DPI Vs PPI - What Is The Difference - Photography Life

9/10/2019 DPI vs PPI - What is the Difference?
- Photography Life
Search...
    
REVIEWS LEARN LENSES PHOTO SPOTS FORUM ABOUT US SHOP SEARCH LOG IN SIGN UP
×
CATEGORIES
Get Notifications
HOME » COLOR MANAGEMENT AND PRINTING
• Composition and Art
DPI vs PPI – What is the Difference? • Essays and Inspiration

• Photography Techniques
What are the differences between DPI and PPI? • Photography Tutorials
BY ELIZABETH | 83 COMMENTS
• Post-Processing
    • News
12
• Reviews
There is much confusion out there about the acronyms DPI and PPI. This confusion is
understandable, given that people often use the terms in error interchangeably. So what do DPI
and PPI mean, and how do they apply to printed photographs and digital image files? In this
article, we will answer these questions and clear up any misconceptions you may have about
the abbreviations.
This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To find out more, please see our Privacy Policy
Close and accept
https://photographylife.com/dpi-vs-ppi 1/90
9/10/2019 DPI vs PPI - What is the Difference? - Photography Life
×
Get Notifications
Let’s start with some definitions.
DONATE NOW
Table of Contents 
1. What is DPI?
2. What is PPI?
PHOTOGRAPHY TUTORIALS
3. Digital
This site usesImage
cookiesSize
to improve your experience. To find out more, please see our Privacy Policy
Close and accept
4. PPI and Screen Resolution
5. PPI and Print Size

6. How Big a Print Can I Make?
7. Resampling
8. DPI Explained
PHOTOGRAPHY LANDSCAPE
9. Summary BASICS PHOTOGRAPHY
What is DPI?
DPI stands for dots per inch and refers to the resolution of a printer. It describes the density of
ink dots placed on a sheet of paper (or another photographic medium) by a printer to create a WILDLIFE MACRO
physical print. DPI has nothing to do with anything displayed digitally! And this is where a lot of PHOTOGRAPHY PHOTOGRAPHY
the confusion occurs. More on DPI in a bit.
×
Get Notifications
What is PPI?
COMPOSITION & BLACK & WHITE
PPI stands for pixels per inch. PPI describes the resolution of a digital image, not a print. PPI is
CREATIVITY PHOTOGRAPHY
used to resize images in preparation for printing. To understand this, we also need to
understand what a pixel is.
A pixel, or picture element, is the smallest building block used to create an image on a screen.
Pixels are square and arranged on a grid. Each square is a different colour or hue. Because NIGHT SKY PORTRAIT
PHOTOGRAPHY PHOTOGRAPHY
pixels are so small, our eyes can not detect the elements on the grid as individual squares.
Instead, our brain blends each pixel into a smooth digital picture. Now before those of you with
more advanced knowledge call me out and say this is not entirely true, you are correct. Pixels
themselves are made up of red, green and blue sub-pixels. These sub-pixels are blended to
give each pixel its hue. However, a full explanation of sub-pixels is far more detail than we need STREET ADVANCED
This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To find out more, please see our Privacy Policy PHOTOGRAPHY PHOTOGRAPHY
to get into for this discussion. Close and accept
RECOMMENDED GEAR
• Best DSLR Cameras

• Best Mirrorless Cameras
• Best Entry-Level DSLRs
• Best Cameras for Landscape Photography
SUPPORT US
My 11-month-old baby is su ering

from a rare liver disease
DONATE NOW
In this image of a hooded warbler, I have zoomed into the small portion of the bug in the
×
warbler’s mouth to 1,600% using Photoshop. At this magnification, you can see the individual
Get Notifications
pixel elements that make up the image. This enlargement is pixel peeping on steroids! Just a
reminder to click on the image below so you can see the details.
RECENT TOPICS
• Just starting.
• AFS-Nikkor 16-35mm F/4G ED VR for sale
• Astrophotography Time Lapse Color Shift
• Nikon D4
• Canon G3X Mark II
• Canon 450D Lens advice
• Suggestion for lens
X-T2 + XF100-400mmF4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR @ 400mm, ISO 2500, 1/850, f/5.6 • D850 AF system speed question
• Duplicate files
Digital Image Size • Clouds on the Mountain

Close and accept
It is also essential that we understand what digital image size means before we get too deep
into our discussion of DPI vs. PPI. The size of a digital photo is created in your camera. It
depends on the model of camera you are using and how you have set up your camera. For
example, my Fujifilm X-T2 captures a raw file that is 6,000 pixels wide by 4,000 pixels high. If I
have my camera set to shoot JPEG, I have three different image size choices: large (L) is 6,000 ×
4,000 pixels, medium (M) is 4,240 × 2,832 pixels, and small (S) is 3,008 × 2,000 pixels.
As an aside, if you do the math, 6,000 × 4,000 = 24,000,000 pixels, or 24 MP (million pixels or
megapixels). When you hear someone say that they have a 24 MP camera, this is what they are
referring to. Again, for all you sticklers out there, I know that my camera has a 24.3 MP sensor,
but I’m not going to talk about actual and effective pixels in this article!
×
Get Notifications
For more information about camera resolution, check out Nasim’s article, “Camera Resolution
Explained.”
Add footage.
Add impact.
PPI and Screen Resolution Explore over
15 million video clips.
Now down to the nitty-gritty. PPI is also used to describe screen resolution (not to be confused
with digital image resolution). The resolution for any particular screen is a fixed quantity. Screen
Browse now
resolutions vary between devices and are continually getting better. The pixel count of my 15″
MacBook Pro Retina screen is 2,880 × 1,800 pixels, and its resolution is 221 PPI. An iPhone X
has a pixel count of 1,125 × 2,436 and a resolution of 463 PPI. Displays with higher resolutions
have device pixels that are smaller and more closely packed together. Images on higher
resolution screens appear sharper and crisper than those same images displayed on lower
resolution devices. However, this is only true to a point. How far away from the device you view
the image and how good your eyes are also affect how sharp a digital image looks on a screen. Close and accept
Since the pixel count is fixed for any device, image resolution will not impact how a photo looks
on that device. You can export an image at 72 PPI, 96 PPI, or even 5,000 PPI, but for a given
device, you will not see any difference in how the picture looks. It is the picture size – the
physical number of pixels along the length and width – that changes how the image looks on a
particular display screen, not the image resolution.
Here are two versions of the same photograph. I exported them from Lightroom at two
different image resolutions. The first photo of the purple gallinule has a resolution of only 1 PPI.
The second one was exported at 5,000 PPI. They both have dimensions of 2,048 x 1,365 pixels
(again, click on the image to see them at full resolution). I guarantee you will not see any
difference in them at all. If you still don’t believe me, drag the images into Photoshop and use
×
Get Notifications
the Image Size dialogue box to check their resolution yourself!
Close and accept
×
Get Notifications
Image exported at 1 PPI
X-T2 + XF100-400mmF4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR @ 400mm, ISO 400, 1/1600, f/5.6
Close and accept
×
Get Notifications
Image exported at 5,000 PPI
PPI and Print Size
Close and accept
This is where most of the confusion exists because PPI and DPI are often used interchangeably
×
to mean the same thing, which is wrong! DPI does not apply to digital images! As I said earlier,
Get Notifications
DPI is a physical property of a printer, not the digital image.
When talking about print size, PPI refers to the number of image pixels from the digital file that
will be used to create one inch on the printed medium. The math is quite simple to determine
the size of the print that can be made from a digital file. Take the pixel dimensions of your
image and divide those values by the resolution (PPI value). For example, if I print one of the
6,000 × 4,000 pixel image files from my X-T2 at 200 PPI, the photograph would be 6,000/200 =
30″ long and 4,000/200 = 20″ high.
Pixels do not exist on paper. But to simplify the explanation of PPI and print size, I want you to
imagine that each image pixel from the digital file is to be represented by a small square on the
photo paper. Let’s call each of these printed squares a “paper pixel.” Each “paper pixel” will
have the same colour tone as its corresponding pixel in the digital file. Now let’s take a look at
the Image Size dialogue box in Photoshop. You will find it under the Image Menu. First, make Close and accept
sure the Resample Box is unchecked. Notice what happens when we change the resolution. The
pixel dimensions of the image are not altered (they remain 6,000 × 4,000). You might also
notice that the size of the file remains constant, too (137.3 Megabits). However, the width and
height of the image change based on the calculation above. These screen clips illustrate this. At
1000 PPI the printed picture is only 6″ × 4″. At 20 PPI, the print is 300″ × 200″! And at 200 PPI,
the image will be printed 30″ × 20″. What this means is simply that those “paper pixels” are
much bigger for larger prints than for smaller ones. If you look at the 300″ long print and the
30″ long print from a foot away, you will not notice the individual “paper pixels” in the smaller
photograph, but you will see each square on the large print.
×
Get Notifications
X-T2 + XF16-55mmF2.8 R LM WR @ 55mm, ISO 1250, 1/250, f/8.0
Here is an analogy for you. Imagine the total number of pixels in your digital image as a can of
icing. There is a fixed quantity of frosting in the container, and you don’t have the ingredients Close and accept
to make more! You could either thinly ice a large rectangular cake with the available icing. Or,
you could pile all the frosting thickly on a small, single cupcake. The bigger you make the cake,
the less densely it is iced (smaller PPI value = big, low-resolution print). Or conversely, the
cupcake has a very dense layer of icing (large PPI value = small, high-resolution print).
Apologies for the sketch – there is a reason I use a camera and not a paintbrush!
×
Get Notifications
How Big a Print Can I Make?
One of the most common questions I get asked is “How big can I print this image?” I am going
to give you a short and long version of the answer!
The short answer goes like this. Many print labs suggest that you deliver your digital files at a
resolution of 300 PPI (although some will mistakenly ask for a resolution of 300 DPI). So, divide
your digital image dimensions by 300 to determine the biggest print possible from your file.
Continuing the X-T2 example, those files can be printed 6,000/300 = 20″ long by 4,000/300 =
13.33″ high.
Close and accept
So now the long answer to “How big can I print this image?” It depends! There is nothing
×
wrong with printing a large print at a lower resolution. You can print at a lower resolution
Get Notifications
because you do not look at large prints from up close. The 300″x 200″ image we discussed
above is billboard size, and the “paper pixels” are approximately 1.3 mm wide. When was the
last time you looked at a billboard from a foot away? That is the printed equivalent of pixel
peeping! If you view this image from across the street, you will not notice the jagged
composition of the larger individual “print pixels.” The image edges will look sharp, and the
color tones will have smooth transitions. Even large prints (16″ × 20″, 24″ × 36″) that you hang
on the wall are viewed from several feet away (at least they should be), so using a resolution of
200 or 240 PPI is often perfectly acceptable and will produce high-quality prints.
The print medium also plays a role. If you are printing a photograph with lots of fine detail on a
glossy surface, you may want to use a higher resolution. A higher resolution will ensure that all
the fine detail is rendered crisp and sharp. On the other hand, printing an image on canvas
does not require as high a resolution because detail gets lost in the texture of the canvas.
Close and accept
Regardless of which output resolution you use, to ensure that you can print as large as
possible, make sure your camera set to the largest file size available. Remember I said above
that if I have my camera set to JPEG, I have the choice of three image sizes. If I accidentally set
my camera to small (S), then the biggest photo I could print would be 10″ by 6.67″ at 300 PPI.
Resampling
What if you don’t have enough pixels in your image to make a large print? If your image’s pixel
dimensions are too small, you can resample the image. Resampling adds pixels to an image file.
However, I would not recommend you do this! Resampling degrades image quality, sometimes
drastically! If you need to make the pixel count of your file larger, use specialized software, such
×
as On1 Resize. When pixels are added to your file, the resampling software “guesses” what the
Get Notifications
pixels it is adding should look like based on existing neighboring pixels. In simple terms, the
original pixels are spread apart and new pixels are placed in between them to fill the gaps.
Take a look at the graphic below. The first photo (top left) is my original 6,000×4,000-pixel file.
At 300 PPI it can be printed 20″ wide. The second image is a 1,200×800 crop of the chickadee’s
eye and also has a resolution of 300 PPI. The image quality on both of these is excellent.
However, I could not print the crop any bigger than 4″ wide given its small dimensions. If I want
a 20″ print, I have to upsize the image by resampling.
Notice what happens to the crop’s pixel dimensions when I check the Resample box and type in
6,000 for my new width (bottom image). The physical size of the file, both its dimensions and
amount of memory required to store it have increased. However, notice how soft the details are
in the feathers and around the eye. Photoshop is doing its best to add the appropriate pixels to
make the new larger image file. These new pixels didn’t exist in the original. Although I can Close and accept
print this new file 20″ wide, the print would not be nearly as sharp as the original.
×
Get Notifications
You can also decrease the pixel dimensions of a digital file by resampling. Downsizing is done
to minimize the file size for web images and for emailing pictures to friends. In fact, if you
haven’t clicked on any of the images in this article, you are actually seeing a downsized file
which is 960 pixels wide. The software behind the website downsizes the images so that the Close and accept
article will load faster. Downsizing can also degrade an image, since you are getting rid of
pixels from the original file. That is why the images embedded in the article do not appear as
crisp and sharp as the higher resolution file you see if you click on the image. In fact, my
original 6,000 × 4,000 pixel images are all downsized to files 2,048 pixels wide before I upload
them to the website. This is a compromise between image quality and file size. And it allows
viewers on different screens to see the entire picture without having to scroll. These files take
up much less room on the server than the original image files would!
DPI Explained
×
Get Notifications
ROYAL NEW PATTERN DRAUGHTSMAN …
PREETAM THAKUR
PAPERBACK
Rs. 542.00 (details + delivery)
Last but not least, DPI refers to dots per inch. But these dots are little tiny dots of ink, not
square picture elements. Printers create a print by spraying miniature droplets of ink on the
paper. It takes many dots to form one pixel of the image.
I’m not going to get into any details about printing. Topics such as how the dots are made, the
patterns they are arranged in on the paper, or how different colours and shades are created are
things
This sitethat
uses are nottoimportant
cookies improve yourto the average
experience. person
To find out more, who
pleasewants
see our a physical
Privacy Policy print of their
Close and accept
photograph. The layout of the ink droplets is all taken care of by the internal software on your
printer.
It is enough to say that most printers have several print settings that control the density of the
ink they apply to the paper. However, for most home printers, you do not set the value of the
printer’s resolution. Instead, you select it from settings like draft, normal, best or photo. Each
setting puts progressively more ink on the page because more small dots of ink are sprayed
closer together. Inkjet printers often have resolutions between 300 and 720 DPI. Some laser
printers and photo printers have resolutions exceeding 2,400 DPI. I want to stress that DPI is a
function of the printer. It is not a setting that you choose in your photo editing software. The
image size in combination with the DPI of the printer determines how many dots of ink are
×
Get Notifications
used to represent a single digital pixel on the paper.
Summary
A pixel is the smallest building block in a digital image. Pixels are square and laid out on a
rectangular grid.
Pixel count, or image dimension, is the numbers of pixels across the length and width of a
digital image.
PPI is a term that describes the resolution of a digital image and determines its size when
printed. To adjust the print dimensions for a digital image, modify its PPI (without resampling).
Doing this does not affect the pixel count of the image. And remember, the PPI of an image
does not influence how it will display on a device screen.
Close and accept
DPI is a function of a printer. It describes how tightly little dots of ink sprayed on the paper are
placed to create a photograph. DPI is not used (at least it shouldn’t be used) to describe any
aspect of a digital file.
My 11-month-old baby is su ering
×
from a rare liver disease
Get Notifications
DONATE NOW
Hopefully, this helps to clear up some of the confusion between DPI and PPI. The next time
someone asks you to send them a 300 DPI file for printing, feel free to correct them! Or if
someone tells you that 96 PPI is best for posting images on Facebook, you can inform them
that PPI has nothing to do with photos viewed on a screen!
If you have any questions, feel free to leave a comment below, and thanks for reading.
Close and accept
DONATE NOW
×
Get Notifications
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
If you liked this article, please subscribe below to our weekly email to
get more great content like this!
Email Address
First Name
By checking this box I consent to the use of my information, as

