Question 300ppi for a 10' x 8' backdrop???

[timjitsu]

Right now I have all my printing done through B2. The maximum file size they accept is 300mb. My customer keeps sending me .jpg's that are sized out to 10' x 8' and exported at 300ppi. The files are a massive 1-1.5GB. I asked B2 and they said any file that's 300ppi and over a couple square feet is 1. not necessary and unnoticeable. and 2. They automatically lower it to 150ppi on larger prints, so its pointless for him to save them like that. I tried telling my customer this but hes a stickler about all of his stuff and says things like "we require all our prints to be 300ppi" and "well the people who did my printing before never had a problem with it."

Idk, I'm not that knowledgeable it printing is 300ppi really unnecessary and unnoticeable at those sizes? and do I just keep altering his artwork? It's just a pain in the ass because to edit those files takes a bit of time and he always sends me them right at the cut off time for B2, and hes always in a rush for them. Not to mention the hard drive space.....

 

[dypinc]

150ppi is fine unless for some reason everyone will be looking at it from a foot away.

 

[timjitsu]

150ppi is fine unless for some reason everyone will be looking at it from a foot away.

Both are magnified to 200% in Acrobat. On the left is the original file at 300ppi, on the right is after I re-saved it to 150ppi.

 

[dypinc]

Sure, but have a small sample printed at full size from both resolutions and then look at it from the normal viewing distance, then you will know if it needs 300ppi or if 150ppi will do the job.

 

[shoresigns]

Here's the formula we use.

600 / viewing distance (ft) = recommended resolution (ppi)

 

[dypinc]

Good formula, but I never go under 25ppi for billboards.

 

[Andy_warp]

A high resolution jpeg is kind of an oxymoron. You are introducing compression...which kills your image integrity right off the bat.

A .psd at 75ppi at 10' x 8' is usually great, depending on the image...and no compression artifacts!
If there are rasteized "graphic" type elements or small/skinny text...100 to 150ppi

Compression is the enemy in grand format graphics...try to get at the source images before they've been imported/exported/compressed/converted....yadda yadda yadda.

I get 100 ppi images that have been through the ringer, and truth be told, I've seen 50 ppi images look better...(at 100% size printed)
With these size images the finesse used to upsample is more important the the actual resolution.

Another thing to save time and disk space is work in rgb.

 

[Billct2]

Why isn't he still using those "people who never had a problem with it" anymore?

 

[GAC05]

Why isn't he still using those "people who never had a problem with it" anymore?

Most likely they went blind trying to see the difference between 300 and 150ppi from 3 feet away.

 

[CL Visual]

There is absolutely no reason for anything over 72 for backdrops. I print at 72 on a regular basis for banners and vehicle wraps. If it's photographic artwork, I'll save at 100dpi although there is only a very slight difference.

 

[Patentagosse]

I work with 100dpi files for about everything I print here and I'm picky for quality. If it's for putting on your boss's door at eye level, sure I'll print at 300 because it's required and it's small. I've done pretty decent jobs on trailer wrap using my old camera (2.1M pixels) and now my cellphone. Sure I prefer working from a photographer file but sometimes you have to deal with time and/or budget.
I once told a local marketing agency how to setup a file for grand format printing (we had a cube van to do, like 8ft x 14ft). I explained 'em to work at 100dpi / actual size. The girl cranked it up at 300 or 600dpi (can't remember, it was +10 years ago) so once I started to download her file, I knew she didn't follow the "rules". Internet wasn't what it is now so figure how long it took to get it here (1.5Gb) 'Had to downsize it... finally it ended up around 170Mb (TIF, RGB)

300dpi for backdrop...

 

[Active Sign]

300dpi is more for press printing. This is grand format, nothing is printed at 300dpi this large. Set to 150 and move on with life. Whoever they used before was doing the same. The fact that they are allowing it to run through a place like B2 shows they aren't that critical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[boxerbay]

What he said ^ 150 dpi is fine. Its not a Conde Naste Magazine you are printing. Client will not be able to notice the difference. I highly doubt the native files are 96x96 @ 300dpi. They mostly opened up a 300dpi photoshop file and dropped all their art in their which then they stretched up to size. So even though the file is 300dpi the content could be junk. be sure to view your file at 100% in PS before printing.

