Good news! Glad this helped :-)

@@SeanBagshaw Can't believe that I got a direct and immediate response. Feel really appreciated, wish I could subscribe twice.

One hundred thumbs up noted and deposited in your thumbs up account! :-D

It is amazing how some ideas stick with us because they just "feel true". And I agree...actually doing the experiment and trying it out for ourselves is often the best way to really get a concept. Keep up the great work!

christov777 Thanks. Yeah, I know that is one that would be helpful. It’s a tricky topic with a lot of variables so I haven’t figured out how to do it in a video yet. I’ll keep thinking 🤔 on it.

BNIBCD Creative Media Ahh...the good old days. 😆

The truth is out there! Keep up the good fight :-D

Right on Tim. I'm so glad I didn't just confuse things more. That Jim in Ashland is one smart dude, by the way. :-D

@@SeanBagshaw Must be something is the air

Haha! To be fair...if that teacher was from the way old days, there was a time when it did make a difference.

Most welcome! Fortunately, this is one of those times when no matter how you do it there isn't an adverse effect. :-D

Thanks, Neil. I hope you can find additional helpful stuff buried in my ramblings. :-D

Thanks for your comment! Yeah, with 42 MP you can print quite large. If you look at the image size at 300ppi in PS that will tell you how large it will print at that print res with no upscaling. I find that I can usually up-res to twice the size in PS with good results...so if the native print size is 12x18 at 300ppi for example, going up to 24x36 at 300ppi is good and maybe larger depending on print type and your expectations. Also, using Topaz Gigapixel AI I have been sizing even larger. I just did a large commercial print order of 30x45 and 40x60 all from 23-30 MP cameras and they came out great.

Right on. I was in that same place years back and had that very Aha moment. One thing that helps me with the Aha is that the number of pixels, file type and compression are the things that determine file size. The PPI setting does not alter any of those.

All true. Apple started with 72 ppi then Windows bumped to 96 ppi...then screens using ppi was abandoned shortly after. Today a 4K, 27" monitor has about 164 ppi, but every screen res and screen size has a different ppi. Plus, images on most websites are now responsive so they scale up or down to fit the screen regardless of how many pixels they contain.

1. DPI and PPI are two different things. Screens and camera sensors have pixels so PPI. DPI stands for dots per inch. This is the number of ink droplets the printer can put down in an inch. This number is different than the number of pixels. For example, a Canon printer can put down 1200 dots of ink per inch (dpi). If image pixels in a print are 300 ppi, then each printed pixel is 4 dots of ink wide. 2. With scanners you are scanning film, so the resolution is related to the actual size of the photo you are scanning. If you scan a 35mm slide that is only 1.5 inches wide at 300 dpi, then you have a digital image that is only 450 pixels across because 300 dpi x 1.5 inches = 450 pixels. This equates to an image taken with a 0.135 megapixel sensor. When you scan at 4800 dpi x 1.5 inches = 7,200 pixels which is more like a 35 megapixel camera. 3. 300 ppi pixels will make a better print because the pixels are smaller, giving better detail and if 300 ppi matches the printer's native print resolution then this will also give cleaner results. If two different prints were printed the same size at different ppi, then pixel resampling is being done somewhere in the process. The only way to print the same size with larger pixels is to have fewer pixels. 4. This video is about screen resolution, not print resolution...but I do agree with the photography teacher. 5. Not sure what you are referring to here.

Judy Parker glad the vid helps! I don’t know the file size of the images on my site offhand, but they are 1500x1000 pixels. And you can save with a jpeg quality of 8-10 and this will reduce file size a lot with almost no noticeable loss of quality on screen. That’s what I do.

@@SeanBagshaw Okay, that fits with the Save for Web form and what I've read is recommended. Like you said, there's so much out there though. And I've yet to post anything, still working on the photos (night time iron pour events - gah!!) so wasn't sure if doing that was going to be okay. These are dark and grainy to begin with. So I really appreciate your quick reply! Will keep plugging away. ;) Thanks again!!

actually, its for the load time

Love it!

Prozoot I don’t change anything about the image dimensions/resolution of the master tif file. When I need to output the image I create a copy and then size the copy for the specific use.

@@SeanBagshaw ...thanks for responding but my question was not very well stated. When your camera raw file is converted to the original TIFF for archiving, what size do you make the master TIFF file in anticipation of future use. Yes, you will want to spin off duplicate files, but I am asking about the master TIFF file that will be placed in your archive. What is the first-generation size that you will create -- PPI and dimensions?