detailed in the Privacy Policy.
Close and accept
SUBSCRIBE
RELATED ARTICLES:
How to Enlarge Photographs for Camera Resolution Explained Why 16 Megapixels, When I
Printing Could Have 50?
×
Get Notifications
How to Properly Resize Images How to Properly Resize Images Visualization and Film
in Photoshop in Lightroom Photography
DISCLOSURES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND SUPPORT OPTIONS
FILED UNDER: COLOR MANAGEMENT AND PRINTING

TAGGED WITH: TIPS FOR BEGINNERS, PHOTOGRAPHY TIPS, PRINTING, RESOLUTION
About Elizabeth
Elizabeth grew up in Vancouver, on the beautiful West Coast of Canada. In
2012 she relocated to Houston Texas for two years and then moved to
Gautier, Mississippi in July of 2014 for another three years. Now back in Vancouver,
Elizabeth runs photography workshops and teaches many aspects of photography. Her Close and accept
areas of interest are widespread and include street, wildlife, nature, architecture, macro and
long exposures. She is particularly passionate about black and white images. You can see
more of her work on her website at www.photographybyelizabethgray.com or on
Instagram at photosbyelizabethgray
Comments
Elaine Lansdown
MAY 12, 2018 AT 7:23 AM
×
Get Notifications
Thank you, Elizabeth. This was an excellent and informative article. It was a very good read,
clarifying a subject that few people know much about. I love the way you laid it out, in
simple and straightforward terms.
Reply
Elizabeth
MAY 16, 2018 AT 11:52 PM
Thank you, Elaine, glad I could help.
Reply
Close and accept
johnnyreb59
MAY 12, 2018 AT 8:08 AM
Hi,
Well done !!! Loved your article.

I would just like to point out that your last paragraph will destroy the knowledge gained and
confuse most people …
Reply
×
Get Notifications
Elizabeth
MAY 16, 2018 AT 11:54 PM
Glad you liked it, Johnny!
Reply
Paul
MAY 12, 2018 AT 8:11 AM
An excellent explanation. Thanks.
Reply Close and accept
Elizabeth
MAY 16, 2018 AT 11:53 PM
Thank you, Paul. Appreciated!
Reply
Dave
MAY 12, 2018 AT 8:41 AM
×
Get Notifications
I always look forward to reading your articles and this one is a gem! With your usual clarity
and thoughtfulness you have taken a difficult subject and made it easy to understand. Thank
you!
I’d love to see you take on Aspect ratios and preparing digital images for print using an on-
line printing service. The entire process of choosing a print size that is available and in the
proper Aspect ratio, fitting my image to that size, then white borders or not…matting…
framing, I find to be incredibly confusing.
Thanks again, and keep up the great work!
Reply
Elizabeth
MAY 16, 2018 AT 11:57 PM
Close and accept
Thanks for your comments, Dave. Glad you liked this article, and I love your suggestion for
one on aspect ratios and preparing images for print. I’ll add that to my to-do list.
Reply
nope
MAY 12, 2018 AT 8:46 AM
I actually liked the cake drawing part =D
×
Get Notifications
Reply
Elizabeth
MAY 16, 2018 AT 11:59 PM
Thanks! I had fun with that!
Reply
Steve-G
MAY 12, 2018 AT 9:26 AM
Wow, that 1 PPI photo looking the same as the 5,000 PPI is amazing. You can make a great Close and accept
5×7 print with 35 total pixels.
Reply
Steve-G
MAY 12, 2018 AT 11:05 AM
It is important to note that all programs which export have two parameters: PPi and size
(pixels on long side)
Only when knowing that can you talk about resolution.
Reply
×
Get Notifications
jay
JULY 20, 2018 AT 11:33 AM
you cannot. Because as per the author, 1 ppi for the same picture and resolution is
possible, but the photo will be spanning 5000 x inches of original size. basically pointless
contemplation.
Reply
Chris Rusbridge
MAY 12, 2018 AT 10:01 AM
Close and accept
My difficulty relates to scanning negatives; should I use dpi or ppi when discussing
resolution? I used to use dpi, as they are not pixels until after being scanned, but several
others have corrected me to ppi!
Reply
Mark W
MAY 13, 2018 AT 9:00 AM
PPI is the correct term to use, as one is converting film to a digital file. DPI is the
resolution of a printer. The PPI used for scanning slides is typically limited by the
×
Get Notifications
resolution of the scanning device itself. Beyond that, the PPI selected is based on how
many pixels you need for the final purpose AND the quality of the film itself. If a higher
ISO film, so more noise, then you can see a grainy result.
Reply
Pete A
MAY 14, 2018 AT 2:53 AM
Hi Chris,
“Samples per inch (SPI) is a measurement of the resolution of an image scanner, in

particular the number of individual samples that are taken in the space of one linear inch.
It is sometimes misreferred to as dots per inch, though that term more accurately refers to Close and accept
printing resolution. Generally, the greater the SPI of a scanner, the more detailed its
reproduction of the scanned object.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…s_per_inch
Reply
Elizabeth
MAY 17, 2018 AT 12:05 AM
Thanks for your clarification, Pete.
×
Get Notifications
Reply
Elizabeth
MAY 17, 2018 AT 12:10 AM
Thanks for your answer, Mark!
Reply
Elizabeth
MAY 17, 2018 AT 12:10 AM
Close and accept
Thanks for your question, Chris. Looks like Mark and Pete have already answered you. As
an aside. Have you tried using your camera to photograph your slides? You will probably
get better resolution by putting the slide on a light table and setting up your camera with
a macro lens on a tripod. This not only gives you high-quality digital copies but saves
endless amounts of time!
Reply
Tom Fama
×
MAY 12, 2018 AT 12:01 PM
Get Notifications
Elizabeth,
Thank you for clarifying many confusing elements about PPI and DPI. I am just beginning to
work with a quality printer and found your article particularly relevant.
Tom Fama
Reply
Elizabeth
MAY 17, 2018 AT 12:03 AM
Thanks
This site for your
uses cookies comments,
to improve Tom. Glad
your experience. To findI out
could help.
more, please see our Privacy Policy
Close and accept
Reply
Greg
MAY 12, 2018 AT 12:21 PM
Hi, A very interesting read but it leaves me a little confused (easily done at my age). Why do
stock agencies want uploads sized at 300dpi and not pip?
Reply
×
Get Notifications
Betty
MAY 12, 2018 AT 12:56 PM
Greg
“Why do stock agencies want uploads sized at 300dpi and not pip?”
Because they are sloppy with terminology. Unfortunately, PPI and DPI get used
interchangeably even by those who should know better. Asking for a 300 PDI file is
actually meaningless.
Asking for a 300 PPI file is pretty meaningless too, unless you know how big a print you
want to make – in which case you need to supply a file of sufficient pixel dimensions such
that when printed at 300 DPI there are enough pixels to achieve your target size without
interpolation.
Betty
MAY 12, 2018 AT 2:13 PM
Corrections:
“Asking for a 300 PDI is actually meaningless.”

