# What should the print resolution really be set to?



## JimHess43 (Nov 16, 2013)

I have been using Lightroom since version 2. I have followed several different forums hoping to learn the ins and outs of the program, and feel that I have a pretty good grasp of how it works. However, I got involved in a discussion about print resolution in another forum, and I'm still not sure what is right. Julianne Kost says to leave the print resolution checkbox unchecked because Lightroom will calculate the appropriate resolution for the size of print that is being printed. Someone on another forum said that Jeff Schewe is adamant about setting the print resolution to the native resolution of the printer. I'm getting pretty good prints leading the resolution box unchecked. But does anyone have any insight into what is best?


----------



## clee01l (Nov 16, 2013)

I don't know of any programs or printer drivers or video drivers that use the DPI/PPI value carried in the Header.  The EXIF specs say that a blank field defaults to 72.  Monitor screen resolutions range between 96 and 120 ppi with HiRes monitors (retina) ranging from 227 -326 ppi.  I ignore the field on export because it is not used to define the size of my print or the image on my screen.


----------



## Gene_mtl (Nov 16, 2013)

clee01l said:


> I ignore the field on export because it is not used to define the size of my print or the image on my screen.


Cletus:

Do you consider printing from the Print Module as exporting the image?  

TIA.


----------



## JimHess43 (Nov 16, 2013)

I'm not talking about exporting images. I understand that PPI/DPI is meaningless in that situation. I'm talking about in the print module when setting up a print job from Lightroom. There is a setting allowing you to set the resolution or leave it unchecked. Julianne says to leave it unchecked, Jeff apparently says it should be set to the printer's native resolution.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 16, 2013)

Hi Jim,

In hindsight, when reading you additional post, I've written too much below. Your question only focuses on the resolution in the Print Module. I'll just leave it all here for the sake of complete info but you'll find my answer to your real question at the bottom.

The resolution setting in the Export Dialog and the Print Module work in a similar way, but there are differences. Resolution is certainly not meaningless in the Export Module. Let me explain.

There could be two answers to your question:
1. 
Q: What resolution do I need in which situation?
A: Resolution determines whether or not the viewer of your product will see pixelated parts in your image. You can imagine that when you print a 4x6 from a 1200x1800 pixels source image, all is well but when using the same 1200x1800 pixels source image for a 18x24 enlargement, viewers will notice it's not sharp.
*Theoretically*, it's all about the viewing angle that the viewer uses to view your product. The larger the viewing angle, the more pixels you need to keep it clean. Viewing distance does not matter. You can think of a 4x6 print you hold in your hands versus a bill board across the street. If you hold the 4x6 up high and it just covers the bill board from where you stand, the viewing angle is identical and the bill board can be printed from a 1200x1800 source file and you would never tell. 
*Practically*, you will not get into viewing angle calculations, because others have done that for you to create rules of thumb on which resolution to use for a particular product type. 4x6:300PPI. 18x24: 200 PPI will do. And at 24" my Canon 5D2 doesn't have enough resolution for a 300PPI print. Billboards: they usually get shot using MF and treated especially at the printing lab to eliminate pixelation.

2. 
Q: How can Lightroom help create the correct output?
A: Basically, it's a very basic mathematical exercise. You take the required resolution x the size of the print = pixels required. Done it lots of times. When you output an image from Lightroom either through the Export Dialog or the Print Module, you'll need to export a file that has enough pixels to serve its purpose. So you can do your math and calculate the number of pixels. Then, from the…
- Export Dialog: enter the number of pixels in the "Image Sizing" section, or:
- Print Module: simply untick the "resolution" setting and your image will be printed at the actual size, using the full amount of its pixels. This will always lead to the highest quality your source image can deliver.
- For the lazy in the Export Dialog, Lightroom can make it a little easier. It offers you to skip your calculation and do it for you. Enter theSize by changing the selectable field that by default says "pixels" to inches or cm and set the resolution to what you need. Lightroom will calculate the appropriate number of pixels AND the file created will have that resolution and size set into the file info so when you open the image in Photoshop, it will automatically set the page size and resolution that you set in Lightroom.
- In the Print Module, the Resolution controls how your image is sent to the printer. There is no reason to use the Resolution setting when you want the highest quality prints from your printer. Ticking the Resolution check box will resample the pixels sent to the printer. Apparently, some printers can benefit from it according to Adobe Help center but on my Epson 3880 leaving it unchecked always yields highest quality.


