THANK YOU!!! I worked at a print shop with a woman once who refused to print a 4800x3000 personal photo because it was saved as a JPG at 72 ppi. She yelled at the customer who could not provide her with a higher resolution file, "Do you not understand? I can only print if it's a 300 ppi TIFF!" I opened the image that the customer sent, changed the image size from 4800x3000@72 ppi to 2400x1500@300 ppi (the final output size was 8x5 inches), changed the color mode to CMYK, and saved the file as a TIFF. I sent it to her and she printed it without question even though she had less data than the original. She asked me over and over how I managed to find a "higher resolution" personal photo of our customer, as if I broke into her computer or something.
I had the opposite problems... customers would bring me images on their phones and want them printed large, then complain about how jagged they were. I was constantly having to tell people that the 12mp image they had could not be blown up to 24x36 and retain its sharpness. 24MP was the minimum I'd recommend for a 24x36 (about 168ppi) poster.
@Octagian I'm 47 myself, so I'm not sure I appreciate your insinuation 😂. This was back around 2000-2001, and she was maybe 30 then. She's probably mid-50s now.
I really love your T-Shirt! Could you tell us where we can buy it? Or maybe you can do a deal with the brand so you can sell it as your merch? Or you simply design a similar one ;) I would buy it instantly! Great video by the way, as always! =)
How come my composites get fuzzy and blur out sooner at 72ppi compared to 300ppi when zooming in to work on details? Same images, same canvas size, only difference is ppi.
*I think this is an important lesson for photoshop, I once had to get a flex board printed for one of my business, I sent the image to the agency in high ppi but not very huge size in inches, the agency person asked for higher size again and again, in the end as the image in high dpi and full inches had the size of 1 GB or something I simply decreased the ppi and increased the size in inches, was thankful it was okay...*
@@rochendlywouters9113 Depends what you're doing, but generally you're correct. I scan at 600ppi most of the time so that when I throw out 3/4 of the pixels I've still got a decent resolution. Sometimes I'll go as high as 1200ppi if I've got a more important image, more image information or there's more noise to contend with. But, 300dpi at that size is frequently more than you'd need or have use for.
Tell me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that pixels only matter on a computer (digital rendering.) Printers don't print pixels. They print dots. That means on a computer, you cannot draw a true arch, but only "stairsteps." A printer though, can print a true arch if there are enough dots per inch because each dot's location is measured from a reference point ("x" dots left or right and "y" dots up or down) with each dot, a different numerical value is assigned to x and y and the count always begins at the reference point. That's like G Code without the "z" axis.
Reminds of a vendor I dealt with once for a digital ad. Their designer called me to tell me that I needed to resubmit the art because it needed to be 300x600 at 300dpi. It was indeed 300x600 but I couldn’t get why dpi mattered. So I asked if they’re planning on printing it because that’s too small for print regardless and he said “no, it’s for online only”. I figured it’s pointless trying to explain so I just went into photoshop and changed the dpi from 72 to 300 and sent it back. My younger self would have wasted the next 20+ minutes arguing my point but I had enough experience by that point to know better lol.
300dpi did not matter at all. What matters is the resolution. This today still a huge problem with people. That’s why you should never never ask for dpi or dpi or you will endup with a low resolution image or logo stretch to fit inside a big box. Always ask for resolution.
Whilst I would normally totally agree with you, in desktop publishing dpi is represented in the digital file and is used to save someone from having to change the resolution (a 2 second job) but they always ask for x-dpi . Took me a while to get that but if you look at something like Adobe's in-design and import an image at 300ppi and one at 72ppi they're actually displayed at print size, this is completely different to photoshop that would show both as identical images
@@jimdavies I get what you are saying because it would throw the scaling off in a print layout program. BUT in my experience it was happening just when someone needed an asset from me to use on some social media piece. I have to tell them the assets are plenty big enough.