Sorry, this should read “Asking for a 300 DPI image is actually meaningless.
“…such that when printed at 300 DPI”

Even I fell into the trap… it should read 300 PPI.
×
I knew that second glass of wine was a mistake.
Get Notifications
Reply
abetancort
MAY 13, 2018 AT 12:14 PM
You got right the first time around “such that when printed at 300 DPI”, you always
print in DPI (Dot per Inch) and you save raster images in the pixels which don’t have a
physical size on it and you display them in a screen at certain PPI since now it has a
physical medium with a finite size and definite total number of pixels.
But If you know something about high end reproduction you know that DPI is
equivalent to PPI, and there is no longer the need to differentiate between them,
unless you are talking about the specs of a printing machine. Close and accept
For the purpose of reproducing an image nowadays in any medium you need an
actual number of pixels (without dimensions) that will be determined by: the math
done with the characteristics of the canvas -analog or digital and the normal viewing
distance and the required quality.
When you are asked for an image with 300 pixels per inch o dots per inch, it’s
because that is considered premium quality and most printers are not physically
capable of outputting more than 300 DPI, but they are able to produce less dots per
inch thus increasing the size of the output. Much like almost no monitor has a pixel
density above 200 PPI, incapable of really outputting and image of 300 dot or pixels
per inch (without down sampling) but they can reproduce images at any lower pixels
×
Get Notifications
per inch.
Everything else is B.S.
Reply
Betty
MAY 13, 2018 AT 8:07 PM
abetancort
You are clearly very confused.
“You got right the first time around “such that when printed at 300 DPI”, you always
print in DPI (Dot per Inch)” Close and accept
Err, no, I didn’t. Allow me to admit when I am wrong. Yes, you always print in DPI
but you instruct the printer in PPI.
“..and you save raster images in the pixels which don’t have a physical size on it and
you display them in a screen at certain PPI since now it has a physical medium with
a finite size and definite total number of pixels.”
Err, no, a screen does not qualify as an (analogue) physical medium and you cannot
display a digital image at a certain PPI or indeed at any PPI. PPI has no relevance to
the display of images on a monitor screen.
×
“But If you know something about high end reproduction you know that DPI is
Get Notifications
equivalent to PPI, and there is no longer the need to differentiate between them,
unless you are talking about the specs of a printing machine.”
I do know something about high end printing and I do also know that DPI is
certainly not equivalent to PPI. We use PPI to describe the resolution of a printer’s
input and we use DPI to describe the resolution of a printer’s output. The two are
almost entirely unrelated.
“For the purpose of reproducing an image nowadays in any medium you need an
actual number of pixels (without dimensions) that will be determined by: the math
done with the characteristics of the canvas -analog or digital and the normal
viewing distance and the required quality.”
For the purpose of reproducing an image nowadays in a PHYSICAL medium you Close and accept
need an actual number of pixels and a resolution that will produce both the
required size and quality of PRINT. Viewing distance is a peripheral (and subjective)
consideration.
“When you are asked for an image with 300 pixels per inch or dots per inch, it’s
because that is considered premium quality and most printers are not physically
capable of outputting more than 300 DPI, but they are able to produce less dots
per inch thus increasing the size of the output.
Sorry, but you are again confusing ink dots with pixels. The term DPI refers to the
resolution of the printing device, whereas PPI refers to the resolution of the image
itself. Monitors display pixels, and printers produce dots.
×
Get Notifications
Yes, most high quality/proofing printers have a native resolution of around 360 PPI
(Epson) or 300 PPI (Canon) and some printer drivers will interpolate to this value if
the input is different. However, these printers generally output print at 1440 DPI or
higher (2880DPI or even 5760DPI) if the addressability is changed. This sometimes
results in a slight apparent increase in resolution but more often than not simply
results in over-inking, higher cost and less quality.
“Much like almost no monitor has a pixel density above 200 PPI, incapable of really
outputting and image of 300 dot or pixels per inch (without down sampling) but
they can reproduce images at any lower pixels per inch.”
Much like absolute rubbish I’m afraid.

You are very confused. An image on a screen has no PPI resolution – only a pixel
count resolution – the number of pixels in the image. A screen also has no
resolution – only a fixed number of pixel cells. Close and accept
A 1200 pixel image will always display as 1200 pixels. On a larger screen with more
pixels or on a screen with higher pixel density that 1200 pixel image will display
smaller and on a smaller/lower pixel density screen the converse will happen.
Resolution simply does not come into the equation.
You got your name right.

Everything else is BS.
Reply
×
Carsten
Get Notifications
MAY 14, 2018 AT 8:45 AM
Betty, thanks a lot for your – as always – most helpful clearifications.
You mentioned one aspect which is missing in Elizabeth’s article, namely that
most high quality printers have a native resultion, e.g. 300 PPI for Canon printers,
differing from their output resolution given in DPI. I suspect this is one of the
main causes for all the confusion. At least this probably is the reason for being
asked by print shops to deliver images with 300 PPI.
Could you, please, explain to us what this native resolution is? How does this
correspond to a printer’s output resolution given in DPI, if it corresponds at all? Is
this connected to LPI (mentioned by Jan Holler below)?
Betty
MAY 15, 2018 AT 9:05 PM
Carsten
You are right, a great deal of confusion arises on this topic because people use
sloppy terminology (which in any event they don’t understand) – and end up
talking at cross purposes.
Print shops ask for 300 PPI/DPI because they associate that with a ‘high
quality’/’high res’ image but have no understanding that 300PPI is only of use
if there are sufficient pixels in the file to produce a print of the required size.
×
Get Notifications
Even funnier are photo competition organisers who ask for 72DPI JPEGs as if
the 72DPI had any relevance whatsoever to an image that was going to be
viewed on a monitor or TV screen.
Native resolution has two aspects:
Input Resolution: This is the image resolution in PPI that the printer driver
natively accepts – Epson 360/720PPI and Canon 300/600PPI depending on
print mode settings. Image files submitted at any other resolution are
automatically resampled to the native resolution before being translated into
ink dots for printing.
Output Resolution: This is the number of ink dots laid down per inch by the
print head when printing – Epson 2880×1440 DPI and Canon 2400×1200 DPI.
Close and accept
Printers use a pixel-sized matrix and into that matrix go a number of ink dots.
So there is a relationship between the two (sort of!) in that dividing DPI by PPI
gives us the number of dots in one pixel matrix dimension (horizontal/vertical).
Typically a printer that has a native input resolution of 360 PPI and output
resolution 2880×1440 DPI will use an 8×4 dot matrix for each pixel. See the
relationship? That means it uses 8 horizontal dots in each line, and prints 4
lines to get a single pixel. Thus there can be a total of up to 32 different dots
of ink making up the colour of a single pixel. Instead of one big dot, 1/360th of
an inch in size, the printer puts down 32 different dots of ink, each 1/2880th of
an inch in size into an area that totals 1/360th of an inch. It gets even more
complicated as the printer doesn’t print one pixel at a time but prints a whole
×
Get Notifications
row (or more) at a time including dithering using different nozzles and dot
sizes in multiple passes.
LPI is a bit beyond my remit as it is not a metric commonly used in inkjet

printing. It relates more to analogue halftone screen printing and nowadays to
imagesetters and laser printers but essentially a laser prints spots into a grid of
horizontal and vertical rows creating ‘cells’. The number of spots in each cell
determines the shade/colour of the halftone ‘dot’ in each cell and the spacing
of the grid/matrix is the printer’s resolution – the number of halftone lines in a
linear inch. For photographic quality printing, it is recommended that the
image have a resolution of 2x the line screen. So for a 300PPI image file, the
printer LPI would be 150 LPI.
As LPI is governed by a defined number of lines per inch and a defined pixel
grid size, rather than rather ill-defined splats of ink, it is a more accurate
Close and accept
measure of printer resolution than DPI.
I think this covers the basics but I’m happy to be corrected as LPI is shaky
territory for me.
Reply
Carsten
MAY 16, 2018 AT 3:48 AM
Thanks, Betty.
The relation between a printer’s input resolution and its output resolution
×
Get Notifications
seems to be quite easy then. If I understand it correctly, it has two severe
consequences, though.
First: since the printer uses, for example, an 8×4 dot matrix for each pixel (in
a quadratic paper area of, for example, 1/360 inch x 1/360 inch), the quality
of the print of a square image might depend on whether the image is
printed upright or rotated by 90 degrees. This sounds strange.
Second: Let us look at an example. Suppose I want to print a digital image

with a resolution of 7.360 x 4.912 pixels on an Epson printer with an input
resolution of 360 PPI. Since I want to print with “maximum quality” I do not
change the image’s pixel dimensions, and I can easily output the image from
Lightroom set to the required printer’s input resolution of 360 PPI. This
changes nothing to the image data, i.e. the pixels, it just adds a resolution
tag to the image file. Basically, this tag tells any printing application that the Close and accept
image is supposed to be printed to a size of 20,44 inch x 13,64 inch. Then I

tell the printing application to print the image on a 15 inch x 10 inch sheet
of paper. Oops, I have to many pixels now. So, the printer has to
downsample to 5401 x 3601 pixels to get his required input resolution. Of
course I could go a different route and do the downsampling in Lightroom
by outputing the image with a pixel dimension of 5401 x 3601 and a
resolution of 360 PPI. Then no downsampling in the printer is needed. (Or I
could print using Lightroom’s print module – with either setting the print
resolution to 360 PPI or not). The obvious question now is: which is the best
way to go?
×
Get Notifications
So, what at first sight seemed to be quite simple turned out to be rather
complicated. Sigh.
Reply
Betty
MAY 16, 2018 AT 8:24 PM
Carsten
“First: since the printer uses, for example, an 8X4 dot matrix for each pixel
(in a quadratic paper area of, for example, 1/360 inch x 1/360 inch), the
quality of the print of a square image might depend on whether the
image is printed upright or rotated by 90 degrees. This sounds strange.”
Close and accept
Not quite – you are misunderstanding slightly.