----------



## JimHess43 (Nov 16, 2013)

Okay, I guess I need to make the question a lot simpler. Julianne Kost says Lightroom will automatically calculate the correct PRINT resolution based on the size of the print. Is that true or not?  Because of this feature, she says to leave print resolution, in the PRINT MODULE unchecked when PRINTING.


----------



## JimHess43 (Nov 16, 2013)

Just in case there is any more confusion, I am not talking about the export module. I am talking about the resolution setting in the PRINT module.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 16, 2013)

Hi Jim, I understand your question, especially after your second post, so no need to shout . Like I said in my last paragraph, final sentence, you can leave it unchecked for highest quality. Lightroom will use the full pixels in your image and send the best possible print data to your printer, all in accordance with the paper size and other settings you've made. So I suppose Julianne's point is valid, although I've never come across any reference that puts it quite that way.

This is what Adobe Lightroom Help pages has to say about it:
*
Set print resolution*
In the Print module, the Print Resolution setting specifies the pixels per inch (ppi) of the photo for the printer. Lightroom resamples the image data if needed, depending on the print resolution and the print dimensions. The default value of 240 ppi is satisfactory for most print jobs, including high-end inkjet prints. Refer to your printer’s documentation to determine its optimal resolution.



In the Print Job panel of the Print module, do either of the following:


To control the print resolution, select Print Resolution and specify a different value, if necessary.
To use the native resolution of the photo (as long as it isn’t lower than 72 ppi or higher than 720 ppi), deselect Print Resolution.


Hope this is clarified now.


----------



## JimHess43 (Nov 16, 2013)

Selwin, as you might have surmised, I didn't read your last response very closely. Thank you for your clarification. This whole question came out because of what I was reading on another forum, and the "experts" were arguing something different. I won't mention the forum by name, but I don't put a lot of trust or credibility in a lot of the responses that are given there. Anyway, thanks again. Didn't really want to seem to be yelling. I just wanted to make sure I was being understood. I appreciate the responses here.


----------



## clee01l (Nov 16, 2013)

Now that I understand that the issue is about the Print module.  I can address that as I never need to print to JPEG.  So, I usually never see the field. If I used the Print to JPEG option, then LR will translate my original pixels to the ppi to arrive at pixel dimensions to match the output size.  (i.e. if I enter 72 and one side is to be 8 inches, then the JPEG will be resized to 576 pixels on that side.  If I enter 1200 then the result is an 8" side of 9600 px and LR has upsized the image)  LR will not let me leave the field blank. The field has to be a value between 72 and 1200.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 16, 2013)

Hi Cletus,

Even when you print to printer, there is a Resolution field that you can set or leave unchecked. It has everything to do with the way the data is sent to the printer. You probably never noticed and always leave it unchecked, as is the normal way to go.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 16, 2013)

JimHess43 said:


> Selwin, as you might have surmised, I didn't read your last response very closely. ...


No problem Jim, all is well. We just try to help as good as we can. Friendliness has always been the leading motive here (at least as long as I've been a member) and that is why I like it here so much.  We have some highly capable and respected Gurus so I'm confident there is no question to be left unanswered….


----------



## clee01l (Nov 16, 2013)

Selwin said:


> Hi Cletus,
> 
> Even when you print to printer, there is a Resolution field that you can set or leave unchecked. It has everything to do with the way the data is sent to the printer. You probably never noticed and always leave it unchecked, as is the normal way to go.


Thanks for pointing that out for me. Yes, it is unchecked and the dark Gray on darker gray makes it very difficult to see.  Easily (for me) to miss.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 16, 2013)

clee01l said:


> ...dark Gray on darker gray makes it very difficult to see.


Thought that may have been the case. Additionally, my eye usually first travels to the Print Sharpening and Color Management sections. Maybe yours do as well...


----------



## Gene_mtl (Nov 17, 2013)

If I may tag along on this question .   . . 

