I recently depended on a video producer to provide me with digital images for inclusion in a (print) Annual Report 9due Aug 23,'00. He used his Nikon D1 to shoot both color and B&W images (for a video presentation) and saved them on a Zip disk for me. Now my printer is concerned that the producer's digital images were shot at a resolution too low for adequate reproduction. When the printer opens these files in Photoshop they are large in size e.g. 9 x12" but 72 dpi?

I'm in a tough spot. I had asked the printer to test the video producer's images before proceeding. I had also asked the video producer to use a setting on his Nikon that would be suitable for print reproduction of his images. I thought he understood the printing issues we now face. I thought I'd done everything possible to prevent imaging problems but, now each vendor is (kind of) pointing at the other and scratching their heads. I realize that the video guy normally uses 72 dpi images for his production purposes, but I thought that his D1 would ensure top quality digital images (none larger than 5x7") for my printer to run through their imagesetter. I assumed he'd know what settings would ensure the quality my printer needs. Of course, they (my printer) are much more comfortable with traditional scanning. But in this case, my clients had no photos to supply me (the designer) and I saw the digital imaging my (freelance) producer was doing for the same client (a companion video production to the annual report and collateral print materials) as a way to get the images I desparately needed.

I have a Nikon CoolPix 950 (recommended by the same producer) but have not had a chance to learn enough about it to use for similar print purposes (if I can???? due to resolution concerns). That's a side issue and not directly linked to my printer's Annual Report concerns.

Can you help???????? Quickly. Thomas Mills President Thomas Mills & As

-- Thomas Mills (millstma@aol.com), July 31, 2000

Answers

Ok, I hope the video producer can come up with the original files. As a professional he should have the original source files, even if they need some corrections. The file you have which is 9x12 at 72ppi in photoshop is toast, thats only 1.6MB and not enough for even a 3x5 on a 133 line screen. Video and print are worlds apart in terms of quality as you know and frankly, the D1 was probably a waste since the 950 could have pulled off images far better than video can utilize. Like I said, try to get the original files or deal with the much smaller print size. My only other ideas are to either : A - print the image as a duotone with film grain and maybe make it an artsy type shot since resolution doesn't mean quite as much if your going to offset the image clarity with some grain. OR B - you could try Genuine Fractals which can interpolate the image up to a more reasonable size. I have had great luck with this program but some people insist it's useless, you'll have to decide. Nothing can create a 23MB full bleed magazine cover out of a 1.6MB file so you might have to get creative. By the way, for a magazine, shooting even 35mm film will give superior results to the D1, even the D1 only gives you like an 8MB file, hardly a huge file to work with....

-- Cris Daniels (danfla@gte.net), July 31, 2000.

Tom,

First take a big breath, and let it out slowly... :-) It's not that bad, just a bit confusing.

A D1 or almost any digital camera produces images which default to 72 PPI or DPI when saved as a jpeg and opened in an editor or even a web browser. They printer's staff must not be overly experienced in digital imaging. All they need to do is open the file in the editor and tell it to change the resolution to 300 DPI. This'll result in an image that will print smaller with higher dots per inch. Do a search on this forum for resizing and you'll likely find multiple posts on how to do this with Photoshop(probably the program the printer's staff use.) I believe you're just looking to resize and NOT resample the image! Have them read the help files for their program under resizing or resolution and resampling. I don't believe you want to resample!

The puzzling part is that a 9x12" @ 72 DPI image isn't really anywhere near the resolution the D1 is capable of. The D1 tops out around 2012 x 1344 pixels... A 12x9" @ 72PPI would be 864x648 (9x72=648, 12x72= 864?). Could it be they were cropped to work with the video production equipment? Or are they perhaps coming up as even larger than 9x12, say about 27.94x18.6"?

Now for the basics. A Nikon 950 has a resolution of 1600x1200 pixels per image. If you're printing at 300 PPI (pixels per inch, not dots, but the printing people will insist on calling them dots...) that means you'll get images that are 1600Pixels/300PixelsPerInch x 1200P/300PPI or 5.33" x 4"... Now, you can have the printer change the resolution setting and get larger prints, but they will start to look grainier or pixellated as you increase the size of the image. Sometimes, the best way to see how things will look is to try several test runs from the same image at varying sizes. They also may need to adjust the brightness and contrast due to dot gain.(printing term, let them explain it...)

I'd guess that they might be able to get away with as little as 240 PPI, which would give you about a 5x6.66" image from a 1600x1200. Pretty close to a 5x7".

You might have to settle for smaller than 5x7" images in the report, because I doubt they'll be able to stretch the 864x648 images to print quite that large. Or you can reshoot... Grrrr! You might want to carefully check the images on the zip drive and see if there are higher resolution versions of the same images. If not on the disk, check with the guy who took them, they may have the original shots which should have been 2012x1344 resolution. If they have them as TIF images, get them rather than the Jpeg file formats as they're higher quality.(MUCH larger files too.)

How's that? Nearly painless... Well, maybe less painful? :-)

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@surferz.net), July 31, 2000.

Thanks to both Cris and Gerald for the immediate responses and suggestions!

I saw a film proof (matchprint) yesterday afternoon. The digital images for the cover (4 color) are going to be ok. There are six of them. Each measures approx: 2"x3" They look ok  both to the naked eye and through a printer's loop. I think I was able to get by due to the small size. These are certainly not hi-end color, but they'll suffice as pleasing color for this application.

Subsequently, I'm going to take the suggestion to go with a more artistic treatment for the 4x7" b&w shots inside the A Rep. (I had used 5x7 as an overall size to see just what my options might be...)Then, I'll use smaller, inset photos of the larger image. I did that last year for the same client/same annual report but those were lo res adaptations of scanned 3x5" color photos - converted to grayscale and run in a spot PMS color. Worked/looked great.

I guess I learned a fair amount, but would really like to experiment, test samples, and investigate further. I need to  because the digital imagery is so fast and easy to use. (ie no film developing, contact sheets, no prints/scanning, etc. I just need to know for sure that the images I am provided or that I shoot myself are suitable for print imaging.

I will also try the Genuine Fractals plug-in for Photoshop that Cris Daniels mentioned.

If you'd care to see the 1999 A Rep (or this year's version) to have a firsthand look at how this digital imagery worked out, please send a mailing address.

By the way, I was slightly perplexed to learn that Bruce, my AV Producer, actually admitted late yesterday that he had no original files. He had immediately converted everything to video format when downloading shots to his computer for use in the Annual Meeting video. But, that's what he always does for his purposes. That means....the final images (we are forced to use) on the A Rep cover are his video-adapted versions. I'd like to see/know just what the Nikon D1 is really capable of providing (as far as resolution) or even my CoolPix 950 (for that matter).

So.....thanks for offering to be around once in a while to chew the fat. I'll c

-- Thomas Mills (millstma@aol.com), August 02, 2000.