I gave the example of 8×4 print dots per cell because I also gave the
printer resolution as 2880×1440 DPI. This means 2880 dots are laid down
in the horizontal axis (per inch) – in the direction of travel of the print
head and 1440 dots are laid down in the vertical axis (per inch) in the
direction of travel of the paper sheet through the printer. The calculation
is 2880 dots per inch / 360 pixels per inch = number of dots per pixel. In
this example that is 32 dots. That doesn’t mean that the pixel is
rectangular or that the orientation of the paper makes a difference. It just
means that each pixel can get a maximum of 32 dots. It might be less for a
brighter pixel as white space has to be left to create the
×
Get Notifications
illusion/appearance of brightness and/or there may be a mixture of large
and small dots. A Canon ImageProGraf print head has 18,432 nozzles
laying down 10 inks at a resolution of 2400×1200 DPI. I believe it lays
down several rows at a time using variable droplets sizes and may make
more than one pass to complete all the dots in a row employing a
complex algorithm to relate different dots in different rows using
stochastic dithering and micro weaving (don’t ask) to create smoother
edges and tonalities. You would have to be an engineer or a really serious
geek to fully understand it all.
Your second point is well thought out and well made – and has been the
subject of many print forum discussions. All three options are valid and
will work and unless ‘dot peeping’ a print at high magnification. Most
agreeyour
This site uses cookies to improve theexperience.
differences are
To find outsmall
more, but can
please see be
our seen
Privacyon close
Policy examination as
Close and accept
‘jaggies’ on straight lines and smooth curves.
Epson says that if the image resolution is not a direct multiple or half of
the printer’s native resolution, the conversion in the printer driver may
produce interpolation artefacts (jaggies) – so best convert in PS to 360PPI
first or if printing from LR, set print resolution to 360PPI. In other words,
set the resolution in PS/LR software and avoid letting the printer driver do
it as it does it less well. If your image PPI is on the higher end of the scale
say, 480PPi or more, it may be better to upsample to 720PPI – assuming
you have enough memory in the system. This is in line with the advice of
people like Jeff Schewe who is generally regarded as THE expert in the
fields of sharpening and print.
I use ImagePrint (RIP) which interpolates to 360PPI (Epson) or 300 PPI
×
Get Notifications
(Canon) by default, but I still prefer to resize/resample to 360PPI in
Photoshop/ON1 Resize and output sharpen before sending to print.
Reply
Gordon Pritchard
MAY 12, 2018 AT 12:37 PM
A clarification. Close and accept
DPI when used to describe the resolution of an inkjet printer – e.g. “This inkjet proofer prints
at 2880 x 1440 dpi” is a misuse of the term. DPI does not describe the resolution of the
printer.
While DPI, identifies the number of dots or droplets of ink per inch – it doesn’t actually
describe the resolution of the device or size of the dots or droplets of ink per inch. Instead it
defines the device’s “addressability.” In other words, DPI tells you how many locations per
inch a droplet of ink can be placed on – not the actual size of the droplet.
An inkjet printer that has, for example, the specification that it prints at 2880 x 1440 dpi does
not mean that the resolution is finer, or that the droplets of ink are finer in one direction.
×
Get Notifications
Instead it simply means that the paper is moved more slowly in one direction – i.e. the
addressability is changed – while the physical size of the droplet of ink, and hence its
resolution remains the same.
The actual size of the mark the droplet of ink makes on the paper is unknown. For a 600 or
1440 “dpi” ink jet printer it most certainly is not 1/600ths or 1/1440th of an inch in size. As a
result, with some pro inkjet printers, reference is sometimes made to “picoliters” in addition
to dpi when the resolution of the device is described in the specifications. A picoliter is a unit
of fluid volume. A lower minimum ink volume tends to yield a smaller minimum droplet size
of ink allowing more dots of ink to be in the same area thereby yielding higher actual
resolution. While picoliter is a better indicator of the relative size of the droplet of ink on the
paper it is still a unit of volume and not area. So it suggests a difference in resolution but
doesn’t actually specify it.
In the case of desktop printers, “DPI” is a marketing term – not a technical specification. Close and accept
Reply
Betty
MAY 13, 2018 AT 5:20 PM
Well quoted/plagiarised from Gordon Pritchard’s publication “The Print Guide”, but
whether you actually understand your own clarification is open to question.
Notwithstanding, the issue of resolution vs addressability is a little erudite for an article
aimed at those confused by the basics and whether your ‘clarification’ actually clarifies
anything for someone trying to grasp the ground rules is also open to question.
Resolution is a function of droplets of ink laid down per inch, the volume of each droplet
×
Get Notifications
in pico litres, asymmetrical droplet deposition and more recently, variable droplet size –
not mention the spread of each droplet on hitting the print medium.
Defining a printer’s resolution in absolute terms is clearly a tricky (and variable) business,
so DPI resolution is a shorthand that is both practical and allows a reasonable comparison
to be drawn between different printers.
Reply
Keith R. Starkey
MAY 12, 2018 AT 1:54 PM
At the paragraph that starts with “PPI and Screen Resolution,” you said this:
Close and accept
“Now down to the nitty-gritty. PPI is also used to describe screen resolution (not to be
confused with digital image resolution).”
Isn’t PPI related to digital image resolution?
Thanks.
Reply
Betty
MAY 13, 2018 AT 10:35 AM
×
Get Notifications
“Isn’t PPI related to digital image resolution?”
No. Or at least not until the image is printed.
Digital image resolution is the pixel size of the image.
It is crucially important to understand that PPI resolution does not exist (even as a
concept) in the binary, digital domain (the world of video/computer/projector screens,
hard drives, graphics cards or processor chips).
PPI, (unless used to resize a photo by resampling), does not create “resolution” – yet many
people still think that if they have two photos of the same pixel dimensions, one set to 72
ppi and one set to 300 ppi, the 300 ppi photo is “high res” and the 72 ppi photo is “low
res” when in fact they are the “same res”.
A digital image has no physical size. It just has pixels. Until it’s printed, it doesn’t have any
physical dimensions. It has no ‘inches’ and so it cannot have any ‘pixels per inch’. 
Keith R. Starkey
MAY 16, 2018 AT 2:05 PM
I’ll quote from the article to put my question into context:

“PPI describes the resolution of a digital image, not a print.”
Then the author says:
“PPI is also used to describe screen resolution (not to be confused with digital image
resolution).”
What the, according to the author, is the difference between PPI describing the
resolution of a digital image verses PPI NOT being used to describe digital image
×
Get Notifications
resolution?
Reply
Keith R. Starkey
MAY 16, 2018 AT 2:08 PM
Wait…sorry. The author is saying that PPI refers to both screen resolution and digital
image resolution but not to confuse the two. I got it.
Reply
Close and accept
jean pierre (pete) guaron

MAY 12, 2018 AT 2:18 PM
The best article I’ve ever seen on this subject. Thanks a million, Elizabeth.
It always puzzles me why people “pixel count”. I cannot figure why it matters so much, to
have more pixels, for people who keep all their images digitally – view them digitally – and
send them to their friends or to other web sites, to be viewed digitally. As far as I know, the
biggest “pixel count” available at the moment, for digital screens, is a TV screen released
earlier this year with about 32MP – on a 6 foot TV screen, that you can’t carry, won’t go in
your pocket, and won’t fit on your desk.
×
It seems to me that pixel counts become more important when you turn to “the next phase”
Get Notifications
and actually print your photos. Or peer at a cropped section of them on the computer, while
post processing them.
Reply
Keith R. Starkey
MAY 12, 2018 AT 2:27 PM
Yeah, megapixels has been, in much of the case, merely manufacturers’ selling point; the
hope that the consumer response will be “Oh, my gosh, it’s has more megapixels? I gotta
have it…I GOTTA HAVE IT!” And, of course, after the purchase, as you noted, nothing is
done with the images beyond viewing them on a screen.
I have
This site foundtohaving
uses cookies improveayour
24 experience.
megapixel camera
To find worth
out more, while,
please though,
see our when
Privacy Policy it came to some Close and accept
serious cropping, but otherwise, that many pixels is really not needed in a lot of cases (for
me, that is).
Reply
jean pierre (pete) guaron

MAY 12, 2018 AT 10:46 PM
That’s basically been my experience, too. OK – I have a small Canon (one of their
PowerShots) as a sort of “pocket rocket”, because I found the real pocket cams had
sensors that were just a bit TOO small for my photography. And a D810, which has
something like 36MP, but I use it mainly for high quality commercial images,
×
Get Notifications
architecture etc.
And in the past, I’ve had various analogue cams ranging from 35mm through 6×6
(centimetres) to a 4×5 (inches) beast. I can see the diff when I look at shots taken with
medium format cams.
But there’s a convenience factor too. For everyday use, I’m perfectly happy with my
PowerShot and with a half frame with 22MP. I rarely go past A4 size enlargements, I do
print practically all my photos. Occasionally I do one I think is “exceptional” as an A3
enlargement.
Now, I suppose, Nikon would like me to drop the D810 and buy their new D850. First
reaction – why the hell didn’t they put a tilt screen on the D810. Second – more pixels
means smaller pixels – in there somewhere, there’s a happy medium – 3MP would be
way too little – 80MP on a full frame (35mm equivalent) would probably be a “fail”, from
what I’ve read. Would I really notice “the” difference, or “much” difference, if I did get
This site the
uses D850? Probably
cookies to notexperience.
improve your – mightTobe visible
find in high
out more, please enlargement, on
see our Privacy Policy screen, during post
Close and accept
processing, but I think it would get lost in printing the photo and in normal view on
screen it couldn’t matter.

But then there was cost. Without checking, I think I paid over $3,500 for my D810 and if
I sell it now, I’ll drop nearly $2,000 – which I would have to add to the price of the D850,
to get the true cost TO ME of buying it. And I’d also have to buy other gear like memory
cards, L-plate,etc, so the real price to me would be over $8,000. To achieve WHAT, that
I’m not achieving right now, with the D810?
If the ONLY thing I’m missing is image quality, I’m going to hang out for the next real
advance in digital cams. And if my spies are right, it’s going to knock this discussion of
“more megapixels” clear out of the stadium !!!!! Can’t tell the world – it’s not my info, to
pass on – but one manufacturer out there has something really astounding in mind, and
they’re serioulsly thinking of releasing it in the not too far distant future.
×
Get Notifications
Reply
Mark W
MAY 13, 2018 AT 9:12 AM
Yes and no. Total pixel count completely matters in the context of printing and for
those that are fans, of cropping.
As a practical matter, because most share their images through low resolution
(screen) formats, then the larger pixel count cameras and their price tags can be
overkill.
If, however, one has developed a toolkit with top tier lenses and on occasion, or
Close and accept
regularly, produces larger prints, or has images that are used in print, or advertising
(banners, sides of trucks, etc.) then every pixel is precious and isn’t just so much
marketing speak.
Reply
Shivji Joshi
MAY 13, 2018 AT 6:07 AM
×
Very good educative article.Thanks Elizabeth, thanks photographylife. I would be delighted
Get Notifications
to share this article with my students. (Gurukul Of Photographic Art, Facebook)
Reply
Abdullah Alghunaim
MAY 13, 2018 AT 6:15 AM
I was happily reading this great article until I reached this paragraph and got completely
lost:
(( Since the pixel count is fixed for any device, image resolution will not impact how a photo
looks on that device. You can export an image at 72 PPI, 96 PPI, or even 5,000 PPI, but for a
given device, you will not see any difference in how the picture looks. It is the picture size –
the
This sitephysical number
uses cookies of your
to improve pixels along the
experience. length
To find and
out more, width
please see – that
our changes
Privacy Policy how the image
Close and accept
looks on a particular display screen, not the image resolution.))

