi would be - for example - 8 pixel per inch wide and 9 pixels per inch high. Right?



ppi is a linear measurement so in this case it means 72 pixels per inch either vertically or horizontally. A inch square would contain 72 pixels vertically and horizintally and would be thus 72 times 72 = 5184 pixels in total. As others have indicated you do not need to be concerned about this for inputting or processing pictures but only when you output particularly to a printer.

Dave
nikon5700ite 17 1.8k
10 Nov 2006 5:58PM
Another complicating aspect is that while the resolution of your monitor is somewhere between 72 and 100 dpi/ppi, your editing programme is capable of enlarging the picture until you can see individual pixels. The monitor could then be using several of it's pixels to show you just one pixel from the file.

I have three cameras which give me a read-out of 72,180, and 300 dpi which perhaps might be marketing on the part of the camera maker as to "My camera will print HUGE pictures". My Nikon shows as 300 dpi, Pany 180dpi, and Canon 72dpi ... take what you like from that Smile [ way back Kodak used to advertise 30x20 inch prints from their 3Mp cameras, hate to think what dpi they used Smile]

As suggested simply ignore what the camera says and only when you come to print make sure you have the appropriate dpi for the printing process. dpi and ppi are effectively the same rose by a different name Smile Computers think pixels and printers think dots.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.