Please point me to the software I need . . .

Jock Elliott

Jock Elliott

Hall of Famer
Location
Troy, NY
The Conservationist, a publication of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, has agreed that I should submit an article/photo essay on Peebles Island.

Under their Contributors Guidelines, all photos need to be 300 dpi, even if they are as small as 5 x 7. What I need is some photo conversation/processing software that I can run my pix through to make sure that they are 300 dpi or that will convert them to 300 dpi, even if that means downsizing the photos.

Suggestions?

Cheers, Jock
 
Corel Painter Essentials 2 is what I have & when I use it for resizing most of my files are saved at 300 dpi

May even be free now but mine came with some hardware I bought
 
You could use Irfanview, a free image editor with extensive batch processing options. You find the dpi settings under File > Batch conversion > Advanced - in the lower left corner.
 
Jock Elliott said:
The Conservationist, a publication of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, has agreed that I should submit an article/photo essay on Peebles Island.

Under their Contributors Guidelines, all photos need to be 300 dpi, even if they are as small as 5 x 7. What I need is some photo conversation/processing software that I can run my pix through to make sure that they are 300 dpi or that will convert them to 300 dpi, even if that means downsizing the photos.

Suggestions?

Cheers, Jock
Click to expand...

It needs to be understood that digital image files don't actually posses "inches" and therefore can't actually posses "PPI" (BTW, it is PPI for Pixels Per Inch and not DPI meaning Dots Per Inch even though some major software continues to use the wrong term). The files posses only pixels. The inches and PPI are merely data stored in the file's header that tell page layout and printing software that the file's creator wants the file to be printed at a certain PPI (e.g. 300 PPI) and that software maps the image's pixels against its concept of inches to get the reproduction size. The user of such software almost always can resize the image in the layout but doing show alter's the effective PPI.

Most of the better image editing apps can assign a PPI to a file. It is often best to do this to the file itself before exporting a copy to send, but not all software offers that option. If your software doesn't offer any option for such cropping and sizing you can use some simple math. Example: a 5x7 image at 300PPI will be 1500x2100 pixels. Any file, regardless of what PPI specification is in its header, that is 1500x2100 pixels will effectively be 300ppi when placed in a page layout program at 5"x7". Having the file spec'd at 300 PPI is a convenience for the the person doing the layout work as it will default to the 5x7 size when placed instead of requiring that the image be scaled to the correct size after import. That is the sole reason my former co-workers invented the concept of putting such PPI data in the file header.
 
Dwig said:
It needs to be understood that digital image files don't actually posses "inches" and therefore can't actually posses "PPI" (BTW, it is PPI for Pixels Per Inch and not DPI meaning Dots Per Inch even though some major software continues to use the wrong term). The files posses only pixels. The inches and PPI are merely data stored in the file's header that tell page layout and printing software that the file's creator wants the file to be printed at a certain PPI (e.g. 300 PPI) and that software maps the image's pixels against its concept of inches to get the reproduction size. The user of such software almost always can resize the image in the layout but doing show alter's the effective PPI.

Most of the better image editing apps can assign a PPI to a file. It is often best to do this to the file itself before exporting a copy to send, but not all software offers that option. If your software doesn't offer any option for such cropping and sizing you can use some simple math. Example: a 5x7 image at 300PPI will be 1500x2100 pixels. Any file, regardless of what PPI specification is in its header, that is 1500x2100 pixels will effectively be 300ppi when placed in a page layout program at 5"x7". Having the file spec'd at 300 PPI is a convenience for the the person doing the layout work as it will default to the 5x7 size when placed instead of requiring that the image be scaled to the correct size after import. That is the sole reason my former co-workers invented the concept of putting such PPI data in the file header.
Click to expand...

Most helpful. It turns out that DXO 9 has a setting to save files as TIFs with a 300 PPI setting and allowing image resampling. Hopefully that will meet the requirements.

Cheers, Jock
 
Got it solved with DxO Optics Pro 9.

If you select an image in DxO 9, then select Export to Disk, a menu pops up that allows you to select format (I wanted TIFF), 300 ppi, and largest size. the largest size option doesn't have a pull-down, but you can highlight the 6 and then type in whatever number you want.

The menu looks like this:

DXO export options.JPG


The only other issue I had was "How do I know that the exported image is the correct size?" It took me a moment to figure it out, but I realized that if the image was, say, 2100 x 1350 pixels, if I divide 300 ppi into 2100 pixels, then the long side of the image has to be 7 inches.

In the words of Inspector Clouseau, "the case is sol-ved."

Cheers, Jock
 
Looking for a free replacement for Photoshop and Picassa, for Windows 10. I do very few photos any more, so Photo S. is out (cost). Picassa irritates me with it's insistence on controlling, how files are handled. Any suggestions?
Thanks,
 
snkenai said:
Looking for a free replacement for Photoshop and Picassa, for Windows 10. I do very few photos any more, so Photo S. is out (cost). Picassa irritates me with it's insistence on controlling, how files are handled. Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Click to expand...

Have you considered Faststone Image Viewer? It's free (donate if appropriate), and has a good range of 'everyday' processing features.
 
P1360697.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
I loaded FastStone into my old Sony laptop, with Windows 10, and it is the most intuitive, simple, but very capable solution for a few quick pics that I have ever used. I especially like the up/down sampling feature. My Daughter-in-law sent me some cell phone pics from their vacation in NM, that were 640x480. Open in FastStone and quickly up-sample to 1024 and maintain ratio. Then tweak shadows, highlights, contrast, saturation, etc.
Not pro quality out put from a cell, but very usable for my needs. So far, I'm happy.
PS: And it's light and fast.
 
snkenai said:
I loaded FastStone into my old Sony laptop, with Windows 10, and it is the most intuitive, simple, but very capable solution for a few quick pics that I have ever used. I especially like the up/down sampling feature. My Daughter-in-law sent me some cell phone pics from their vacation in NM, that were 640x480. Open in FastStone and quickly up-sample to 1024 and maintain ratio. Then tweak shadows, highlights, contrast, saturation, etc.
Not pro quality out put from a cell, but very usable for my needs. So far, I'm happy.
PS: And it's light and fast.
Click to expand...

Glad it worked out well... (y)
 

Similar threads

kyteflyer
Someone please explain to me?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Crsnydertx
Crsnydertx
wrangler
Need help finding software to make large prints
Replies
8
Views
2K
wrangler
wrangler
Jock Elliott
Serious software advice needed
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
DHart
DHart
Back
Top