So, can anybody explain for me basically what that means? Thanks.
Reply
Betty
MAY 13, 2018 AT 7:08 AM
Abdullah
A monitor screen has a fixed number of pixels (say 2880px on the long side).
A digital image file has a fixed number of pixels (say 1440px on the long side).
×
Get Notifications
Pixels are always displayed at a ratio of 1:1 on a screen no matter what size the screen.
So, in this case a 1440px image will occupy half the 2880px screen.
If you use a larger screen with more available pixels, the image will appear
correspondingly smaller.
This is what happens with HiDPI screens and can be a problem as both images and text
get smaller and smaller until they become hard to read.
As far as resolution is concerned, you can put any number you like in the export
‘Resolution’ box and it won’t make one iota of difference to a web/screen image. There is
no concept of ppi or dpi in a web or video screen display – it simply shows the pixels
directly and has no concept of inches at all. The only relevant numbers for screen display
are the pixel dimensions – the pixel count resolution. If for instance, you give a projector a
1400 pixel image it will display 1400 pixels – the relationship is 1:1 irrespective of the
resolution
This site setting
uses cookies in the
to improve yourimage sizeTobox
experience. or more,
find out the image EXIF
please see our data.
Privacy Policy
Close and accept
It is best to think of the DPI/PPI of a digital photo simply as a conversion factor (a sort of
instruction to a printer driver) that some software embeds in the image file and uses to
resize a photo and/or set its PPI output to PAPER (i.e. set the paper output dimensions).
This is basically all it is – it is a 5 byte (very tiny) string in the header of a digital photo file.
It’s not actually part of the image, it does nothing within the photo file (it doesn’t change
the digital photo in any way), and only comes into play when the intention is to print an
image – at which point the software will use it to set the PAPER output dimensions (in
inches or centimetres).
I hope that helps.
×
Get Notifications
Reply
Mark W
MAY 13, 2018 AT 9:45 AM
Correction needed.
“Pixels are always displayed at a ratio of 1:1 on a screen no matter what size the screen.”
This is not true, at all, and really is just confusing to suggest.
For me, the simpler way to think about this is to consider the total pixel dimensions,
let’s say 4000 x 6000. Different devices and uses have different requirements. The native
display resolution of screens, whether on a phone, computer, or TV, are all over the
map. And the needs for print, whether laser printer, inkjet printer, newsprint Close and accept
(local/national paper), or advertising/magazine are also all over the map, depending on
the media used and the sophistication of the device doing the printing. That 4000 x
6000 can be used well on any of those devices or print media. The key is understanding
each type of output and converting, or translating those pixels appropriately for the
final need.
A part of what makes this confusing is that most people sharing images don’t
understand much about this, made worse by the reality that many accepting images
aren’t clear in their communication. One of the results of this is that devices are often
more flexible, refusing to insist that the user understand what they need, so it is easy to
provide too many pixels, or not enough, for a given process – and the device will work
×
Get Notifications
with it, and as long as the minimum number of pixels was provided the result will be
fine, though may have some negatives.
For a simple example, let’s say I just got back from vacation and discovered that I got
some shots I really like of my favorite place int he world, so I decide to take my images
down to Walmart to get some 4- x 6-inch prints made. For the sake of discussion let’s
assume that their printer needs 200 ppi to make a good print. So, what I need is an
image that is 4 x 200 by 6 x 200 pixels, or 800 x 1200 pixels. My photo is 4000 x 6000, so
I am more than covered. The ideal would be to use software to downsample the file to
the needed pixel dimensions. Will there be much difference in the final result. No. But
processing a file that is 4000 x 6000 pixels compared to processing one that is 800 x
1200 is a big deal – especially if you multiply that by how many images many print
shops process on a given day. And in a commercial environment, printing catalogs, etc.
this kind of thing as real practical ramifications.
Close and accept
The other side of this comes when someone has created a web version from their
original file, and it looks great, on their phone, or computer screen. It might be 600 x
900 pixels. It is from your friends favorite place on the planet, so you decide to make an
8- x 10-inch print of it down at Walmart. The same printer still wants 200 PPI for a
quality image, which means 8 x 200 by 10 x 200, or 1600 x 2000. Now we have a
problem, because we only have 600 x 900. The machine will make a print for us,
spreading those pixels out, but it will not look very good because we didn’t provide
what was needed.
It can be complex, until you work with enough different devices and invest the time to
understand the needs of the various devices. And, sometimes, you have to read past the
×
Get Notifications
info a vendor provides, as sometimes the person you are working with may not have
the technical understanding to accurately tell you what you really need to know. I ran
into this regularly as I worked with a host of companies that should know better. In the
end, I found it simplest to ask for their technical people, as I could get the info needed
quickly, so I could be sure to provide files that were optimized for their equipment, so I
got the final result I wanted for myself, or the customer I was working with.
Reply
Betty
MAY 13, 2018 AT 12:16 PM
Mark
Close and accept
“Correction needed.
“Pixels are always displayed at a ratio of 1:1 on a screen no matter what size the
screen.”
This is not true, at all, and really is just confusing to suggest.”
Really?
Please enlighten me.
What you have written is correct, but in no way provides any correction of my
statement.
I was of course referring, for the sake of simplicity and helping someone to
understand the concept, to what might be termed ‘regular’ home monitor/laptop
×
Get Notifications
screens displaying one’s own digital images as opposed to displaying images and
text/graphics, etc,on retina screens in a web browser which might (will) be subject to
scaling. Now that’s when it gets confusing..
Reply
Mark W
MAY 13, 2018 AT 9:55 PM
Many digital screens post images that have been scaled, so it’s rarely one pixel in
the file to one pixel on the screen, but typically is many in the file to one on the
screen. How much scaling depends on the pixel dimensions of the display
compared to the pixel dimensions of the file. Most screens will display the whole
image,to whether
This site uses cookies it’sexperience.
improve your a 6, 20, To
orfind
45 out
MPmore,
image. Most
please software
see our is designed
Privacy Policy to
Close and accept
downsample what is displayed (in memory). Only specific settings (Actual size,
100% view, etc.) within a program will show an image one pixel in the file to one
pixel on the screen. And, typically choosing this view for a full image file means you
will only see a portion of the image, depending on the pixel dimensions of the
device, or software window.
Reply
Jan Holler
MAY 14, 2018 AT 1:36 AM
Hi Mark. The 1:1 ratio between the PPI of the input device (e.g. scanner) and the
×
Get Notifications
DPI of the output device if it is a monitor is correct. If you scale the image (to
display on the screen) you actually scale it before (reduce or enhance PPI) and
then display it on the screen, resulting in 1:1 of PPI (of the scaled image) and DPI
(of the monitor) again.
The article is missing LPI which is most important if we talk about printing. For
most people DPI or PPI is irrelevant. Relevant only is the image’s native
resolution. LPI is what matters in the end but is worth nothing if the input’s
resolution is too low.
The whole chaos between DPI and PPI is caused by the meta data “printing size”
stored by Photoshop (and others). Printing size says nothing about the quality of
the output, LPI does. A printer could have an incredible DPI number but a low
LPI.
So resolution (of the input device) and LPI are the only two aspects which really
matters.
Close and accept
Cheers!
-jan
Reply
Betty
MAY 14, 2018 AT 3:39 AM
Jan Holler
Well said.
Yes, LPI is the most important, yet the most neglected, factor.
×
Get Notifications
Reply
Abdullah Alghunaim
MAY 14, 2018 AT 6:05 AM
That is brilliant Betty, thank you so much.
Reply
Close and accept
Arthur
MAY 14, 2018 AT 2:06 AM
I get a number of my local sports photos used in the local paper. When the editor said he
wanted the files to be 300dpi, I queried it. The retort was “I said ‘I’ want 300dpi images.”
Okay with me, “I” gets what “I” wants.
At first I was using large/fine image settings and spending ages trying to get the perfect
image to send in. Now, I use medium / basic and the printed photos look just as good on
news print.
Reply
×
Get Notifications
Mark W
MAY 14, 2018 AT 7:20 AM
The local guy may or may not understand what he needs, and a file that is 300 PPI (more
correctly stated) could still not provide what he needs – but he is likely just parroting a
requirement that has been drilled into his head. By itself, it’s actually not enough info. The
challenge comes in asking for a file in as simple a manner as possible – while providing
what the publisher wants/needs to produce a good image. I won’t get into the technical
bits here, but trust me when I say that many involved in printing/publishing that should
know better often don’t. That is a big part of what contributes to the confusion – in
essence the uninformed communicating with the uninformed – often parroting phrases or
terms they have heard, but don’t understand themselves.
Close and accept
A big part of the success I had as a designer, and later in my work at a top tier photo
studio came from the fact that I understood this stuff from the analog days through the
transition to digital. Digital can be more straightforward, but issues of color as well as
resolution still seem to confuse many, and it’s too bad, as it really isn’t all that complex.
And, to this day, many I deal with in the print world still don’t understand the technical
side of working with color and pixels in a largely digital world. Sad, as nothing has really
changed in the last two decades, when it comes to printing, so it’s not like it was in the
transition years when A LOT was changing and how things got done were in transition and
varied much more shop by shop.
Any way, the local guy wants as many pixels as possible, so they have the flexibility to
×
Get Notifications
crop, as they desire, and to have enough pixels to produce a good quality image. I found
working with papers challenging, until I could find the person on the staff who did have a
grasp of these things. Then I could provide exactly what they needed and know I would be
content with what they would produce.
Reply
Betty
MAY 14, 2018 AT 7:36 AM
Elizabeth
Ansiteinformative
This and
uses cookies to wellyour
improve written article
experience. butout
To find marred by some
more, please see ourcontradiction/confusion
Privacy Policy in basic
Close and accept
terminology – which of course only serves to further confuse a subject it sets out to
demystify.
It might have been helpful too draw a distinction between the uses and misuses of the term
‘resolution’.
To clarify, a digital image’s resolution can be described in one of two ways.
1. Pixel Count Resolution and 2. Spatial Resolution.
PIXEL COUNT RESOLUTION which is a fundamental, fixed property of a digital image and is
the number of pixels a digital image contains, or is made up of. It is expressed in pixel
dimensions (e.g. 1400×1050 pixels). It is this resolution which is used when outputting to
web or screen.
SPATIAL (PPI) RESOLUTION which is a variable property of an image and is the number of
×
Get Notifications
pixels in a spatial measurement (e.g. an inch, a foot or a metre) of a physical (for instance
paper or film) image. It is expressed in pixels per inch (PPI). Spatial Resolution/PPI only
becomes a fixed property of an image once it is output in analogue form, (e.g. printed on
paper) and it is this resolution which is used when outputting to a printer.
It is also crucially important to understand that PPI resolution does not exist (even as a
concept) in the binary, digital domain which is why it causes so much confusion when
bandied about in talking about image resolution.
Some confusing and inaccurate statements:
“PPI stands for pixels per inch. PPI describes the resolution of a digital image, not a print. PPI
is used to resize images in preparation for printing.”
This statement is self contradictory. Close and accept
PPI does not describe the resolution of a digital image – EXCEPT when it’s a print. A digital
image has no PPI resolution. It only has a pixel count (resolution). PPI describes, and only
applies to, the spatial resolution of a physical image like a print. It is simply a variable
instruction in the header of the image file to a printer about how to space the pixels on
paper and hence how large to print the image on paper.
‘PPI is also used to describe screen resolution (not to be confused with digital image
resolution). The resolution for any particular screen is a fixed quantity.”
This is not really true. There is no concept of inches or PPI resolution in digital display or
video systems. There are only pixels. Display resolution is defined by the number of pixels in
the array in each dimension that can be displayed and it is this which is fixed for a particular
×
Get Notifications
screen. What you are describing is pixel density. So a monitor’s pixel density, its apparent
PPI, often confusingly referred to as its resolution, is really a function of both its pixel
count/display resolution and its size and describes the ‘sharpness’ of that particular monitor.
However, it doesn’t matter if the monitor is a 15 inch screen or a 72 inch HDTV screen, if it is
set to show 1920×1080 pixels, it will show 1920×1080 pixels. Both monitor sizes show the
same 1920×1080 image pixels, just at different sizes on the two physical screens.
“Since the pixel count is fixed for any device, image resolution will not impact how a photo
looks on that device. ”
A very confusing statement – to me at least.
How does one follow from the other?
If a screen has a fixed pixel count of 1920 x 1080 pixels, an image of 1920px will occupy the
full screen width whereas an image of lower pixel count resolution will occupy a lesser area.
So image resolution does impact on how a photo looks on a given device. Only PPI
resolution will have no impact. Close and accept
As ever, if the basic terminology is not clearly defined, confusion reigns.
Reply
David Powell
MAY 14, 2018 AT 5:17 PM
Image size etc. is an area that I never seem to be able to get my head around properly, so
I would like to start by thanking Elizabeth for an article that has given me food for
thought in relatively digestible chunks. I’m sure that my understanding will be enhanced
to some degree.
×
Get Notifications
““Since the pixel count is fixed for any device, image resolution will not impact how a
photo looks on that device. ”
A very confusing statement – to me at least.
How does one follow from the other?”
This was giving me problems as well, but after some thought I see it this way: Image
resolution does not affect how a photo looks on a screen because image pixels are
mapped onto display pixels in a way determined by the display software – one to one at
actual size / 100%, other ratios depending on the settings chosen. The perceived image
dimensions will simply be a product of this ratio, the physical dimensions of the screen
pixels and the horizonta land vertical pixel counts of the image – and nothing else!
I cannot now understand why Lightroom asks one to choose a ppi when exporting a jpeg.
Is it even a valid concept here? What this control appears to do is simply set a ratio for
Close and accept
mapping Raw image pixels to that jpeg. The reduced number of pixels means that the
100% view will be smaller on screen than the original, but once again, Image Resolution
doesn’t seem to come into it.
Not pretending to any expertise here – just letting my remaining grey cells run with the
ball. Entirely willing to be corrected!
Reply
Betty
MAY 15, 2018 AT 10:16 AM
×
Get Notifications
“I cannot now understand why Lightroom asks one to choose a ppi when exporting a
jpeg.”
I believe it’s because LR gives you the option export a JPEG file destined for print – in
which case the PPI becomes relevant. If it’s not going to be printed the PPI number
doesn’t matter anyway. However, you could also export ‘as is’ and set the printing
resolution in the print software later.
Reply
jc2k
MAY 14, 2018 AT 5:32 PM
Close and accept
Long story short:
PPI = Pixels per inch, DPI = Dots per inch. Digital images have pixels, printed images have
dots.
Ideally you want 300 PPI for 150 DPI output.
Done.
Reply
Mark W
MAY 15, 2018 AT 8:09 PM
×
Get Notifications
Respectfully it’s not as simple as you suggest. What PPI you need really depends on the
nature of the DPI, since not all DPI are created the same, nor are the media those dots are
deposited on. It would be great if it were simple, it is not. For many output devices a 300
PPI file is overkill, and for some it will lead to pixelization, or softness in the print. Each
device and media combo have to be understood.
And, though outside the scope of the article, color range and saturation levels also vary
quite a bit between different input and output devices, and the media the output devices
use. This is the main reason people often seen problems going between different kinds of
devices, as most don’t have a sense for the settings or assumptions being made by a
given device, or how it relates to another device. Some parts of this have gotten better,
but in general, the understanding has not.
Reply
Close and accept
Vagn-Ebbe Kier
MAY 15, 2018 AT 9:01 AM
99% of all pictures are printed in A-4 or Letter format.

