Help! Issue printing from raw files

Sara Anna

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I am new to this world and I have a question which may be very dull:

I have a picture in CR2 format which I need to print on a 90cm * 90cm canvas. Can anyone assist me?

I took the picture with my Canon 600D using a 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 lens using the RAW setting.

The problem I have is that when I open it with Photoshop CS6 it appears that it is just 34cm * 34cm in size when printed.

Apologies if this sounds dull but I am very new! Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Sara
 
Firstly, RAW isn't really an image format. You need to convert it to something like a JPG first. Though this may be done automatically if printing from CS6, I'm not sure.

Secondly, I think you'll struggle to get a 90cm x 90cm print in decent quality from that camera. But you can usually change the DPI/dimensions in the print dialogue box and you will certainly be able to try 90cm × 90cm. Where is it telling you it's limited to 34×34?

Also 90x90 is usually a bit big for most people to manage at home, so how are you printing it? Do you have access to the printing facilities yourself or are you sending it to a company.

If it's the latter then it really doesn't matter what the print settings you see say. Send them the full resolution image and tell them how big you want it. I still reckon you'll struggle for 90x90cm though. But I could be wrong.
 
Thanks ghoti. I have two questions:

(a) Wouldn't I lose data and therefore quality by converting into a compressed file such as JPG?

(b) What determines the size in megabytes of the RAW pictures, and why are mine just over 23 MB with dimensions of approx. 3648 × 5472? As a result of this, when I try to print them it defaults at 240 DPI and therefore the default print size is about 34cm by 34cm. Any suggestions?
 
Firstly welcome to TP

As stated by ghoti for any printing you need to saving the file in JPEG format.

The 600D sensor size at full frame yields at maximum size print of 43.89 x 29.26cm at 300dpi so as you mention a square format I surmise you have cropped but at 34cm indicated in PS that exceeds the sensor figure(s) if cropped I have no idea what you have done.

So just some basics as I see it to think about ~ you are asking to upscale or uprezz as also called. But if what you reporting is accurate you are taking about approx a 3x uprezz, as far as i know that is extreme.........though I am basing my thinking on a 300dpi resolution. If you dropped to say 100dpi the printed image at the size (uprezzed as needed) would likely look OK provided viewed at a distance of more than about 5 feet. Viewing distance is important to consider where an uprezzed file is printed at lower than 300dpi.

So from the perspective of anyone giving advice please be more explicit in what you have done and those with more experience in PS than me will be able to help :)
 
Last edited:
As stated by ghoti for any printing you need to saving the file in JPEG format.
While that is the case most of the time some companies will also take TIFFs which can be lossless (though much bigger than JPGs).
 
While that is the case most of the time some companies will also take TIFFs which can be lossless (though much bigger than JPGs).

Fair comment but of course whether a printing 'lab' can take different file types will or should be stated on its website or by asking them the question. Plus of course whether they will do the uprezzing.......and some labs possibly for a fee will appraise the file for its maximum possible uprezzing. I have only had such increase in size by approximately a third and the results were great and indistinguishable from a non uprezzed file.
 
Hi Sara

300dpi is megga overkill for a canvas, and I would say any other format of print the size you mention.

Unless you are actually going to print it yourself just send the biggest file you have to the printers (a large JPG will be fine) and they will sort it all out when they print it.

And you also need to be clear about the difference between printer DPI (dots per inch) and printing files to PPI (pixels per inch) sizes which are often used interchangeably but are different things entirely.

I had this print done of my son, it was no where near 300PPI (although printed at 270DPI by Photobox) and it looks amazing.

12531-1439077824-becef2499f7648ce77273e271109d595.jpg



HTH

David
 
Last edited:
Unless you are actually going to print it yourself just send the biggest file you have to the printers (a large JPG will be fine) and they will sort it all out when they print it.
Good advice.
 
And you also need to be clear about the difference between printer DPI (dots per inch) and printing files to PPI (pixels per inch) sizes which are often used interchangeably but are different things entirely.
Indeed. It can be confusing. Let's try to clear it up a bit.

The key thing to think about first, always, is pixels. For the sake of this exercise let's pretend your image came from a 24MP Nikon DSLR, because it makes the numbers easier to play with.

Your original image would be 6000x4000 pixels. Obviously it will print at 60"x40" with a resolution of 100 pixels per inch (PPI), or 30"x20" with a resolution of 200 PPI, or 24"x16" with a resolution of 250 PPI, and do on. The image file might well have a PPI figure embedded in its metadata, but that's pretty irrelevant because printers ignore it. They just print at the size you request and work out all the PPI stuff on the fly.

Now most printers work at a native resolution of around 300-350 PPI, though it varies between manufacturers. (I think my Epson is 360 PPI, for instance.) This 300 figure arises because it's about the maximum resolution that the human eye can manage. So if you image has 300 PPI when it's printed, then it will be critically sharp even at close inspection. (Assuming that the lens was good enough to capture all that detail in the first place. And assuming that your focus was spot on. And assuming that you haven't lost any detail in post processing. And so on.) But 200 PPI will still look very good on the wall, and canvas prints are only around 100 PPI. (Most computer monitors display around 100 PPI, so that gives you an immediate feel for what 100 PPI looks like in terms of quality.)

Now suppose you want to make that 30"x20" print at 200 PPI, but the printer runs at 300 PPI. The printer needs an image which is 9000x6000 pixels, but all you have is 6000x4000 pixels. What happens? Well, the image needs to be enlarged. You can do that yourself in Photoshop, or you can just let the printer work it out. If you're getting the print done commercially, it's probably best to let the printer do it, especially because you won't necessarily know exactly what PPI resolution they need. So just send them your full size file (6000x4000) and they'll take care of it.