Selwin & Cletus:

I have an Epson Artisan 50 inkjet printer.  Everything I could find about printing to Epson printers highly recommended to set teh print resolution in the Lightroom Print module to 360 to produce the best output.

Additionally I use Costco for 12x18 inch prints. Again everything I was able to find about creating colour managed files to have printed by them stated I needed to produce a file that was exact pixels at 300 ppi, i.e. 12x18 inches needed to be 3600x5400 pixels.

If I am to understand what you two have stated above, establishing a specific print resolution is not necessary?

TIA


----------



## Selwin (Nov 17, 2013)

Hi Gene,

Adobe mentions in their help section that setting the resolution may be necessary to set according to printer requirements. For Cletus and me this has not been necessary, but for your printer there may be a different recommendation.

360 is an entire fraction of 1440 and 2880, so in a way the number itself makes sense. Could you provide links to those articles? I'll have a look.


----------



## clee01l (Nov 17, 2013)

Gene_mtl said:


> ..I have an Epson Artisan 50 inkjet printer.  Everything I could find about printing to Epson printers highly recommended to set teh print resolution in the Lightroom Print module to 360 to produce the best output.
> 
> Additionally I use Costco for 12x18 inch prints. Again everything I was able to find about creating colour managed files to have printed by them stated I needed to produce a file that was exact pixels at 300 ppi, i.e. 12x18 inches needed to be 3600x5400 pixels....


What I said previously was in relation to the EXIF header field on Exported files





> I don't know of any programs or printer drivers or video drivers that use the DPI/PPI value carried in the Header. The EXIF specs say that a blank field defaults to 72.



While there may be some printer specs that make recommendations about the value in the EXIF field, I seriously doubt the the field is used because it can easily be overridden in the software that sends the image to the printer.  Always important are the size of the image in pixels that are large enough to produces a print of satisfactory quality and the physical dimensions of the desired output.  Julianne Kost says to leave the print resolution checkbox unchecked because Lightroom will calculate the appropriate resolution for the size of print that is being printed. This was stated in the original post.  And something that I have always done when printing through LR.  I've never printed through Costco but from what I have read on their website, they do not require a value in the PPI field in the EXIF header.  The do recommend a minimum resolution and an optimum resolution IN PIXELs be sufficient to produce the size that you desire http://www.costcophotocenter.com/Help/#/topic/product-information---prints


----------



## robosolo (Nov 17, 2013)

JimHess43 said:


> I have been using Lightroom since version 2. I have followed several different forums hoping to learn the ins and outs of the program, and feel that I have a pretty good grasp of how it works. However, I got involved in a discussion about print resolution in another forum, and I'm still not sure what is right. Julianne Kost says to leave the print resolution checkbox unchecked because Lightroom will calculate the appropriate resolution for the size of print that is being printed. Someone on another forum said that Jeff Schewe is adamant about setting the print resolution to the native resolution of the printer. I'm getting pretty good prints leading the resolution box unchecked. But does anyone have any insight into what is best?


Jim,
I've had the exact same concerns as you do - regarding the print resolution settings in LR - for several years. Some experts - such as Julianne Kost and Martin Evening (at least in his LR4 book) - say to leave the print resolution box unchecked. As you indicate, Jeff Schewe strongly disagrees. He has written extensively about how to set the ppi for output prints in his articles and books. In his latest book, The Digital Print (pages 130 -132), he makes a compelling argument as to why he uses the 360/720 (for Epsons) or 300/600 (for Canon,HP) rule to set the output print resolution in both PS and LR.
Given Schewe's involvement in the development of both CR and LR, I am following his advice - at least until I'm convinced otherwise. BTW, his book is excellent and covers everything you'd want to know about fine arts printing.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 17, 2013)

This whole discussion is about whether or not it is necessary to interfere with the way data is being sent to the printer. Some individuals say no, others say yes. I've read Jeff's and others' concerns but I can't find any substantial explanation from Adobe or Epson on this matter. And because my test prints on my new Epson 3880 showed no difference between OFF, 360 or 720, I didn't bother to research it any further. As far as I understand the matter after quite a lot of research, the Epson printer driver will do the calculations adequately so no user interference is needed. Unless someone comes up with an in-depth background article from Adobe or Epson I will continue to print with Resolution control "off".