Prozoot Sorry about that. I open the starting tif file at the pixel dimensions of the camera that took it. I don’t upsample or downsample pixels in this file. The PPI doesn’t matter until it is time to print so it can be anything you want. PPI only changes the size the pixels will print but has no affect on pixel count or file size. When I create a print copy then I size the image and set the ppi of the copy to match the particular print output. I hope that makes sense. 😁

@@SeanBagshaw ....Sean, thanks for trying to explain, but the process still escapes me. I wish you had been specific, listing settings and numbers (..."for example"...) that would help form a mental picture. I have no idea what you mean by, " I open the starting tif file at the pixel dimensions of the camera that took it." Are you talking about megapixel rating of the camera?? Do you have a YT video that goes into this stuff with detail? If you don't, I would love to see you make a "Camera-to-Computer Image Process" video that talks about options, settings, objectives, limitations, and issues, as applied to both Internet display and printmaking. I can't find anything online that is clear and comprehensive. BTW, your photography is unbelievable. These are the best dramatic landscapes I have ever seen! You are a man of tremendous patience and drive. Great accomplishments.

@@Prozoot Sorry that it is difficult to communicate this in writing. There are literally no settings that need to be changed. If you open an image in PS from LR, there is no setting available and images automatically open with the pixel dimensions that the camera recorded. For example, my 30 MP Canon EOS R has a sensor that captures raw files that are 6720 pixels by 4480 pixels. So when I open an image from that camera from LR as a tif in PS it will be 6720 x 4480 pixels and I just leave it at that size. If you open a raw file using Camera Raw instead of LR there is an option to upsample or downsample the pixel count but unless you have changed it, it defaults to the number of pixels in the original raw file. Both LR and Camera Raw do allow you to set the ppi when opening in PS, but as I explain in this video, until you are ready to print the ppi number makes no difference in the image file. I think both LR and Camera Raw have a defualt ppi setting of 300...but it doesn't matter at this stage. As long as you set the ppi of the print output copy before going to print then that's all you need to do for that setting. Regarding a comprehensive "Camera-to-Computer Image Process" tutorial, that's more information than I can fit in a KZfaq video. It is something I cover in some of my longer Photoshop courses, however.

Dale Martin Not to worry. The PPI setting only comes into play when printing. The rest of the time what you have it set to doesn’t matter.

I don't have experience with InDesign, so I can't really help you out with that. Sorry.

Indesign has quality preview settings, that might cause your problem.

@@thimoestroll Thank you for the reply - sadly that's not it. It's once exported (I use InDesign a lot for creating quick graphics for Insta for example).

I think you are on the right track. Yes, the physical size of the monitor does affect the apparent resolution of the monitor. For example, 1920x1080 pixels on a small screen (like a phone or iPad) will appear to be sharper or "better" resolution than 1920x1080 on a 30 inch monitor because the pixels of the 30 inch monitor are so much larger. When you have two monitors with the same pixel count, the larger monitor has the lower number of pixels per inch. The difference is that with printing you can change the print size by changing the ppi but with monitors, you are stuck with whatever the pixels per inch actually are.

I think Apple introduced the world to the idea of pixels per inch.

An image that has 6000x8000 pixels has 48 million pixels, which is a lot. At 300 ppi it will print 26.7 inches on the long side (8000 pixels divided by 300 pixels per inch) without any enlarging. However, the quality of the print still depends on the quality of those 48 million pixels. If you are seeing noise, artifacts or pixelation on your screen then that will probably show up in the print as well.

The size of the screen technically doesn't matter. 4K refers to the number of pixels, not the screen size. A 4K phone screen and a 4K 30 inch monitor both have the same number of pixels (3840x2160). If you want full 4K resolution then those are the pixel dimensions you need. The difference is that a 4K phone screen have much smaller pixels than a 4K 30 inch monitor. However, because the pixels on smaller 4K screens are smaller, you can get away with lower pixel dimensions without a visible loss of sharpness. Because the pixels on phones are so small, it gets difficult to see the difference between 4K and lower pixel resolution. Also, there are some 4K phones, but it isn't the most common. My iPhone 14 Pro has a resolution of just 2556 x1179. The larger Pro Max pixel resolution is 2778x1284. So, sizing to 4K isn't necessary for most phones, but it would ensure that it covers all phones and also allows for zooming in a bit and retaining sharpness. But 4K images take up space and bandwidth. I size my images for social media to just 1500 pixels wide and they look fine on my phone as far as I am concerned.

I'm not sure exatly what you mean by "scale it down to smaller pixels". Do you mean fewer pixels or more pixels per inch? Are you making the final image larger or smaller in size?

Stand further away from the poster when you look at it.

I think Photoshop's sampling is smart enough nowadays that you don't need the multiple steps. Either way you are asking the software to guess detail that doesn't exist so there is only so far you can push it. If your image is a composite there are some things you can do to help, such as keeping any additional elements you place in your image as smart objects and not rasterizing text layers. This will help those layers stay sharp as you enlarge depending on the resolution of the originals. If you're talking about a single photo though, the only real way to print bigger is to shoot bigger in the first place i.e. use a higher resolution camera.