Same idea with making small prints. If you want to make a 15"x10" print, you have 400 PPI which is more than the printer needs. Just let the printer handle it.

Up until now I've always said PPI instead of DPI. That's because we've been talking about the number of pixels. Some people and some computer programs say DPI instead of PPI, but that just confuses things. The one place where DPI is definitely correct is when you're talking about how the printer actually works. Printers typically create each pixel using a number of smaller dots of ink. So for example my Epson creates each pixel from a 4x4 grid of tiny dots of ink, and of course it's the way the different inks are used in that grid which creates the full pallette of colours. So the printer runs at 360 PPI, but 360x4=1440 DPI. For most practical purposes though, you never really need to know or care what the printer's DPI capability is. Just PPI.

Does that help, a bit?
 
If you print directly from PS without saving - natively it is in PSD format so it will be 16 bit as as opposed to, the quality reduced, JPG format which is 8 bit.

If you're going to send it to a Printer for a "quality" print use TIF - bigger file but has less (if any, unless compressed) artefacts. JPG is, and always will be, a compromise over what you have taken in RAW.
 
As others have said, if you're not printing it yourself, let the printer worry about upscaling.

Sending a JPEG should be OK - I doubt you'd notice the difference between that and TIFF once it's printed on canvas.

To save as JPEG first open the file in CS6 then select 'Save As...' from the 'File' menu. Change the format to 'JPEG' and click 'Save'. Then set the quality to 'Maximum (12)'. Leave the 'Format Options' radio button as 'Baseline ("Standard")' then click 'OK'.

Hope this helps. And welcome to TP.
 
Dear all

Thanks all for your kind replies! I want to try and clarify things a bit. This is the camera output (file format CR2):

View attachment 43479

This is the footer I see as I open the file with Photoshop CS6:

Screen Shot 2015-08-09 at 11.04.41.png

Finally, this is what I see when I click on Image Size in Photoshop:

View attachment 43481

Do you think it is feasible to get this file printed on a 90 x 90 canvas without noticeable quality loss? I would have to send this file to a professional printing company.

If there is anything else I have omitted, please let me know! Thanks again. You are super helpful
 
Hi Sara

As has been explained if you are getting it commercially printed you need to send a suitable file type at Max resolution to the lab in the format (file type and colour space they require) with the request that they print it at the size you want. I would hope the lab will advise you if what you have sent is suitable for such an enlargement.

But I come back to the shape question the sensor is rectangular but you continue to ask about a square shape print! In regard to the screen grabs you have posted I can only surmise you do understand that to print square from a rectangle you need to crop the image as such that will be maximum 3456 x3456 pixels. You must crop it and not expect the lab to do so ;)

PS talking of colourspace, as per the mention of ask the lab whether they can use TIFF or JPEG file type not all labs will accept AdobeRGB but will specify sRGB...you need to make sure you conform to what the lab will work with.
 
Last edited:
I recently had a 3264 x 3264 pixel image printed on a similar sized canvas. It was fine.
 
I recently had a 3264 x 3264 pixel image printed on a similar sized canvas. It was fine.

Might be a good idea to say which lab did it and would you recommend them?

PS just spotted that you live on St Helena.......... now that is remote! Do you have any links to your pictures of the island?

PPS if the recommended lab is on the island I surmise not too much help for us mainlanders :)
 
Last edited:
Might be a good idea to say which lab did it and would you recommend them?

PS just spotted that you live on St Helena.......... now that is remote! Do you have any links to your pictures of the island?

PPS if the recommended lab is on the island I surmise not too much help for us mainlanders :)

DS Colour Labs - Think that particular image was printed at 30" x 30" (so a little smaller) - can't check right now because it's at the in-laws. Would recommend them wholeheartedly. Very professional service. I'm sure they'd be able to advise on the maximum size.

With regards St. Helena... Sadly, we're back in the UK now (I'll update my profile). It was quite an experience and I felt incredibly privileged to have had the opportunity to go. We were only there for a few months - the longer term plan was to stay for an additional 2 years but family commitments at home took priority.

Quite a remarkable place. Took some photographs whilst I was there. But I must admit, I'd planned on taking the 'keepers' during our 2 year tenure. Just goes to prove that you should grasp the opportunity when it presents itself and not defer it until another time. C'est la vie (as they say up north). The sunsets were spectacular but weather conditions were often far from favourable. St. Helena is a sub-tropical island - that means it's warm, damp and rains quite a bit. We were there at the wettest time of year. It wasn't unusual for low cloud to be obscuring the top of the island for much of the day. Mind you, even in cloud, the scenery was quite stunning.

The island is on the cusp of what will undoubtedly be dramatic change; the building of an airport is nearing completion. It'll soon only be a day or two away. I don't think it'll ever be a place that will attract the type of tourism that will ruin all that's good about the island and its inhabitants. It's a place I'll never forget.
 
Last edited:
Good advice especially from Stuart. Way back when I had a canon 300D ( 6Mpixel camera) I had some prints produced up to 20" x 30". These were from the cameras RAW files processed normally but little sharpening added ( maybe non now I think about it) . Sent as low compression JPEGs. I let the printer software resize the image. These were printed on a photographic not inkjet printer. The results were superb. I still have them. So provided you have a good image I'd just send the images to the lab you have chosen and let them print them for you.
 
Back
Top