If I have some time next week I may try another test.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 17, 2013)

robosolo said:


> He has written extensively about how to set the ppi for output prints in his articles and books. In his latest book, The Digital Print (pages 130 -132), he makes a compelling argument as to why he uses the 360/720 (for Epsons) or 300/600 (for Canon,HP) rule to set the output print resolution in both PS and LR.



FWIW, I trust Jeff's judgement on this one, although you'll probably never notice a difference in real life.  He's had a lot more time to do numerous tests.


----------



## robosolo (Nov 17, 2013)

Selwin said:


> This whole discussion is about whether or not it is necessary to interfere with the way data is being sent to the printer. Some individuals say no, others say yes. I've read Jeff's and others' concerns but I can't find any substantial explanation from Adobe or Epson on this matter. And because my test prints on my new Epson 3880 showed no difference between OFF, 360 or 720, I didn't bother to research it any further. As far as I understand the matter after quite a lot of research, the Epson printer driver will do the calculations adequately so no user interference is needed. Unless someone comes up with an in-depth background article from Adobe or Epson I will continue to print with Resolution control "off".
> If I have some time next week I may try another test.



It's the adequacy of those printer calculations that Schewe is addressing. This is an excerpt from page 130 of his latest book, The Digital Print:

"The print driver works hand in glove with the operating system's print pipeline. When the printer reports itself, it designates its desired input resolution: for Epson, it's 360 PPI, and for Canon and HP, it's 300 PPI [_Based on the droplet resolutions of each printer_]. If the operating system receives something different from the printer's reported resolution, it does an interpolation. This is why setting the proper resolution in Lightroom and Photoshop is critical. The interpolation that the print pipeline uses is similar to a nearest-neighbor calculation, which is ugly compared to bicubic or other interpolation algorithms. You want the image you sent to the printer to match the resolution as it is reported to the print pipeline."

What I understand from what he's saying is that with that LR print resolution box left unchecked, the printer will do the resampling and resizing work, which is inferior to what LR can do. However if the box is checked - and an output ppi is chosen so that upsampling will occur - the resizing with resampling will be done using LR's superior interpolation algorithm.


----------



## clee01l (Nov 17, 2013)

robosolo said:


> What I understand from what he's saying is that with that LR print resolution box left unchecked, the printer will do the resampling and resizing work, which is inferior to what LR can do. However if the box is checked - and an output ppi is chosen so that upsampling will occur - the resizing with resampling will be done using LR's superior interpolation algorithm.


 Without some serious testing, I can't see where this is the case.  Given the input dimensions in pixels and the print dimensions in inches or cm, it appears that LR still does the resampling.  The function of the print driver is to stream pixels to the printer and instruct the printer where to put them on the page.   You can't take a JPEG file and open it with the print driver.   An interpretive program is always required to print.  Even inserting a card directly into the printer requires the printer operating system and a print program to provide the same functionality provided by the print software in your computer.


----------



## robosolo (Nov 17, 2013)

clee01l said:


> Without some serious testing, I can't see where this is the case.  Given the input dimensions in pixels and the print dimensions in inches or cm, it appears that LR still does the resampling.  The function of the print driver is to stream pixels to the printer and instruct the printer where to put them on the page.   You can't take a JPEG file and open it with the print driver.   An interpretive program is always required to print.  Even inserting a card directly into the printer requires the printer operating system and a print program to provide the same functionality provided by the print software in your computer.



I agree with you regarding the need for serious testing. I plan to do this using D800E raw files, various crop sizes and printing 16 X 24 on an Epson 3880. Maybe then I'll see a difference.

Schewe's assertion is that with the LR resolution box unchecked, resizing will occur without resampling (page 131). I have to assume he means that in this case an up-sized uninterpolated image is sent to the printer where the printer pipeline itself is doing the interpolation instead of letting LR do it beforehand.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 17, 2013)

OK so far I've only printed A4 size prints on Epson Luster paper. When printing A2, settings may be more critical. Rob it's great you want to do some serious testing on this. I am very interested in hearing about your findings


----------



## Gene_mtl (Nov 17, 2013)

Cletus & Selwin: Thank you for the further clarification.  