We get these inhouse photoshoppers all the time. they think if they crank up the DPI the file is automatically crisp and clean. then saved as a JPG?? >facepalm<

 

[fresh]

i've printed images from stock sites at 50 dpi and they look great. I've made the joke that my printer can't print a bad image.

And when people send me full size images at 300 dpi, grrrr. Thanks for crashing my computer, jerks.

 

[Jamie0075]

What he said ^ 150 dpi is fine. Its not a Conde Naste Magazine you are printing. Client will not be able to notice the difference. I highly doubt the native files are 96x96 @ 300dpi. They mostly opened up a 300dpi photoshop file and dropped all their art in their which then they stretched up to size. So even though the file is 300dpi the content could be junk. be sure to view your file at 100% in PS before printing.

We get these inhouse photoshoppers all the time. they think if they crank up the DPI the file is automatically crisp and clean. then saved as a JPG?? >facepalm<

Haha this is totally me. crank it to 600 and think the image looks better... it must it’s a higher number is what I told myself... I’ll do it the way you folks are saying... > facepalm < hahaha! I’m new to this stuff. Do it part time in my basement learning as I go. You guys are great! Thank you!

 

[shoresigns]

A high resolution jpeg is kind of an oxymoron. You are introducing compression...which kills your image integrity right off the bat.

That's your perfectionist brain lying to you. It's not an oxymoron. Lossy compression doesn't lower the resolution, and if you manage your compression settings, you won't normally see a difference in the print. Using JPEG files for production is a standard, common practice in printing. It's often the best way to upsample a large-scale print, and embedded images in press quality PDFs are usually saved as JPEG as well.

 

[printhog]

The visual resolution of the human eye is about 1 arc minute. At a viewing distance of 20″, that translates to about 170 ppi... just sayin.

 

[Andy_warp]

That's your perfectionist brain lying to you. It's not an oxymoron. Lossy compression doesn't lower the resolution, and if you manage your compression settings, you won't normally see a difference in the print. Using JPEG files for production is a standard, common practice in printing. It's often the best way to upsample a large-scale print, and embedded images in press quality PDFs are usually saved as JPEG as well.

I didn't say it "lowers" resolution. I said it introduces compression. I shoot photos with a dslr...and it's nothing but raw for me. The jpegs are not as good...ever. Just like a jpeg will not be as good as a .psd file...ever.
I've been printing for 20 years, I am aware of what common practice is. I'm also aware of how low peoples standards are. jpegs are great for small and wide format printing. They look like dog crap when you upsample from an already compressed jpeg, and save to another compressed jpeg. It's bad practice.

If the image on the left looks just fine to you, compared to what it could be on the right...(from the same image) I don't know what else to say.
You say "perfectionist" but look at all that crap in the dark areas of the jpeg. Look how chunky it looks compared to it's smooth counterpart.
None of this matters...until you push an image way past what it is capable of...
Then I get to print it...it looks like shit, and I get blamed for "printing it wrong."

Can't we try harder than "standard practice for production?"
Spreading propaganda like upresing from a jpeg is optimal is half of why I get such crap files to print.
It's faster and easier for everybody... and perfect for a sub par image.

 

[boxerbay]

RAW vs JPEG is two completely different things. What the other guy was referring to is that you can have a high res JPEG. JPEG allows for compression but you do you the option to not compress it when saving the file. In the grand scheme of things JPEG is not the best and I personally prefer TIFFS for raster images.

 

[Logoadv]

JPG the only option for uploading? In certain files Ive seen PNG come out far smaller. Large patches of solid color and sharp edge graphics will both look better and be a lot smaller file in PNG format. For photographs with lots of gradients the JPG will be smaller (generally)