If you want to deliver a first class image just make it minimum 3500 pixels as longest side.
Number of resulution dosen’t matter.
Reply
Carlos Garcia
×
Get Notifications
MAY 15, 2018 AT 4:15 PM
Hi. excellent article! One question not clear to me. How does color depth affect the ppi
count in a picture? The higher the color depth, the bigger the file. Does that mean that a
higher color depth has more ppis?
Reply
Mark W
MAY 15, 2018 AT 8:24 PM
No, color depth has to do with the range of possible colors for any one pixel. So different
file formats and or color modes allow a different range of tones per pixel. A simple
example
This site is a tobitmap
uses cookies improvefile.
your Each pixelToisfind
experience. either black
out more, or white.
please ThosePolicy
see our Privacy are the only two
Close and accept
options, typically used for pixel based logos and the like, and typically relatively high
resolution, 600 or 1200 PPI depending on what it will be used for. The next step up would
be a grayscale image, where all the tones are from white to black, how many shades
depends on the bit depth. And, color works the same way, the more bits, the more
possible tones for each pixel. The practical tradeoff is that it is very possible to have so
wide a range of tone in an image that few but the most top tier displays have the capacity
to reflect that level of detail. The even more significant practical reality is that when it
comes time to print that color, there are limits relative to output device and media used,
so it’s important for that color to be properly “translated” from the large space to the
smaller one, so that the relative relationships of the original colors are maintained. This is
at the heart of color management and because of the complexities of the science, it tends
to be lost on most. So, in general people settle for “close enough” and software attempts
×
Get Notifications
to provide best results assuming it thinks it knows what you want in the final result.
So, again, color depth has zero impact on pixel count in an image.
Reply
Spy Black
MAY 15, 2018 AT 7:28 PM
Nice article. I have a question related to this, that you may or may not know the answer to.
Inkjets, as I understand it, use a chaotic, stochastic printing process where they somehow
derive very high print resolution in their print specs, sometimes 1600 DPI and above.
Printing
This site uses houses
cookies touse high
improve end
your inkjets To
experience. for proofing.
find out more, please see our Privacy Policy
Close and accept
However for some reason I’ve yet to find a print house that proofs on their inkjets and
emulate the lower actual halftone print resolution that the presses will actually print at. This
is problematic because there’s no way to foresee moiré between an image texture, it’s print
size, and the image patterns’ interrelation with the four halftone screen angles.
So I’m curious if there is a way to get these supposed high res inkjets to emulate and actual
4-color halftone print. Thanks for your time.
Reply
×
Mark W
Get Notifications
MAY 15, 2018 AT 8:34 PM
Not really. The main reason has to do with the radical difference between how ink is laid
down on the inkjet proofing device compared to how a press lays down ink. Also, a
practical factor is also the media used for the final printing. With almost all media there is
little to a lot of dot gain, or spread, and this also impacts clarity and therefore has a direct
impact on moiré or a minimizing of it. This most often occurs relative to cloth based
patterns that are captured/sized/angle at just the perfect storm for challenging
reproduction. I would think that those dealing with this more commonly would be able to
anticipate and minimize the risk – with experience. Ultimately, it really does come down to
the final press and media. For example, advertising that might be fine in a newspaper,
might show a problem if reproduced in a high end magazine or catalog that uses finer
screens and better media to print on.
Close and accept
Reply
Keith R. Starkey
MAY 16, 2018 AT 3:09 PM
Soooo….
* A screen has a set resolution (x by x pixel dimensions); it has no pixels per inch (PPI).
* A digital image has a set resolution (x by x pixel dimensions); it has no PPI.
×
* A digital image with a smaller resolution than a screen will not cover the entirety of the
Get Notifications
screen (assuming there’s no additional instructions from software making the image large
enough to fit the screen).
* A set amount of PPI has to be given (e.g., 72) for an image that is being sent off for
printing; again, this has nothing to do with showing the image on a screen.
* The printer will take the amount of PPI its been given and spread it equally throughout a
square inch, printing the given PPI with 300 DPI.
* So a printer set for 300 DPI will take a digital image with 72 PPI and spread that 72 DPI
over a square inch, printing it using 300 DIP; in other words, the printer will lay out 300 dots
per each square inch (each dot being made up of many combinations of ink sprays to create
on dot) in order to print the given 72 PPI.
Close and accept
Is this correct?
If this is correct, than my question is when a digital file is being sent for print and a PPI is
given, how is the size of a pixel determined? Are pixels the same size on any screen no
matter the resolution? If not, what size (or size intention) is the pixel when it’s put into a
DIP?
Say you have a 300 PPI and a printer set for 300 DPI: are the pixels and the dots the exact
same size?
Reply
×
Mark W
Get Notifications
MAY 16, 2018 AT 4:12 PM
From top to bottom.
1st bullet – Yes and no. A screen does have a set pixel dimension, but it also is a physically
measurable size, so it’s PPI can be calculated and often is reported in the tech specs for
that device.
2nd bullet – Yes and no. A digital image is natively a set number of pixels by a set number
of pixels. And, in all instances it also has an arbitrary PPI. The key point to understand is
that PPI is easily changed without changing the total pixel count. Different output devices
use different PPI. Many devices will digest the image as a whole, ignoring the PPI of the
file, since really it isn’t important. Total pixels is the important element.
Close and accept
3rd bullet – You’re starting to use terms that confuse the situation. Better statement: An
image with a smaller pixel dimension than the pixel dimensions of the screen it is
displayed on will not fill the screen – without software scaling. As a practical reality most
screens will scale, whether we ask them to, or not. This can also lead to distortion. If the
file is 2:3 in proportion and the screen is 3:4, then the image will be distorted in one
dimension. Ideally, the image would be displayed with blank space, rather than scale in
two directions with different amounts, just for the sake of filling the screen.
4th bullet – Two problems here. Total pixel dimensions of the file is the most important
part. “Printer” is too vague, since it covers a world of different devices and software or
hardware directing how data is processed or converted for output. More and more, in
×
Get Notifications
general, printers ignore PPI, using whatever is supplied and fitting it to the media size
chosen, regardless of whether that will yield a good result or not.
I have seen more and more companies selling print services attempt to be clearer about
total pixels needed for a given print size, since PPI is basically useless relative to print size.
For example. I can have a 300 PPI file that has a pixel dimension of 300 pixels x 300 pixels.
So, it meets the standard of being a 300 PPI file, yet only enough data to print a one inch
square – hardly adequate if I wish for a 4 x 6 inch print. In this instance, if the company is
telling me I need 300 PPI in my file for high quality, then I need to have a file that is at
least 4 x 300 by 6 x 300, or 1200 x 1800 pixels in total dimensions. A smaller file in pixel
dimensions will likely lead to lower quality detail in the print.
5th bullet – How a given printer handles a supplied file depends on the printer. The details
of the particular printer and software used to provide info to it dictate and not all work
the same. Close and accept
6th bullet – Honestly, I think you are trying to make overriding rules while disregarding
the way a particular printer/software work, which is important to getting the desired
result.
You seem determined to stay confused and make this more complex than it needs to be.
AND the effective DPI of a given printer relative to the quality of the output is all over the
map, since different print technologies report their tech specs differently, thus
contributing to the confusion. For a given printer, it’s dots are a physically static and
measurable in size. This is not the case for a given pixel, which is why PPI has nothing to
do with a set physical size. I can create an image that looks great on a web page and the
same file (same pixel dimensions) could be used on a large outdoor display and the file
×
Get Notifications
still looks just fine. The physical dimension of one pixel on a sign will be far larger than on
a computer, a cell phone, or a tablet. This difference is just a matter of how different
devices display those pixels. As another person already pointed out, I can have a 20 inch
computer display that has the same native pixel dimensions as a 60 inch television. Clearly
one pixel on the TV is going to be physically larger than that on the computer display, but
this really is irrelevant to the discussion.
As far as optimizing a file for output on a specific printer, it is a matter of tapping into the
manual, since some of this stuff really does vary printer to printer, especially relative to
different brands and types of printers – and the media chosen for a given print. It is very
possible for a file to be properly optimized for one printer and kind of media and if the
same file were used on the same printer, but a very different kind of media look terrible.
Good print results comes from understanding what pixel dimensions a printer needs for a
given print size (some care about PPI, some don’t) AND understanding how the color you Close and accept
are starting with may need to be “translated” for color capacity of the media one plans to
use.
Good luck!
Reply
Keith R. Starkey
MAY 16, 2018 AT 7:22 PM
×
Get Notifications
Mark,
Thanks for your response; however, I think your responses to my post are often off track in
regard to the subject of this original thread.
“1st bullet – Yes and no. A screen does have a set pixel dimension, but it also is a physically
measurable size, so it’s PPI can be calculated and often is reported in the tech specs for that
device.”
Of course you could grid a screen of pixel dimension and come up with a PPI, but with
regard to images within the printing discussion, there is no “Yes and no” answer; there’s
simply no PPI of for digital screen as it relates to the topic of this post.
Your response to my second bullet follows in the same vein: there’s no PPI of a digital image
relative to the discussion of this post.
Close and accept
Your response to my third bullet is merely a reiteration of what I said, but with the
unnecessary statement you added: “You’re starting to use terms that confuse the situation.” I
was referring to resolution in the same way Betty was when she said, “Digital image
resolution is the pixel size of the image. It is crucially important to understand that PPI
resolution does not exist (even as a concept) in the binary, digital domain (the world of
video/computer/projector screens, hard drives, graphics cards or processor chips). PPI,
(unless used to resize a photo by resampling), does not create “resolution” . . . . A digital
image has no physical size. It just has pixels. Until it’s printed, it doesn’t have any physical
dimensions. It has no ‘inches’ and so it cannot have any ‘pixels per inch’. ”
There was no use of terms in my bullet that confuse the situation.
×
Get Notifications
With regard to your response to my fourth bullet, I think, without splitting hairs, what I said
stands just fine in the context of this thread. For you to say, “Printer” is too vague . . . ” is
most certainly not to vague; it’s perfectly fitting for our discussion. It is our discussion!
You also said, “More and more, in general, printers ignore PPI, using whatever is supplied
and fitting it to the media size chosen, regardless of whether that will yield a good result or
not.” That may be, but when exporting from Photoshop or Lightroom for printing purpose,
the user gives a PPI for printing on that user’s own printer. Further, when you said, “In this
instance, if the company is telling me I need 300 PPI in my file for high quality . . . ,” this
reinforces the point: the printer wants a PPI. You may have to fill in the gaps, but that’s
neither here nor there.
As to the rest of my bullets (and excluding my question about pixel size), you’ve continued
along the same path of insinuating that I’m not only confused but apparently determined to
remain so. Why even say that? It doesn’t contribute, at all, the conversation. Further, what I
Close and accept
said was simple, straight forward and to the point, and not confused at all.
Thanks.
Reply
Mark W
MAY 16, 2018 AT 8:41 PM
With respect, your queries were as fuzzy as the article, and you mixed terms.
Your reply suggests you have more grasp of this, but if so, what was the point of the post.
×
Get Notifications
I used to make very good money dealing with all this stuff professionally. I’ve taught
classes on it, and this thread testifies to the confusion that stems from lack of basic
understanding and a mix of terms that shouldn’t be mixed. It really isn’t that complex.
Informed management of color is far more complex than the management of pixels, as
least that has been my experience for the last three plus decades.
Reply
Pete A
MAY 18, 2018 AT 12:58 AM
QUOTE
“If you need to invoke your academic pedigree or job title for people to believe what
you say, then you need a better argument.” — Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Close and accept
Ipse dixit is a Latin phrase meaning “He himself said it.”[1] It refers to what is basically an
appeal to authority, with oneself as the authority. In other words, the perpetrator of an
ipse-dixitism makes an unfounded assertion and expects his word to be the final say.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
Reply
Betty
MAY 18, 2018 AT 11:38 AM
×
Get Notifications
Keith
What Mark has said is correct but perhaps draws in too many complications into the
discussion especially regarding other printers when all that is required is an easy to
understand explanation of how most photographic inkjets work in principle. Simply telling
someone they are muddled without explaining how or why isn’t helpful.
Up to this point, you have a pretty good handle on what goes on. In your example, you
seem to have mixed your terms a bit and using 300 for both PPI printer native resolution
and DPI printer output resolution has created some ambiguity.
* The printer will take the amount of PPI its been given and spread it equally throughout a
square inch, printing the given PPI with 300 DPI.
* So
This site a cookies
uses printertoset for 300
improve DPI will take
your experience. a out
To find digital
more,image with
please see our 72 PPIPolicy
Privacy and spread that 72 DPI
Close and accept
over a square inch, printing it using 300 DIP; in other words, the printer will lay out 300
dots per each square inch (each dot being made up of many combinations of ink sprays
to create on dot) in order to print the given 72 PPI.
The printer is given an image of a certain pixel resolution and a 72PPI ‘instruction tag’
which informs the printer how large a print to make. So an image with a resolution of 720
x 576px will, in theory, if it were to be printed at 72PPI, make a 10×8 inch print. But
printers don’t print at 72PPI. If they did, you would be looking at a coloured grid of pixels
somewhat like the coarse screens of monitors 15+ years ago.
So, if the printer has a native input resolution of 300PPI it will first upsample the 72PPI file
to its native resolution until it has enough pixels to print the file at the specified size e.g.
×
Get Notifications
10×8 inches. In this instance that would mean upsampling by a factor of about 4 and then
printing it at its native output resolution (300 DPI) using 300 dots per inch to do it. By the
way, if the file were to be simply resized without resampling, the result would be even
worse – you would have the same pixels just 4x bigger. This why we are advised not to
print files with insufficient resolution i.e files that have too few pixels – as the results look
lousy.
300DPI is a low number for today’s inkjets. Photo quality printers output natively at 1200-
1440 DPI and above. This results in multiple ink dots per pixel which in turn determines
tonal and colour gradation. The more coloured ink dots (and the larger the number of ink
colours available) the greater the range and subtlety of colour possible. But there is a
conflict. High PPI determines sharpness but smaller printed pixels can accommodate fewer
ink dots. So print quality is a balancing act between PPI (smaller pixels for sharper prints)
and DPI (larger pixels for more subtle colour) and is why manufacturers are constantly
Close and accept
trying to develop print heads capable of outputting ever tinier droplets. e.g. Epson photo
printers output drops as small as 3.5 picolitres.
“If this is correct, than my question is when a digital file is being sent for print and a PPI is
given, how is the size of a pixel determined? Are pixels the same size on any screen no
matter the resolution? If not, what size (or size intention) is the pixel when it’s put into a
DIP?”
The fundamental principle to grasp here is that a pixel has no size – until it is sent to an
output device. On a screen, the pixel size is determined by the pixel density of the screen
(PPI) and the size of the screen (inches). For a print, the pixel size is determined by the PPI
×
Get Notifications
and the size of the paper.
“Say you have a 300 PPI and a printer set for 300 DPI: are the pixels and the dots the exact
same size?”
In that example, they would be, but in practice, it doesn’t happen and DPI is much higher.
One dot per pixel would severely limit the colour gamut to just the number of individual
inks in the printer.
Reply
Keith R. Starkey
MAY 19, 2018 AT 10:10 AM
Betty,
Close and accept
Thanks for the response, and the information you gave about upsampling was valuable.
But I have to beg to differ about my so-called mixing terms. I was very clear in my first
few bullets: 72PPI and 300 DPI. There was no mixing terms here, and I kept the two
within their proper understanding, even if printers do not print at 72PPI. I did the same
with regard to resolution; I even quoted you.
My main misunderstanding was not realizing that there’s no pixel size (varying
depending on the display), hence, my question if there is a 1:1 PPI to DPI with a 300PPI
tag to be printed with 300DPI. In consideration that printers print well above that and
that there’s no pixel size involved, your explanation cleared that up well.
×
Get Notifications
Thanks again.
Reply
Elaine Lansdown
MAY 17, 2018 AT 2:20 PM
This has been a massive and incredibly technical discussion. Now I would like to bring it
down to some practical layman’s terms. My printing history has been marginal and
unsatisfactory from around the time I started using the D810 and now the D850 on a Canon
Pixma MG7120 printer. So, my friends, My D850 produces a [converted from NEF file] jpeg
of 8256×5504 pixels, and my D810 produces a [converted from NEF file] jpeg of 7360×4912
pixels. What must I do and what do I tell my printer to do to produce a good quality 8 Close and accept
1/2×11 print? I’d love to be able to say that I have a better printer that uses bigger paper,
but I don’t. Do I change my jpegs down to 1280×1024 size to accomodate the paper size
before sending them to the printer, or do I leave them at native size? I think my printer has
fairly crappy software which doesn’t allow much input into what to tell the printer to do, but
says things like ‘choose best quality’. I don’t use Lightroom or Photoshop, so if anybody
answers, please phrase your answer in general terms free of any particular photo program’s
language. Btw, if anyone knows of good printing software for Windows that can be used
with a home printer, please feel free to mention it.
Reply
×
Get Notifications
Betty
MAY 18, 2018 AT 12:20 PM
Have you looked at the manual?
Reply
Elaine Lansdown
MAY 19, 2018 AT 6:28 AM
Naturally I have. It is of not much use.
Reply
Close and accept
Mark
MAY 19, 2018 AT 8:06 AM
With respect, as a person who made a good living providing tech support and
training for a couple of decades, I can assure you that most people do not look at the
manual. And, those that do, rarely invest the time to understand the info provided.
That said, it has also been my experience that not all manuals are created equal. In
general, the less expensive the device, the more cryptic can be the manual.
From my perspective you have the perfect storm. You have invested in a category of
camera that few need and even fewer shoot well. And you have a relatively
×
inexpensive printer to reproduce images from. I had the D800, the D810, and now the
Get Notifications
D850. This line of cameras is capable of capturing detail and range of color that can’t
be reproduced on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of media, and this is especially true of the
D850. So you chose to invest in a high end camera (why, I have no idea) and are
aiming to show off it’s captures on a relatively inexpensive printer. There is no
problem, accept that you need to invest the time to understand what you are getting
from your camera and how to properly translate that for the printer you have.
You found the manual to be “not much use.” The challenge may be with the manual,
or it may be with you. May be the info is clear, but you don’t (currently) have the
knowledge to understand what it’s aiming to communicate. In my experience, for
most people in your shoes, I would have recommended NOT owning a printer at all,
at least, not for prints from my camera. And, in most instances I wasn’t called in at
that point – but after. At this point in time, most people are best served by taking
their images to Costco, Walmart, or other local retailers providing print services, or Close and accept
tapping into a number of them available online. The level of service and
straightforward direction on how to provide *what they need* to give you the end
result you desire really varies, but most will understand that the customer does not
really understand issues of pixel, nor color, management, but will aim to state things
as simply as possible and assume that if you don’t really get this stuff, then you will
also allow more latitude in the final result.
The simplest understanding, from a pixel perspective, is you need to know what the
printer needs to produce a good print. In very general terms that means 200-400 PPI
for your final output size. So, for the sake of a simplified example, lets say you need
300 PPI for a 8 1/2 x 11 print. That means you need 300 x 8 1/2 by 300 x 11, or 2550 x
3000 pixels to send to the printer. Less than that may lead to softness in image detail.
×
Get Notifications
More than that can lead to loss of detail in the capture, since the image will have to
be downsized, to eliminate the excessive pixels.
Your D850 is producing an image, based on your post, that is 5504 x 8256 pixels.
Right up front we have two issues. The proportion of your capture (2:3) does not
match the proportion of your paper (8 1/2:11), so either some of the paper will be
blank, or some of the image will be cut off. The third possibility is that the image is
stretched to fill the space, leading to distortion of the original capture. What happens
depends on the software and user choices. The second issue is you have over four
times more pixels than you need, so if you print a whole image, with no downsizing
for correct number of pixels, then depending on the level of detail in that capture, the
print may not accurately reflect the capture. So, strictly from a pixel perspective, if you
want an image optimized for good results from your printer, you need to crop it to
be the correct proportion AND you need to resize the image so it has the pixel
Close and accept
dimensions you need at the PPI you need. What you need should come from the
manual, as this often varies based on the kind of output you are doing (generally
there are two or three levels of print quality, in terms of output resolution). Also, the
type of media you use has an impact on the quality of the detail. Think about it like
this, if I were to squeeze a drop of food color onto a paper towel, or piece of white
plexiglass, the same volume of ink will spread a lot on the paper towel compared to
the plexiglass. The same is happening with different kinds of media. Sending too
much info for a media type can lead to poor results.
I wish it were simpler, but there are a lot of variables at play. It would be ideal if all
manuals were written in the same simple terms, so it was always clear. The reality is
that we live in a world with tons of options, one camera may capture an image that is
×
Get Notifications
a few megapixels and another many times that. Both images can look great on a
small screen. But getting both to look great reproduced on paper – now that can be a
challenge. The variety of printer options within a brand, and across the brands can be
overwhelming. With choice comes responsibility to understand the pros and cons of
the impact of the options we can celebrate, or curse, as they get in our way.
Good Luck.
Reply
Elaine Lansdown
MAY 19, 2018 AT 10:07 AM Close and accept
Mark, I found your first few paragraphs to be a little rude. You should not mistake a request
for a practical application in layman’s terms of what you wrote earlier for stupidity,
unintelligence or lack of sophistication. I thought that I had mentioned that I don’t print
much; having little need to print I have not studied the topic very much. My reasons for
buying high end cameras are probably the same as yours or anybody else’sm and for me
they are the right choice. However, you did provide some practical information in two of
your paragraphs, for which I thank you. But allow me to say, that pissing matches between
experts are rather unseemly and quite tiresome, and usually ruin the commentary for the
essayist and other readers, although they do provide a certain amount of amusement to
some of us. I wanted to remind you all in my post that apart from proving to one another
how brilliant you all are, you did not do very much to further people’s understanding of the
×
Get Notifications
subject matter. Regarding my printer, I was well aware that it was not a high end printer
when I bought it, but did think it might satisfy my needs for what little printing that I do. I
was extremely disappointed in both the manual and printing software that came with it.
These days companies that make such articles all seem to think that dumbing down their
literature in favor of optimizing photo sharing and other social media activities are what
people want. They are wrong, but it is fighting the tide to tell them so. Anyway, please
consider from now on how you talk to people. It matters.
Reply
Mark
MAY 19, 2018 AT 10:58 AM
Elaine,
This site with respect,
uses cookies to improveyou’re missingToafind
your experience. very
outkey element,
more, please see and majorPolicy
our Privacy weakness of a forum. I
Close and accept
alone know with what tone I type or intend to be heard. And, you alone, may or may not
be aware of what filters you read through.
The truth isn’t always pretty. Nothing I typed was done so out of rudeness, nor a sense of
superiority. And, I realize there are a host of reasons people buy high end cameras. I’m
fortunate to own several – each has strengths and weaknesses. I shoot with the D850 the
least. I wrote out of many years of working with people wanting to use technology they
didn’t understand, and some parts of it can’t be sugar coated. Rarely is any one served
well by doing so.
The D850 is a very specialized camera and few that I have talked to shooting any of that
series got it because they need it – more because of marketing speak or something they
×
Get Notifications
read in a review. That is unfortunate, because for most people, investing in a D850 is like
buying a high end sports car to get groceries once a week and you live three miles from
the store. The tool isn’t suited to the need. At the end of the day, each chooses what they
think will serve their interests (or impress their friends) and I’m certainly not in a place to
evaluate that for a stranger. However if I had a dollar for every conversation I’ve had with
people shooting that line of cameras and fighting for decent results on many fronts – I
would be a richer man. High pixel cameras are challenging to use well.
Second general assumption – that I know is unfortunately false. If you think you need a
camera like the D850, then it presumes you understand its strengths well enough to work
with them and make the most of them. I have yet to meet a person who got this kind of
camera for quick social media snaps – it’s FOR printing. I’ve talked with a number of
professionals over the years that choose NOT to get, or use this kind of camera as their
main camera because it is so hard to shoot with AND because few need the volume of
pixels this camera captures. That’s practical reality. Close and accept
You can take issue with my comments, or those of others, and think less of them. In truth,
some fairly bright people invested their own time to help bring clarity to issues people
have wrangled with for years. Ultimately, managing pixels is pretty straightforward, color
is a lot tougher. If people were half as bright as they talk, then they would have a lot less
trouble with manuals. The challenge is people want options without investing the time to
understand the pros and cons of those options. I have no doubt that you could probably
get the kind of results you want with your camera and printer. In my experience, I typically
had to document a very specific recipe of settings for each printing scenario, typically with
many screen captures of the relevant windows. Most people don’t understand the whys
and wherefores of all the variables and rarely want to invest the time, ink and paper to get
that understanding. That’s the world we live in. So, for most, it is simpler and cheaper and
×
Get Notifications
they will get more predictable and better results by leaning on local retailers, or online
sources. Document your options and stick with the same formula and generally you will
get predictable results.
Again, I’m sorry if you were offended. I won’t take the time to try to help again. At the end
of the day, the same dynamic applies to all of us: To the degree I am willing to recognize
my ignorance in an area AND invest the time I need to understand what I need to know to
get the results I’m after determines how well I’ll accomplish my intended goals. Blaming
others or poor manuals won’t get the job done. Honestly, the best are investing the time
to get beyond manuals, because a manual is just the starting place. It’s the persons
experience and creativity that makes the most of the tools we have. That said, with such a
technology driven world, it is valuable to understand the technical side of the parts of it
we wish to use.
Close and accept
I almost always consider how I talk with people. A forum cuts out 80-90% of what is key in
human communication, so I’d suggest aiming to read with a bit more generosity. Don’t
assume the worst about others you don’t know, especially in a public forum.
Reply
Elaine Lansdown
MAY 19, 2018 AT 12:09 PM
Seriously?
×
Get Notifications
” You have invested in a category of camera that few need and even fewer shoot well.”
“So you chose to invest in a high end camera (why, I have no idea) and are aiming to
show off it’s captures on a relatively inexpensive printer.”
“You found the manual to be “not much use.” The challenge may be with the manual, or
it may be with you. May be the info is clear, but you don’t (currently) have the
knowledge to understand what it’s aiming to communicate.”
“If you think you need a camera like the D850, then it presumes you understand its
strengths well enough to work with them and make the most of them. I have yet to
meet a person who got this kind of camera for quick social media snaps”
And you did not think you were talking down to me? Well Mark, meet condescension.
Both of your posts were so full of it (condescension) that I would have had to quote Close and accept
them in their entirety to give all the examples of it. You might have simply told me that
my instinct to resize in order to get rid of a large quantities of pixels which my printer
could not handle was a good one, and then possibly provided an example of how to do
so. You could have left out the commentary on the D850 being too much camera for
me, and the manual being too hard for me to understand, plus the social media remark
(I don’t do social media), and your answer would have been much better received by
me, and also have better addressed the question as originally asked. I still do sincerely
thank you for the information you really gave. I think it will be a help to me when I have
occasion to print again.
Reply
×
Get Notifications
Mr Ian Peter Douglas
JUNE 2, 2018 AT 9:33 AM
An outstanding article, the best I have read on the subject(s)
Reply
Elizabeth
JULY 15, 2018 AT 1:10 PM
Thanks so much, Ian! I appreciate your feedback
Close and accept
Reply
Gaëtan
AUGUST 1, 2018 AT 7:31 PM
I second that !
Reply
Martin
JULY 5, 2018 AT 3:07 PM
×
Get Notifications
Hello Elizabeth,
Fantastic article indeed, explaining a lot of things. Thank you for that.
I have just one more “practical” question:

