Topic awaiting preservation: Need Scan/Print Help (Page 1 of 1)

I have used Photoshop for the web for years, but seem to stumble through it when I need to print. Here's my current dilemma.

I have scanned a 7 x 5 picture at 600dpi and am able to print it from Photoshop at 7 x 5. The problem is I am now trying to place two of these images in an 8.5 x 11 document at 600dpi and print it on one 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper but when I go to print, I get a message about the printable area being too big and that clipping will occur. On my screen, however, the two images seem to be well within the document parameters on print view. Any ideas?

I'm sure I'm missing something really basic...any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Transferred from PS forum.... http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum3/HTML/002603.html

Unless your printer prints full bleed (which I'll bet it doesn't), cropping will occur on a 8.5 x 11 image. Photoshop knows that part of the image is going to be cut off, so it tells ya. Print it, I'm sure it will be fine, and if you need all of that image on paper, change your page setup to 11x17 and print it and trim it down to the edges. BTW why on earth are you printing 600 dpi?

Well, I'm not really sure! I just kind of picked a dpi...I'm pretty new to printing. Any other suggestions? My printer will scan to 1200 dpi. Is that a better option?

Thanks!

I assume your using a regular rgb printer hooked up to your pc/mac. Your best bet would be to scan the art at 300 dpi. Only use 1200 dpi when your scanning line art (100% black, 100% white, no greys, no colors). Getting to your original question...the only thing I can think of is your orientation isn't set right. If the page is laid out sideways (landscape) and you have two 7x5 images next to each other, that makes the total printable area 7" high by 10.25" wide (.25" in between photos. Make sure they're centered in the middle of the page with at least a .25" border (margin). Go to print. Make sure the orientation is set up as landscape and hit print. As for your printer scanning 1200 dpi that's just confusing. I hope this helps. good luck.

If you need your scan larger then actual size, then scan at a higher resolution. What are you trying to print to? A home inkjet or something?

***Disclaimer***
What follows is not from me but is from this forum some time back. I couldn't find it in the archives here... so I went to *my* archives & FAQ's. Some of the info that follows won't mean much to you but it does rather neatly imo wrap into one all the various DPI- LPI ETC. stuff that still drives me nuts. Now with that said... I've lost the name of the original poster so if you recognize your handywork here please step forward and take credit where it's due.

Emps: I think this should be in the FAQ's under something like 'print resolutions.' What do you think?

Anyway..... on with the show... and thanx whoever you are <bg>

"There is a difference between the various resolution units used in scanners, monitors and printers, and they are not interchangeable and they don't all refer to the same thing. A commercial printing machine may output at 1200 dpi, but the graphics file from which they are printed needs to be only 300 ppi. One pixel does NOT translate into one ink dot. Have a look at http://graphicdesign.about.com/library/weekly/aa070998.htm for an explanation of LPI (the resolution term used for the imagesetters that make the films used on commercial printers), DPI ( the term used for laser and inkjet printers), SPI (used for scanners) and PPI (used for monitor display).

That all said, vogonpoet's recommendation for scanning at 300 spi is fine IF you are printing the scan at the final image size. You are obviously not, and will be taking your scan into photoshop to increase its dimensions. This will be where it can get tricky. Assuming the commercial printer has a line frequency of 150 lpi (which is what I think sexylyon was actually referring to - please correct me if I am wrong), and this is probably about average for commercial printing. The rule of thumb for scanning resolution is 2 x LPI, which in this case is = 300 spi. But in turn this is assuming the SAME size will be used for printing. If you are increasing the final size to 400% (can your scanner do this?) of the original size, you will need to scan at 4 x 300 = 1200 spi. So when you increase the dimensions of the image (which will automatically decrease the resolution - unless you ask PS to interpolate - not a good idea for an increase of this magnitude) you will still have a decent enough resolution for printing.

Your poster may be way bigger than 400% increase over the original, but it will probably be impossible to scan either at this scale and/or at any higher resolution (even if the scanner says it can - what it is really doing is interpolating - not the same thing). So it rapidly becomes a tradeoff between the highest resolution you can get from your scanner at the largest upscaling it can do and increasing the size in Photoshop and still retain a decent resolution from which to print your poster. And it is impossible to get a poster size print (whatever size that may be) that is made from a digital file, without getting some pixelation.

Another thought - you have said most posters you have seen look very pixelated. This will be the case for most posters that are printed (as opposed to those made photographically). But that is usually OK, as most people view posters from a distance - and not up close, which is where you have to be to actually see the individual ink dots. They look fine (and the pixelation is not obvious) when viewed from a distance away that enables you to see the whole poster at once. But ask your printer what resolution he recommends you should do your original scan knowing the size of the original photo. "

I think I recognise that post as one of mine. I am so glad someone thought it good enough to copy and put in their personal archive. And also to recycle it again some time later to help someone else.
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum18/HTML/000080.html



[This message has been edited by Eggles (edited 07-27-2002).]

Hey! Good stuff glad you recognized it. better yet you found the original. Good stuff is good stuff... No "Best before" stamp on that info. I have a very unorganized archive and it took me a bit to find it. I'm not always diligent in attaching names to posts I archive for myself... sorry 'bout that... but it did seem to be appropriate info for the question.