@@YashJain0702 I said the same thing about Unmesh and Adobe Premiere. Surely enough, he replied he was just getting ready to master it enough that he's comfortable to teach it already. It's not impossible.
I get your general point but I take issue with one aspect: There is always a physical property to resolution. Unless you plug your brain into your computer directly, you have to convert pixels into linear dimensions. Whether you're viewing the image on a phone, monitor, projector, paper, anything at all, it now has spatial dimensions. Likewise, taking an image also has spatial dimensions with a scanner or camera. Inside a computer, these numbers are arbitrary but when they get rendered to the user, it becomes fixed. Maybe it's more helpful to think of pixels as "dimensionless units" much like degrees or radians.
Technically you're correct but being correct doesn't help when you need a 1000px x 1000px image at 72 DPI (the DPI should be considered irreverent) it's frustrating when the designer gives you a 240px x 240px images because they down samples a 300 DPI 1000px x 1000px file to be 72 DPI not realizing that the "physical property" is irrelevant in a digital environment where pixels are displayed 1:1.
@@AdrianvanWijk Absolutely Adrain, all these are matters when it is practiced for viewing. The more dpi/ ppi the more detail one can add. But our eyes are limited to a certain limit for viewing details. Beyond this level we cannot differentiate the individual unit whether it is in digital form or in printed form. Therefore it is better to use the appropriate density of Pixels or Dots.
Thank you for explaining this. I feel like I've been explaining this to people for 20 years when they talk about PPI incoherently. I feel like at some point this was explained to people incorrectly, and it was never 'corrected' for them. Asking for a 300 dpi image when i send them a 72 dpi image.. because they wanted a higher resolution - but the funny part is, they weren't printing it. they were asking for the wrong thing! they just wanted more pixels in the end.
@@geort45 Ha, yep.. i often used the analogy, of saying "saying this image on a website (all digital) is 72 PPI is the same as saying my room is 12 inches per foot, then asking them, how big is my room?" they were confused, and i said "exactly! so when you ask for that same image in 300 PPI to put on the website, it's completely meaningless unless you're going to print it.
I also faced this issue and Just sent files by changing 72 to 300 in image size just to show it in image description ( as clients just want to see it and have no knowledge of quality )
I also faced this issue and Just sent files by changing 72 to 300 in image size just to show it in image description ( as clients just want to see it and have no knowledge of quality )
8:20 is the key part of this video. PPI is a physical measurement and is (should be) used in hardware specs. Monitor spec sheets used to indicate the PPI. Maybe they still do. Most of the time these days you only hear monitors referred to as a 2k, 4K or 8K display (or whatever) and you are left to do the math on your own. Back in the day, PPI *did* matter in web design as some browsers would display images based on the PPI/DPI and not based on the length & width specified in the code which sometimes threw off the page layout.. For VGA (or was it SVGA?) monitors, 72 DPI/PPI was the norm. It would also cause issues when printing a raw image file (right-click & print). Then the printer would print at whatever PPI or DPI was specified. The only time PPI matters in Photoshop is when exporting and specifying length & width in a physical measurement (ie. inches). That's when PPI might need to be specified. Anymore, though, it's standard practice to export the full, high-resolution document and let the output device or publishing software (be it to print or screen) do the conversion.
@@derekdammann6417 It's the default setting in Photoshop/Image Size, as in many other gfx programs. Seems to have been, and still is, some kind of norm.
Actually back in the day it didn't matter. Ppi has never had any effect on the digital image. What people did was change the ppi so that 1 inch on screen would replicate 1 inch of print. Ppi sets the print size so when you change ppi all you are doing is changing print size. You don't change the image size. 72dpi is actually a myth...... it was used incorrectly. Its never really been a norm. Printers print doors so dpi is only relevant to printers. Ppi sets your print size. Ppi = Pixels / print size It's a simple conversion Dpi is different as that's set at printer level (in the printer driver usually) Not in photoshop
First 8 minutes of the video are absolute nonsense. Digital materials are displayed/show on devices with physical screen sizes, it's all related and you are not defining anything there. I feel like this is the part of the video which confuses and makes younger designers produce total crap - because dude on the internet pixels doesn't matter. And even a dot size is defined - if you dig deep enough not just scratch the srufices to make controversial video. I can''t even explain how pissed off I am because I'm dealing on daily basis with the digital images and exactly points per inch (image resolution) displayed on the screens (retina and non-retina) make huge differences.