How should we understand the _relationship_ between the PPI that we set for the image file,
and the DPI property of the printer?
What are the implications?
Let’s assume I have a printer that is capable of printing at 600 DPI. -> Which PPI should I set
(for best results) when exporting my images for printing?
Should I set the PPI ideally at the same value as my printer can print DPI (ie. set PPI=600)? —
(I.e. as far as I understood your article, each image pixel would be then printed out as one
“printer
This site uses dot”,
cookiesright?)
to improve your experience. To find out more, please see our Privacy Policy
Close and accept
Or should I (for better printing results) set the PPI _lower_ than the DPI of the printer? For
example PPI being 1/2 of my printer’s DPI: like set the PPI to 300, which – in my
understanding – would have the effect that each image pixel would be printed
(“constructed”) by four “printer dots” ? [two in upper row, and two in lower row — I guess all
4 in the same ink color??] — I mean in this case the printer can do _more_ dots per inch than
the image file delivers as pixels per inch, right?
Or should I even (for better print results) set the PPI higher than the DPI of the printer? For
example set the PPI as a double of the printer’s DPI (1200?). — Lets say I have a high-end
camera capturing images at tons of megapixels, (so I could squeeze really lots of pixels into
1 inch, and still have a sufficient paper print dimensions)
×
Get Notifications
and I really do set the PPI to a high value during the export (like 1200)… what happens in the
printer then??: Will it use 4 neighbour pixel color values to average 1 “printing dot” color ??
Will it give a better, or a worse print result at the end ?
Would be great if you could answer the above questions!
–Martin
PS. I think I understand, that for a given fixed printer’s DPI – when I change the PPI in image
export, then it will immediately impact the actual dimensions of the printed image on paper
(in inches). But let’s put this aside for a moment.
(I might resample the image to a different pixel size in computer before printing, to achieve
a _particular_ dimensions on paper)
I only want to understand which PPI is better for a given printer DPI? Equal,smaller,or
higher? Close and accept
Reply
Elizabeth
JULY 15, 2018 AT 2:36 PM
Hi Martin, thanks for your question. The DPI on your printer is completely separate from
the PPI you set on export from LR or Photoshop (or whatever post-processing software
you are using). The DPI on your printer is usually much higher and represents how many
micoscopic dots of ink are sprayed onto the printing medium to create the image. PPI is
used to tell the printer how large to make the image. For example, if you have an image
that is 6000×4000 pixels and you export it at 200 PPI, then it will be printed 30″ x 20″,
×
Get Notifications
regardless of the DPI on your printer. Check out Betty’s response 22.2, she gives a good
explanation of printer DPI and how it affects image quality. I hope that helps!
Reply
Andy Findlay
SEPTEMBER 1, 2018 AT 3:37 PM
The worst article I’ve read yet on PhotographyLife.
You’ve taken a simple subject and spent several long-winded pages making it look difficult –
I can’t help but wonder if you actually understand it yourself.
Close and accept
Contact me if you want to know how to write this up properly – because, frankly, this sucks.
Reply
Francis Fernandes
OCTOBER 17, 2018 AT 1:01 PM
beautifully explained. I was just confused by ppi and dpi, in spite of having a science
background. Congratulations
Reply
×
Get Notifications
Sally G
JUNE 2, 2019 AT 5:49 PM
So what is the difference between raster and vector images, and how does that affect how
much I can enlarge an image? JPEG, EPS, TIFF, PNG, SVP? (I don’t even know what the
acronyms stand for; I believe that JPEG and PNG are raster, EPS and SVP vector, not sure
about TIFF—vector?)
Help!
Reply
Comment Policy:to Although

