Jump to content
The Blinking Eye

Working with "Photos" editing software on an iMac and question about dpi

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

My workflow is way too cumbersome and my file management system almost non-existent, so I'm constantly grappling and really need to find a solid system of flow. I would like to do just light editing of images before uploading. The "Photos" program that comes with the iMac (and is therefore free) has an awesome "Retouch" button that eliminates dust particles with a click of a mouse. However, when I save or export any edited photo in this program, it converts it from 350 x 350 dpi to 72 x 72 dpi. I can't find a way around this. So editing a photo requires compromise in quality? Does it matter? Do buyers consider this? These 72 x 72 photos ARE passing Alamy QC, so is it a non-issue?

 

I do have another editing software program called Pixelmator, but I can't find a simple retouch feature and using that software really slows me down, since the photos are already stored in "Photos" and I don't have to open another program and import them. Sure, I'd love to upgrade to Lightroom, but I'm trying not to LOSE money since selling stock photos is already, clearly, not a very profitable enterprise.

 

Kristin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, The Blinking Eye said:

it converts it from 350 x 350 dpi to 72 x 72 dpi. I can't find a way around this

I don't know the Photos program but changing the ppi (pixels per inch) does not compromise quality so long as it doesn't change the pixel dimensions at the same time, it's not actually processing pixels at all, it's more of a representation of scale. Alamy will in any case change it to 72 ppi for previews and 300 ppi for final customer side downloads so the customer won't be affected. I agree it would be nice if Photos didn't do this, hopefully someone else can help but it's a non-issue in Alamy terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

I don't know the Photos program but changing the ppi (pixels per inch) does not compromise quality so long as it doesn't change the pixel dimensions at the same time, it's not actually processing pixels at all, it's more of a representation of scale. Alamy will in any case change it to 72 ppi for previews and 300 ppi for final customer side downloads so the customer won't be affected. I agree it would be nice if Photos didn't do this, hopefully someone else can help but it's a non-issue in Alamy terms.

 

It's not changing the dimensions or anything else, as far as I can see. Just the dpi. (I don't understand these things very well) It would save me a ton of time to be able to do a few quick edits in Photos then drag the altered photo to the Alamy Upload window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Harry says,  the DPI Resolution setting is just a scaling factor which determines the size of a printed image.  Here's some screen shots from Photoshop - as you can see I've altered the Resolution figure from 72 to 300 ('Resample' unchecked).  The image file size is unchanged (68.7M) and the pixel size hasn't changed (6000 x 4000) - only the printed size, in inches, has changed. So, yes, it's a non-issue for Alamy.  I hope that makes it a bit clearer.

 

Edit - Photoshop calls it Pixels/Inch but it's the same thing.

 

48702393302_4c600d7c2b_o.jpg

Edited by Vincent Lowe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Blinking Eye said:

Hello,

 

My workflow is way too cumbersome and my file management system almost non-existent, so I'm constantly grappling and really need to find a solid system of flow. I would like to do just light editing of images before uploading. The "Photos" program that comes with the iMac (and is therefore free) has an awesome "Retouch" button that eliminates dust particles with a click of a mouse. However, when I save or export any edited photo in this program, it converts it from 350 x 350 dpi to 72 x 72 dpi. I can't find a way around this. So editing a photo requires compromise in quality? Does it matter? Do buyers consider this? These 72 x 72 photos ARE passing Alamy QC, so is it a non-issue?

 

I do have another editing software program called Pixelmator, but I can't find a simple retouch feature and using that software really slows me down, since the photos are already stored in "Photos" and I don't have to open another program and import them. Sure, I'd love to upgrade to Lightroom, but I'm trying not to LOSE money since selling stock photos is already, clearly, not a very profitable enterprise.

 

Kristin

 

While Photos has improved massively over time and is not to be scoffed at in terms of its photo editing abilities, if you really want to advance your photography, then the small investment (10$/month or so) in the Adobe Photography Package may be well worth the spend as it opens up a whole new world. You get top quality professional software at a very reasonable price. Sometimes you have to do down a bit first to go up higher in the longer term. 

 

On a more pedantic note, as others have said the PPI (or DPI as used above) is irrelevant in terms of image quality as long as you don't change the number of pixels in the image. Yes the correct term is PPI (pixels per inch) although the term DPI (dots per inch) is used incorrectly right across the industry. DPI refers to the number of actual dots per inch on the paper when printing and is not the correct term to use when referring to the digital image on screen but it is so universal in its usage that it will never be eradicated. It does actually cause confusion when people go to print their images. Adobe software uses the correct term: PPI.

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vincent Lowe said:

the pixel size hasn't changed (6000 x 4000) - only the printed size, in inches, has changed. So, yes, it's a non-issue for Alamy.  I hope that makes it a bit clearer.

