All Forum Comments
Comment by Kevriano posted on Knights Battle at Hever at 19/11/2017 - 08:34
Nice, and congrats.
Comment by Kevriano posted on On Landscape Magazine at 18/11/2017 - 07:09
McGregNi wrote:
What I don't understand with mine, is that when I reordered at 7.5 x 5, half of the prints that they messed up at 7 x 5 were ok, but the rest weren't and, as illustrated, some phots that I converted to B and W were printed fine, and the colour was cropped. Basically, don't use Photobox!pschlute wrote:
.....
The advantage of creating your file to an exact specification is that you dont then rely on the printers software to make any adjustments .....
The thing is Peter, as you also said 'it depends on the printing service' .... the point is with many services (and often they are very good ones) is that there is no way to prevent them doing their automated changes .... even if you provide the file exactly as you want, their software will perform changes anyway. So I feel you are unlikely go gain any quality advantage from performing resizing yourself. And if an enlargement is involved, how do we know that the interpolation method we use, or our own skills, would be superior to the professional grade systems of the commercial printing operation?.....
The advantage of creating your file to an exact specification is that you dont then rely on the printers software to make any adjustments .....
Comment by Kevriano posted on A question about prints... at 17/11/2017 - 18:30
pschlute wrote:
It depends on the printing service. DSColourLabs require the image resized to the specific print size at 300 ppi. ProAm require the same but use a different ppi (402 I think). You should always check on the printing services website.
The advantage of creating your file to an exact specification is that you dont then rely on the printers software to make any adjustments. In the case of DSCL or ProAm it wont make any adjustment at all, your print will just be wrong. This enables them to keep costs low yet still produce a high quality print.
For a service that offers the ability to crop on the website itself or has software that will do it for you then Nigel's advice is probably correct.
Thanks all. This will be a lesson learned, and a refund issued. I will have a play around and try a different service.It depends on the printing service. DSColourLabs require the image resized to the specific print size at 300 ppi. ProAm require the same but use a different ppi (402 I think). You should always check on the printing services website.
The advantage of creating your file to an exact specification is that you dont then rely on the printers software to make any adjustments. In the case of DSCL or ProAm it wont make any adjustment at all, your print will just be wrong. This enables them to keep costs low yet still produce a high quality print.
For a service that offers the ability to crop on the website itself or has software that will do it for you then Nigel's advice is probably correct.
Comment by Kevriano posted on A question about prints... at 17/11/2017 - 17:09
pschlute wrote:
If you are using the crop tool, check the parameters you are using to make sure you retain 300 ppi. After you crop, check the image dimensions with the "resize image" menu
Thanks for the explanation. I'm fighting for a refund now, and will go elsewhere, and bear this in mind first.Kevriano wrote:
As for resizing using PPI, How does that work as I have dropped to 7 x 5 in photoshop?
When you resize in PS you have a parameter "triangle". Physical size (inches) x pixel dimensions x ppi. 300 ppi is common for printing, so keeping that constant, changing your image size to 7x5 inches gives you as JAK says 2100 x 1500 pixelsAs for resizing using PPI, How does that work as I have dropped to 7 x 5 in photoshop?
If you are using the crop tool, check the parameters you are using to make sure you retain 300 ppi. After you crop, check the image dimensions with the "resize image" menu
Comment by Kevriano posted on A question about prints... at 16/11/2017 - 17:04
JAK wrote:
I don't know, as I just used the 7 x 5 aspect option for cropping, I never look at pixels, so this may be where I went wrong, but it doesn't explain this?Kevriano wrote:
Yes, and this was my issue. There are no borders on my uploaded pics. They wanted me to crop or shrink to fit, which I didn't do, as they were exactly as they needed to be. They agreed they weren't right, but the next batch have different photos with borders. I certainly won't use Photobox again.
What were the pixel dimensions of your 7x5 images? Ideally they'd be 2100X1500 pixels.Yes, and this was my issue. There are no borders on my uploaded pics. They wanted me to crop or shrink to fit, which I didn't do, as they were exactly as they needed to be. They agreed they weren't right, but the next batch have different photos with borders. I certainly won't use Photobox again.
Comment by Kevriano posted on A question about prints... at 16/11/2017 - 16:08
So this is from the second batch. How they can print the colour version wrong and the B and W conversion right is beyond me.
As for resizing using PPI, How does that work as I have dropped to 7 x 5 in photoshop?
As for resizing using PPI, How does that work as I have dropped to 7 x 5 in photoshop?
Comment by Kevriano posted on A question about prints... at 16/11/2017 - 14:28
derek897 wrote:
We're the shots that came back with borders top and bottom missing part of the original image, if they were then the issue would seem to be with photobox, it kind of sounds like the were trying to print a different aspect ratio on to 7 x 5 .
They were hardly so stupid to mix up the portrait and landscape orientation on different shots, it's the only other thing I can think of.
I'll take some pictures of the prints and my originals.We're the shots that came back with borders top and bottom missing part of the original image, if they were then the issue would seem to be with photobox, it kind of sounds like the were trying to print a different aspect ratio on to 7 x 5 .
They were hardly so stupid to mix up the portrait and landscape orientation on different shots, it's the only other thing I can think of.
Comment by Kevriano posted on A question about prints... at 16/11/2017 - 12:09
derek897 wrote:
Have you compared the images that came back with a border to the images submitted. Should be able to tell from that where the problem is.
Nothing to do with your camera.
Yes, and this was my issue. There are no borders on my uploaded pics. They wanted me to crop or shrink to fit, which I didn't do, as they were exactly as they needed to be. They agreed they weren't right, but the next batch have different photos with borders. I certainly won't use Photobox again.Have you compared the images that came back with a border to the images submitted. Should be able to tell from that where the problem is.
Nothing to do with your camera.
Comment by Kevriano posted on A question about prints... at 16/11/2017 - 11:46
Hello. For my sins I rarely get any photos printed, but have recently had some prints done for a friend's wedding shots. The size requirement for the album was 7 x 5, and so any photos that I had to edit (crop etc) that I submitted for printing were sized as 7 x 5 in Photoshop.
When I received the first batch of prints some had white borders top and bottom, and so I argued with the printer, got some done larger at 7. 5 x 5, and this seems to have solved the issue with the cropped shots, but recreated the issue with those I didn't touch.
Obviously I now have 2 batches of pics that I can work with, but it doesn't seem right. Surely you can get prints the right size from an APS-C camera these days? Or am I wrong?
When I received the first batch of prints some had white borders top and bottom, and so I argued with the printer, got some done larger at 7. 5 x 5, and this seems to have solved the issue with the cropped shots, but recreated the issue with those I didn't touch.
Obviously I now have 2 batches of pics that I can work with, but it doesn't seem right. Surely you can get prints the right size from an APS-C camera these days? Or am I wrong?
Comment by Kevriano posted on A question about prints... at 16/11/2017 - 10:15
certainly look as though they are putting in the effort, lots of colour to play with but probably to many shots of their backs to make it of great interest.
As for cropping, I could have I guess, and did with a couple. Thanks for the comment though.