This site uses cookies improve yourour team at
experience. Photography
To find Lifeseeencourages
out more, please all readers to actively
our Privacy Policy
Close and accept
participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not
comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the
published material.
Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment
×
Get Notifications
Name *
Email *
POST COMMENT
Close and accept
SITE MENU REVIEWS
Beginner Photography Camera Reviews

Lens Database Lens Reviews
Photo Spots Other Gear Reviews
Search
Submit Content
Subscribe
Copyright © 2019 Photography Life
×
Get Notifications
Close and accept

DPI Vs PPI - What Is The Difference - Photography Life

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DPI Vs PPI - What Is The Difference - Photography Life

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

9/10/2019 DPI vs PPI - What is the Difference?

• Composition and Art

DPI vs PPI – What is the Difference? • Essays and Inspiration

5. PPI and Print Size

the confusion occurs. More on DPI in a bit.

• Best DSLR Cameras

My 11-month-old baby is su ering

Digital Image Size • Clouds on the Mountain

PPI and Print Size

Rs. 542.00 (details + delivery)

My 11-month-old baby is su ering

By checking this box I consent to the use of my information, as

DISCLOSURES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND SUPPORT OPTIONS

FILED UNDER: COLOR MANAGEMENT AND PRINTING

Thank you, Elaine, glad I could help.

Well done !!! Loved your article.

Glad you liked it, Johnny!

An excellent explanation. Thanks.

Thank you, Paul. Appreciated!

I actually liked the cake drawing part =D

Thanks! I had fun with that!

“Samples per inch (SPI) is a measurement of the resolution of an image scanner, in

Thanks for your clarification, Pete.

Thanks for your answer, Mark!

“Asking for a 300 PDI is actually meaningless.”

“…such that when printed at 300 DPI”

Everything else is B.S.

You are clearly very confused.

Much like absolute rubbish I’m afraid.

You got your name right.

Betty, thanks a lot for your – as always – most helpful clearifications.

Native resolution has two aspects:

LPI is a bit beyond my remit as it is not a metric commonly used in inkjet

Second: Let us look at an example. Suppose I want to print a digital image

image is supposed to be printed to a size of 20,44 inch x 13,64 inch. Then I

Not quite – you are misunderstanding slightly.

Isn’t PPI related to digital image resolution?

I’ll quote from the article to put my question into context:

jean pierre (pete) guaron

me, that is).

jean pierre (pete) guaron

screen it couldn’t matter.

looks on a particular display screen, not the image resolution.))

I hope that helps.

This is not true, at all, and really is just confusing to suggest.

That is brilliant Betty, thank you so much.

Some confusing and inaccurate statements:

As ever, if the basic terminology is not clearly defined, confusion reigns.

99% of all pictures are printed in A-4 or Letter format.

* A digital image has a set resolution (x by x pixel dimensions); it has no PPI.

From top to bottom.

Have you looked at the manual?

Naturally I have. It is of not much use.

MAY 19, 2018 AT 8:06 AM

be aware of what filters you read through.

An outstanding article, the best I have read on the subject(s)

Thanks so much, Ian! I appreciate your feedback

I have just one more “practical” question:

Would be great if you could answer the above questions!

The worst article I’ve read yet on PhotographyLife.

Comment Policy:to Although

SITE MENU REVIEWS

Beginner Photography Camera Reviews