Selwin: I do not have a specific article I can point you to.  Most of what I have gleaned is from various forums.  One common thread element is people quoting Mr. Jeff Schewe, where he apparently ( since I do not have his book) recommends that for Epson printers the file resolution be set to 360/720 as Robosol states above. I have also seen him quoted as saying anything from 180 to 720 ppi should be acceptable.  The 300 ppi recommendation for prints done at Costco is due to the article at DrycreekPhotos (They are the ones who create the printer profiles for the Costco printers (Noritsu 3411 in my case)  At the bottom of this linked page, you will find the image sizing info.

Have another question about resizing in Lightroom, but it is better in a separate post.


----------



## JimHess43 (Nov 16, 2013)

I have been using Lightroom since version 2. I have followed several different forums hoping to learn the ins and outs of the program, and feel that I have a pretty good grasp of how it works. However, I got involved in a discussion about print resolution in another forum, and I'm still not sure what is right. Julianne Kost says to leave the print resolution checkbox unchecked because Lightroom will calculate the appropriate resolution for the size of print that is being printed. Someone on another forum said that Jeff Schewe is adamant about setting the print resolution to the native resolution of the printer. I'm getting pretty good prints leading the resolution box unchecked. But does anyone have any insight into what is best?


----------



## Selwin (Nov 17, 2013)

That is fine Gene, thanks for that. I think it's good to see a topic of slightly more "academic" nature on the forum . Let us hope Rob's testing scheme can shed some more light on this and we may all benefit one day when we need to create a large print from our printers.

Kind regards,


----------



## Bryan Conner (Nov 18, 2013)

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/workflow/the-right-resolution.html  is the link to the article where Jeff Schewe shares his findings from a test he did concerning printer resolution.  I can see a bit more detail in 600ppi prints vs 300ppi prints from my Canon printer....but I have to use a magnifying glass..and the difference is very small, but it is there.


----------



## robosolo (Nov 18, 2013)

Selwin said:


> OK so far I've only printed A4 size prints on Epson Luster paper. When printing A2, settings may be more critical. Rob it's great you want to do some serious testing on this. I am very interested in hearing about your findings



Starting the tests today.


----------



## robosolo (Nov 18, 2013)

*Tested: Print Resolution Box Checked vs Unchecked*



Selwin said:


> That is fine Gene, thanks for that. I think it's good to see a topic of slightly more "academic" nature on the forum . Let us hope Rob's testing scheme can shed some more light on this and we may all benefit one day when we need to create a large print from our printers.
> 
> Kind regards,



Here's how I tested:

I started with a 7360 X 4912 image and cropped it first to 1999 X 2499 pixels and then to a very severe crop of 557 X 697 pixels. The first crop resulted in a 257 ppi image and the second resulted in a 72 ppi image. I then printed each cropped image - both with the Print Resolution box checked and the ppi set to 360 and with the box left unchecked.

All images were printed as 8X10 on Red River Polar Pearl Metallic paper using an Epson 3880 set at highest quality/single pass.

I then examined each print both with my naked eyes and with a powerful illuminated 10X magnifying glass.

Results:

1. I could see no difference between the two 257 ppi image prints, no matter how hard I looked - even under magnification.

2. There was a difference for the two 72 ppi images, but I could only detect it under magnification. The print with the Print Resolution box left unchecked (printer does the upsampling interpolation) showed distinct pixelation. The print with the Print Resolution box checked and sent to the printer @ 360 ppi (as per Jeff Schewe) showed no such pixelation. Again, this was only observable under magnification.

Conclusions:
There is some benefit to following Jeff Schewe's LR Print Resolution settings but it only becomes significant as you approach extreme enlargement.

I plan to continue following Schewe's suggestions since I frequently do cropped enlargements (albeit generally not below 150 ppi) unless I find a compelling reason not to do so. I realize that this is a little irrational given the results of my own testing, but just knowing that LR can do a better job of upsampling is enough for me to continue the practice. Besides, I can't think of any benefit to leaving that box unchecked and letting my printer do the interpolation.

