Printing and Resolution

[TrevorGuitar]

K, so I recently decided to take up digital painting. And I am wondering, do I need to paint at the size I want to print? For example, if I want to print a 30x40 on canvas, do I need a 30x40 canvas inside Photoshop or Painter? Or could I get away with a smaller canvas, and then just upping its size when I'm preparing the print?

For that matter, do you have to paint at 300dpi or could you go from 150 and then make it 300 when you are about print? Would it make up for it or would the 300 mean nothing because you painted it at 150?

I ask mainly because Painter shits a mighty brick when I have a giant print-sized canvas with high DPi. And I have too much lag to paint. Photoshop is a little better, its bearable. But even if that wasn't the case, I'd still want to know the answer to the above two questions. I mean its basic stuff right, I need to learn.

[hippl5]

First, I'd like to mention that I might not be correct, so someone who knows more can correct me.

It's generally better to make your digital painting 2, 3, or even 4 times the size of what you intend to be the printing size. The reason is so you can zoom in and add detail, and your painting won't have to be pixel perfect.

For the DPI question, Image > image size > change resolution.

[TrevorGuitar]

Wow! lol That's good advice cause I find I'm doing a lot of zoom in clean up to make the 'print size' image look good and clean. Whereas it would be a lot less time consuming and more natural to do it the way you say, or it sounds like it, to do it several times bigger.

But I will still wait to hear what everyone else says, if I can get an exactly answer about my questions from my first post from someone who knows for sure. But thank you for your answer.

But really, several times bigger!? 30x40 is HUGE, when I paint on it I have to paint at like 5 percent zoom lol. Even two times bigger than that would be like working with a Gig, and the saved PSD would be about 400mb's. Is that normal?

[J Wilson]

First, never just increase the resolution. Think of it this way, where do those extra pixels come from? YOU didn't paint them in. Basically all it does is Photoshop guesses at what colors belong there based on the colors around it. This leads to fuzzyness.

300 dpi at actual size is a good starting point, and I wouldn't work at less than that most of the time. In theory working too big and scaling down can be as bad as scaling up, because Photoshop still makes the decision on what pixels to toss out. In reality though it ISN'T as bad because an image won't get fuzzy scaled down. You may lose some details, but often the indication of those details is enough, and having the larger file is sometimes nice if you ever want to use the artwork for something else. For example, if you do cards, you may later want to sell prints that are bigger than card size. Do a book cover larger and later you'll be able to make posters. Basicly the smaller an intended use is, the more likely I am to work larger. If the work was intended to be poster size (like in your example) I'd probably be mostly happy to leave it at that size as I'm not likely to ever need it bigger. In some extreme examples (like working on a billboard) you can safely work at a lower resolution, because it's going to be seen at a distance. The further away someone is intended to stand the more you can get away with a lower res. In your case, 30x40 IS pretty big, so you may be able to go lower res, unless you expect that people will want to get in close to admire details. There are no hard and fast rules, but when in doubt... 300 dpi actual size will rarely be wrong.

[Elwell]

When you get to very large size pictures, you can get away with lower resolutions because they generally will be viewed from farther away. Billboards are printed with a much coarser line screen than magazine covers.
EDIT: The Dweller beat me to it!

[TrevorGuitar]

"First, never just increase the resolution. Think of it this way, where do those extra pixels come from? YOU didn't paint them in. Basically all it does is Photoshop guesses at what colors belong there based on the colors around it. This leads to fuzzyness."

This is what I figured. Thank you very much for your answer it was wonderful, both of you. I appreciate it a lot.

[frog from itchy]

Personally I think you have to approach it in a more pragmatic way, A4 at 300 dpi is fine and a modern computer can handle that no problem, however 30x40 at 300dpi is going to be pretty painful, especially once you add a few layers.

If you want to block in with a big brush on a document like that, you'll soon be tearing your hair out. What's more, despite received wisdom, digital files scale up extremely well because they are so clean to start with.

A more sensible approach in my view would be to do the block in at 100dpi (a very manageable 34 meg), then scale up to 200dpi for the next stage (most of the painting) and then scale up one final time to 300dpi for the final details - if there are any fuzzy edges in this pass you can then sharpen them up accordingly. That way you will have an extremely crisp file that can stand close scrutiny but without needing to paint through molasses.

To be honest, if it was me I would probably leave the final artwork at 150dpi anyway, that resolution prints surprisingly well and is adequate for most situations.

[J Wilson]

Personally I think you have to approach it in a more pragmatic way, A4 at 300 dpi is fine and a modern computer can handle that no problem, however 30x40 at 300dpi is going to be pretty painful, especially once you add a few layers.

If you want to block in with a big brush on a document like that, you'll soon be tearing your hair out. What's more, despite received wisdom, digital files scale up extremely well because they are so clean to start with.

A more sensible approach in my view would be to do the block in at 100dpi (a very manageable 34 meg), then scale up to 200dpi for the next stage (most of the painting) and then scale up one final time to 300dpi for the final details - if there are any fuzzy edges in this pass you can then sharpen them up accordingly. That way you will have an extremely crisp file that can stand close scrutiny but without needing to paint through molasses.