Good illustration, and you're right, it's mostly referred to as 'dpi' but I was looking at Photoshop at the time so I thought 'pixels per inch' might more clearly suggest what it refers to, I wasn't meaning to be pedantic but as MDM says, ppi is strictly correct.

 

 

 

You will also see 'dpi' on Alamy below every single image in the 'Dimensions', here they tell buyers how big your image might be used at 300 dpi. It's just a guide of course and doesn't take into account the pretty sophisticated interpolating software that is around or the type of use - newspaper, billboard, high end fashion magazine etc. etc.

 

It is still important at the final printing stage but we don't have to worry about that. Its main relevance was before digital cameras came along where scanners were the size of small pieces of furniture and scanning times were long and scanning time was therefore expensive. Here it was customary to scan only to the size needed, so that would depend upon two things, the size it was going to be used and the ppi required by the printing process. So, as an illustration a newspaper might only need 100 ppi whereas a glossy magazine would need 300 ppi or even more.

 

It is definitely confusing, I used to operate one of those scanners for a while and I lost count of the number of times that the customer, when asked the size, would just say '300 dpi please?'

 

I thought that was a thing of the past but I've just joined a venerable motorcycle club who I see are inviting submissions for their calendar "the size should be 300 dpi". Oh well.

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Good illustration, and you're right, it's mostly referred to as 'dpi' but I was looking at Photoshop at the time so I thought 'pixels per inch' might more clearly suggest what it refers to, I wasn't meaning to be pedantic but as MDM says, ppi is strictly correct.

 

You will also see 'dpi' on Alamy below every single image in the 'Dimensions', here they tell buyers how big your image might be used at 300 dpi. It's just a guide of course and doesn't take into account the pretty sophisticated interpolating software that is around or the type of use - newspaper, billboard, high end fashion magazine etc. etc.

 

It is still important at the final printing stage but we don't have to worry about that. Its main relevance was before digital cameras came along where scanners were the size of small pieces of furniture and scanning times were long and scanning time was therefore expensive. Here it was customary to scan only to the size needed, so that would depend upon two things, the size it was going to be used and the ppi required by the printing process. So, as an illustration a newspaper might only need 100 ppi whereas a glossy magazine would need 300 ppi or even more.

 

It is definitely confusing, I used to operate one of those scanners for a while and I lost count of the number of times that the customer, when asked the size, would just say '300 dpi please?'

 

I thought that was a thing of the past but I've just joined a venerable motorcycle club who I see are inviting submissions for their calendar "the size should be 300 dpi". Oh well.

 

DPI though is important when home printing - printer drivers will have various DPI settings in the thousands. And PPI is important there as well so I wouldn't go so far as to say we don't have to worry about it although that is true for submitting stock.

 

DPI is so ingrained now it will never go away. Most of the professional labs use it as well. 

 

There is a lot of it about. For example, the word literally is completely losing its original meaning - many people say literally when they mean figuratively. Language evolution I suppose. 

 

 

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MDM said:

the word literally is completely losing its original meaning

I like, literally, know where you're coming from!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm disinterested where that subject is concerned.

 

Paulette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/09/2019 at 23:58, MDM said:

 

While Photos has improved massively over time and is not to be scoffed at in terms of its photo editing abilities, if you really want to advance your photography, then the small investment (10$/month or so) in the Adobe Photography Package may be well worth the spend as it opens up a whole new world. You get top quality professional software at a very reasonable price. Sometimes you have to do down a bit first to go up higher in the longer term. 

 

 

I appreciate this comment. I despise the whole subscription model of purchasing software, but that's the way the world is trending. Your comment helps me feel more confident that's the way to go, eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The Blinking Eye said:

 

I appreciate this comment. I despise the whole subscription model of purchasing software, but that's the way the world is trending. Your comment helps me feel more confident that's the way to go, eventually.

 

I did the math on subscription vs. what I'd spent updating programs, and i pay once a year for Photoshop and Lightroom Classic.  It's competitive with upgrading in terms of price, and I started with a friend's $50 copy of Photoshop (he was an employee leaving and one perk was multiple copies at employee price) and a student/teacher version of Lightroom, so my initial cost in the original products was less than most would have paid.  I can install it on two machines as long as they're not running simultaneously.   I've installed the suite on an iMac and a Windows laptop.   You'd get a small discount if you pay annually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MizBrown said:

 

I did the math on subscription vs. what I'd spent updating programs, and i pay once a year for Photoshop and Lightroom Classic.  It's competitive with upgrading in terms of price, and I started with a friend's $50 copy of Photoshop (he was an employee leaving and one perk was multiple copies at employee price) and a student/teacher version of Lightroom, so my initial cost in the original products was less than most would have paid.  I can install it on two machines as long as they're not running simultaneously.   I've installed the suite on an iMac and a Windows laptop.   You'd get a small discount if you pay annually. 

 

I'm thinking once my initial sales here clear the cost of the software, I'll get an annual subscription. I imagine it makes the workflow more efficient? Thanks for the info!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.