Eventually I'd like to test for image ppi values above 360.

robosolo


----------



## Selwin (Nov 18, 2013)

That is great Rob (is that your name?), thanks for testing. So far, I've only seen reports of "no difference" or "in favor of checking the box". Apparently you can't go wrong with using the resolution setting as there are no drawbacks. As for me, I think I just wait until I do my first A2 sized print and do some testing of my own. Thanks again!


----------



## robosolo (Nov 18, 2013)

Selwin said:


> That is great Rob (is that your name?), thanks for testing. So far, I've only seen reports of "no difference" or "in favor of checking the box". Apparently you can't go wrong with using the resolution setting as there are no drawbacks. As for me, I think I just wait until I do my first A2 sized print and do some testing of my own. Thanks again!



Rob will be fine.
If you're going to test with A2 size, could you do one at the higher range of 360 ppi to 720 ppi? I'd love to hear your results.

robosolo


----------



## Selwin (Nov 18, 2013)

Yes I will. But it may take some time (weeks, months?) before I print an A2. As soon as the first client orders one I'll print two with different settings.


----------



## sty2586 (Nov 18, 2013)

robosolo said:


> Here's how I tested:
> 
> I started with a 7360 X 4912 image and cropped it first to 1999 X 2499 pixels and then to a very severe crop of 557 X 697 pixels. The first crop resulted in a 257 ppi image and the second resulted in a 72 ppi image
> 
> robosolo




If I remember correctly, the crop size should always be a multiple of 16 (or 8 ?) pixel.
has something to do with the compression algorithm.
Franz


----------



## robosolo (Nov 19, 2013)

Bryan Conner said:


> http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/workflow/the-right-resolution.html  is the link to the article where Jeff Schewe shares his findings from a test he did concerning printer resolution.  I can see a bit more detail in 600ppi prints vs 300ppi prints from my Canon printer....but I have to use a magnifying glass..and the difference is very small, but it is there.


Bryan,
Thanks for the link to the Jeff Schewe article. I've read it before but decided to reread it again and I'm glad I did. the first time I read it was before I got my Epson 3880. Now I see that Schewe also recommends checking off  'Finest Detail' and unchecking the 'High Speed' (so it's single pass printing) in the Quality dialog window - for native image resolutions between 360 ppi and 720 ppi and LR with Print Resolution box checked and set to 720 ppi. As Schewe says, Epson only recommends using 'Finest Detail' for vector drawings.
As I've previously indicated, I don't know whether or not this makes a significant difference when viewing high resolution prints in the real world, but just knowing that there is an improvement (albeit almost microscopic) is enough incentive for me to follow the practice.

robosolo


----------



## camner (Jan 1, 2014)

Selwin said:


> Q: How can Lightroom help create the correct output?
> A: Basically, it's a very basic mathematical exercise. You take the required resolution x the size of the print = pixels required. Done it lots of times. When you output an image from Lightroom either through the Export Dialog or the Print Module, you'll need to export a file that has enough pixels to serve its purpose. So you can do your math and calculate the number of pixels. Then, from the…
> - Export Dialog: enter the number of pixels in the "Image Sizing" section, or:
> - Print Module: simply untick the "resolution" setting and your image will be printed at the actual size, using the full amount of its pixels. This will always lead to the highest quality your source image can deliver.
> ...


So, Selwin, if I understand your explanation correctly, there are a couple of ways to go here.  If I use your example of a 4x6 print at 300ppi, that's 4*300*6*300 = 2.16megapixels.  Thus, one option in the Export dialog is to set the image sizing to 2.16MP & leave the resolution blank.  The other option (the "lazy" approach) would be to set one dropdown menu to Dimensions (to take care of both portrait and landscape images) and the dropdown below to 4 and 6 inches, respectively, PLUS setting the resolution to 300.

Do I understand this correctly?


----------



## Selwin (Jan 1, 2014)

camner said:


> So, Selwin, if I understand your explanation correctly, there are a couple of ways to go here.  If I use your example of a 4x6 print at 300ppi, that's 4*300*6*300 = 2.16megapixels.  Thus, one option in the Export dialog is to set the image sizing to 2.16MP & leave the resolution blank.  The other option (the "lazy" approach) would be to set one dropdown menu to Dimensions (to take care of both portrait and landscape images) and the dropdown below to 4 and 6 inches, respectively, PLUS setting the resolution to 300.
> 
> Do I understand this correctly?