To be honest, if it was me I would probably leave the final artwork at 150dpi anyway, that resolution prints surprisingly well and is adequate for most situations.

I'll agree that scaling up can work if you are willing to go back over things and rework areas with more detail, adjust some edges, etc. I have occassionally done that for backgrounds that required big brushes rather than deal with slow response times, but it does involve (for me at least) a good amount of time spent afterward, which really needs to be done in either case. It's all part of the process. I wouldn't recommend just scaling up at the end without a good rework afterward for reasons mentioned above. Is Photoshop decent at figuring things out? Sure, but it's no artist. I suppose it really depends on your work and what it's used for on how important edges are to you.

There is NO way I'd suggest just using 150 dpi for a final resolution unless you intend it for web use primarily, or unless you are working at twice the actual size (which is the same thing as working at actual size and 300 dpi from the standpoint that there is the same number of pixels). Suggesting that letting Photoshop scale things up is good enough, and then using 150 dpi is good enough just sounds like you aren't very picky. Maybe your style of art is loose enough that it doesn't matter as much or how you use the art doesn't require fine details, but it's not advice I'd give to someone without knowing what THEIR style is.

[TrevorGuitar]

Thank you both again. Frog, that's what I was trying to figure out, whether that would print well or not, scaling up,because like you said 34 mb is much more managable. I kind of like the 'stages' idea you gave me, blocking at low res and then upping the res as I up stages/detail work.

It's already too late on this particular peice as I've already made the file the full 30x40 and 300 dpi and I'm half way through it lol But I was asking for future reference. I will definitely try this method you gave me in the future when I do a full sized peice.

And I'm glad Dweller chimed in about the dpi and print quality so now I know that if I do a loose peice I can get away with lower but for tighter I shouldn't go there. As for this particular peice its very tight but normally my style is somewhat looser.

I hope to post up some work on this site soon so you don't have to guess about my style in the future lol I just don't have enough work to show yet. Like I said I'm brand new to digital painting. I'm sure you'll see me in the critique center in a month or two.

[J Wilson]

Certainly glad to help TrevorGuitar. If you are able, you should post the final result for us to see!

[t i m]

Everyone advice has been very good. 300dpi is the res to go with, and you should be working right around the image size you intend to print. Although when working on a canvas that is 30"x 40", your machine better have a boatload of memory.

I print my stuff on 28lb matte laser paper at Kinko's, it turns out really nice.

I have continually run into the problem of my prints coming out significantly darker than what can be seen on my monitor both laptop and desktop. It's frustrating but the guys at Kinkos are pretty cool and let me go into PS and tweak stuff before they print another copy. It's kinda trial by error, but I don't know what to attribute the darkness too so its the only way I can get a good print. I save my art in CMYK as a .pdf, don't know if this has anything to do with it? Just a heads up.

Tim

[frog from itchy]

There is NO way I'd suggest just using 150 dpi for a final resolution unless you intend it for web use primarily, or unless you are working at twice the actual size (which is the same thing as working at actual size and 300 dpi from the standpoint that there is the same number of pixels). Suggesting that letting Photoshop scale things up is good enough, and then using 150 dpi is good enough just sounds like you aren't very picky. Maybe your style of art is loose enough that it doesn't matter as much or how you use the art doesn't require fine details, but it's not advice I'd give to someone without knowing what THEIR style is.

In the context of a 30x40 print, I would contend that 150dpi is plenty, since you would be standing a couple of feet back to view it rather than sticking your nose right up to the print. Again it's just a question of being pragmatic rather than blindly following received wisdom. 300dpi is appropriate for something smaller that will be examined close up and in detail, a poster by it's very nature is viewed from a greater distance and does not need the same resolution as a book cover - it's not a question of "not being picky", it's a simply using the right method for the right context.

At the end of the day, the advice I'm giving actually makes the work considerably easier to manage and delivers the appropriate quality for the given context, whereas the advice to work at 300dpi causes enormous headaches for that size of artwork, without delivering tangible benefits - my opinion of course, but I think it's pretty sensible.

The best way of course for anyone to make their own minds up is simply to print out a couple of tests on their home printer. Do one at 300 dpi, and another with the same file resized down to 150 dpi, stand a couple of feet back and check exactly how much difference you can see.

[savantcreative]

[QUOTE=TrevorGuitar;1746239]K, so I recently decided to take up digital painting. And I am wondering, do I need to paint at the size I want to print? For example, if I want to print a 30x40 on canvas, do I need a 30x40 canvas inside Photoshop or Painter? Or could I get away with a smaller canvas, and then just upping its size when I'm preparing the print?
I always work at higher resolution than I need. That way there is no loss in quality. I commiserate with you on software issues. Maybe you can add some ram to help the situation.
Best regards

[J Wilson]

In the context of a 30x40 print, I would contend that 150dpi is plenty, since you would be standing a couple of feet back to view it rather than sticking your nose right up to the print. Again it's just a question of being pragmatic rather than blindly following received wisdom. 300dpi is appropriate for something smaller that will be examined close up and in detail, a poster by it's very nature is viewed from a greater distance and does not need the same resolution as a book cover - it's not a question of "not being picky", it's a simply using the right method for the right context.