Almost . 

You can either:
A. Lazy option: set inches/cm + resolution and LR will calculate the pixels required for that output size and resolution

, or:
B. DIY option: calculate the required pixels in your head and set those (in which case the "resolution" setting has no influence and can be set to anything)


The added benefit of the Lazy option is that if you ever need to edit your image in Photoshop CSx, the document size will be set correctly. That is very convenient in case you send your image to a lab for printing because there will be no guessing which size is needed.


----------



## Bryan Conner (Jan 1, 2014)

Selwin said:


> Almost .
> 
> You can either:
> A. Lazy option: set inches/cm + resolution and LR will calculate the pixels required for that output size and resolution
> ...



Selwin, in your first screen shot, your image dimension is set to 6,000 inches.  I suppose that your number system there in The Netherlands is the same as here in Germany- 6,000 inches is six inches, not six thousand inches.  Is this correct?  I see that Camner is from the USA where the natives would read 6,000 as six thousand.  I would hate for some one to export an image that is six thousand inches on one side.....:shock:


----------



## Selwin (Jan 1, 2014)

Hi Bryan, yes you are correct. Our decimal separator is the comma (",") and the thousands separator is the dot ("."). Thanks for the warning. I think camner will figure it out...


----------



## camner (Jan 1, 2014)

Selwin said:


> Hi Bryan, yes you are correct. Our decimal separator is the comma (",") and the thousands separator is the dot ("."). Thanks for the warning. I think camner will figure it out...



Well, since I have a 16petapixel camera and just LOVE large prints, six thousand (that's unambiguous, no?) inches would be a possibility! 

Now in all seriousness, while the decimal separator is (almost) always clear in context, what's often NOT clear to folks is the different definition of billion and trillion (and on beyond...) here in the US.  Here 1 billion = 1,000,000,000, while in Europe (and the rest of the world?) 1 billion = 1,000,000,000,000.  I always wonder how the rest of the world reacts when they hear about the US GDP at (I think...I didn't look it up!) $16Trillion USD, but that's OUR trillion, not YOUR trillion!  Our GDP is large, but not THAT large!


----------



## camner (Jan 1, 2014)

Selwin,

What do you use to annotate your images (the arrows and text in your previous post)?


----------



## Bryan Conner (Jan 1, 2014)

Selwin said:


> Hi Bryan, yes you are correct. Our decimal separator is the comma (",") and the thousands separator is the dot ("."). Thanks for the warning. I think camner will figure it out...



As an American living in Germany, the whole comma/decimal difference in numbers has been a difficult one at times to get used to.  Now, after 4 years, I am finally getting used to the German way, which is the same as the Dutch way apparently.


----------



## Bryan Conner (Jan 1, 2014)

camner said:


> Well, since I have a 16petapixel camera and just LOVE large prints, six thousand (that's unambiguous, no?) inches would be a possibility!
> 
> Now in all seriousness, while the decimal separator is (almost) always clear in context, what's often NOT clear to folks is the different definition of billion and trillion (and on beyond...) here in the US.  Here 1 billion = 1,000,000,000, while in Europe (and the rest of the world?) 1 billion = 1,000,000,000,000.  I always wonder how the rest of the world reacts when they hear about the US GDP at (I think...I didn't look it up!) $16Trillion USD, but that's OUR trillion, not YOUR trillion!  Our GDP is large, but not THAT large!



Petapixel?  haha....learned a new one today.  I imagine the smart phones in a few months will have this sensor....lol.  

In German, million in English is Million (pluran is Millionen) in German, billion in English is Milliarde (plural is Milliarden) in German, and then trillion in English is Billion (plural is Billionen) in German.  These differences always cause me trouble when I am talking to our banker about our account balances.....


----------



## Selwin (Jan 1, 2014)

camner said:


> Selwin,
> 
> What do you use to annotate your images (the arrows and text in your previous post)?



Skitch, from a great tip by Cletus I think.


----------