At the end of the day, the advice I'm giving actually makes the work considerably easier to manage and delivers the appropriate quality for the given context, whereas the advice to work at 300dpi causes enormous headaches for that size of artwork, without delivering tangible benefits - my opinion of course, but I think it's pretty sensible.

The best way of course for anyone to make their own minds up is simply to print out a couple of tests on their home printer. Do one at 300 dpi, and another with the same file resized down to 150 dpi, stand a couple of feet back and check exactly how much difference you can see.

Sorry, that was my misunderstanding. I thought you were suggesting that 150 dpi was fine for most uses. I see now you meant for his specific 30x40 project. I do agree at that size there is a good chance a lower res may work, depending on how likely people may be to want to get in closer to admire details. Bigger work does kind of follow different rules.

[TrevorGuitar]

This is a reply to Tim:

The reason it always prints darker than the image on your screen is because most modern monitors, both for laptop and desktop, are LCD brightness machines. lol If you hook up on old flickery crap monitor you'll probably see the brightness more honestly.

What I do is I look at the screen from below it at an extreme angle to see the actual darkness. Another, less eccentric solution would be to simply adjust your monitor. But most printing places will do adjustments on a monitor that is properly setup for printing and image mastering.

I have no doubt there are even special monitors for just this purpose. I'm sure you could Google a lot of useful information on the topic.

If you get your prints done at a professional printing place you can usually pay a fee to have them balanced/mastered for you. I'm a lazy guy so this is the route I take.

[t i m]

Trevor,

Thanks for the reply, I suspected it had something to do with the monitor brightness. I'll pay a few bucks extra for a quality print, rather than spending time tinckering with it over and over and still have it end up being just "ok". I will look into a local printing buisness here in Chicago. Appreciate the advice.

Tim

[SIMPLEatLife]

My job includes using a 44in. inkjet. Some of these issues with upscaling will never be noticed. I have made many prints from many different sizes. The main problem is where and how the images will be printed. If you are printing a very large format then you are going to a large format inkjet. The issue comes in what does the company use the device for? Is it 4color or wide Gamut RGB? Most of these devices in the industry are set for 4 color output and that in its self will lead to color and resolution issues. First find out about the device being used to print the piece and about the ICC profile used for color. If it is set up for four color then printing on uncoated or canvas will have unpredictable results. When a ICC profile is built for 4color there are alot of limitations applied to the profile to keep the color within GRaCOL standards. Things like dot Gain and Print Contrast. the biggest limitation will be the TAC(Total Area Coverage) which on gloss grade 1 spec is 320%. Another issue will be the tone of the gray balance in the inkjet. Is the intended output warm, neutral or cool. Just be sure to ask about all the color issues before hand and get a small proof of the piece. These are not desktop printers, so they do not just use normal output functions most of the devices will use a color RIP to upscale the image anyways. Using the RIP will change the resolution no matter what you set it in Photoshop. But you still have to have a good res. to begin with 300DPI is plenty. But most devices will be set to print at 720. And that alone will take out the resolution issue. My way for output on my color proofer is to up saturation 15% and use a good amount of unsharp mask. the larger you go to more mask you may want to use. Sorry I kinda rambled along there. But I have built many ICC profiles for these devices. Hope it helps. And get a PROOF there should be no difference in color from the small proof to full size.

[TrevorGuitar]

Thanks Simple, that's extremely helpful even though its hard to swallow technically. I know little to nothing about printing. The place I'm printing at is well established in printing on canvas so I'm guessing they know what they are doing, and if so then you telling me the scaling up may not cause issues is probably true.

Are you basically saying that they will be smoothing edges and upping saturation to make up for the fact its digital? Or that as a catch-all it just generally makes bigger things look better?

[SIMPLEatLife]

I know it's alot of info, sorry. I have pieces at home scaled to 44x80 and they scaled up looking real good at 300 even 150. But I have had to play with the saturation alittle going to the canvas and watercolor. The big thing i found was the unsharp mask really helps the details and make the images pop a little more. But if they are printing on canvas they probably are using the wide gamut and all your prints will look awesome at 30x40. Go BIG they really look nice on a big wall.

[TrevorGuitar]

Thanks Simple, I'm going big because I want to start a collection I could maybe show in galleries if I get decent enough at digital. I paint for real but just getting the swing of digital art, especially Photoshop my work looks a little cheap.

Photoshop seems less natural than Painter but I bet I'm using it wrong - not saying therei s a 'wrong' but there certainly is a 'better'. I think I need to use bigger softer brushes to blend. There is something I'm just not getting about it.

I noticed other people get this sleek look from photoshop, it looks like its very simple, or I see the blocking work and its all done with big brushes that somehow bend together. I've fiddled with opacity and acheived similar effects. I'm getting better at it. This portrait (the 30x40) is taking me quite long compared to what I expected though just because I'm not used to the medium.