PPI is not imaginary. It is a print reference as well as a screen reference and a sensor reference. Some screens have pixels that are not exact squares so the vertical PPI and horizontal PPI will be different, this is usually corrected in PS or Lightroom when you calibrate your screen. Also Camera sensors have pixels that are not exact squares so the vertical PPI and horizontal PPI will be different, this is usually corrected in PS or Lightroom on import. And finally Printers have different PPI Horizontally and vertically so this needs to be corrected usually in drivers and print calibration. It may appear to be imaginary and is not needed in a digital only world, as the current generation of software deals with the differences automatically but it is most definitely not imaginary.
That's my interpretation as well. PPI is a density measurement for something physical. Your screen doesn't change size and neither do the pixels used to make up that screen therefor the density of the pixels per inch matter. PPI in a file is only a place holder. Otherwise it's like using inches to measure time.
@@WaylonSimpson Mmm. I was trying to figure what the hell the video is on about. It misses some huge caveats if you ignore PPI. Bad advice by video is bad.
Pixels per inch is only important in knowing the resolution of your screen. For example, if you know your screen is 150 pixels/inch, you could set the image DPI to that and when you are at 100%, it will be accurately sized for how large it'll print. But yes, PPI is mostly an uninformed conversation topic. DPI is too, to a degree. When people tell me they need an image with a certain DPI, I ask what are the dimensions, and they say they don't care as long as it's a certain DPI. OK, dude, you asked for it.
This is the biggest PITA with clients. My Lightroom defaults to 240dpi so I get clients with who think my 42mp image isn’t going to be good enough for their web application because it’s not 300dpi. SMH!!! I don’t even argue anymore. What’s the point. Go in, change the default dpi handling in Lightroom abs export the exact same freaking file….
Yeah, I feel this video is a bit misoleading. PPI doesn't matter, as long as it is used inside of photoshop and for digital use - as soon as we're talking about phone screen resolution, it makes perfect sense to count displayed pixels per inch. More pixels per inch mean they're physically smaller - so the displayed image is sharper.
Why is then adviced that pictures for web should be 72 to 96 PPI usually? Also, if you check "Resample" option in Photoshop and lower the PPI number, the image will be resized to smaller. And also, if you decide to print the image someday, then PPI does matter. And also, pixels do have physical size even on screen. So I wouldn't say that PPI is imaginary.
Because somebody said that like 30 years ago and everybody just accepted that wrong information as fact. Even if you decide to print the image someday, the resolution in pixels is all that matters, not the PPI. And your monitor's pixels are not the same as your image's ppi.
@@derekdammann6417 Then my Photoshop is also wrong, because it saves for web my 300 ppi photo as 72 ppi, although it is an older version, maybe the newest Photoshop keeps 300 ppi in "save for web".
@@sulajkovski That's not wrong; it's necessary that some number be in that field. It's impossible for that field to be blank. Adobe has chosen to set it to 72 as that makes it the most compatible with Photoshop's page layout functions text tools, etc. It has nothing to do with the web.
I"m a huge fan of your channel, but not of this video. I think I know what you are trying to tell people, but I have 30 years of experience. I don't know if newbees will get it ... The importing thing to remember is that PPI is a value which represents the picture quality in a certain size. If we need a picture in a very high quality to be printed on a glossy paper, we need an image which has a value of 300 ppi. Together with the size (wxh) it states how big the file can be used and not loose any quality ... If we want to know the quality of an output device, we use DPI, the max. number of inkt droplets per inch which will be dropped on the surface ...
Perfectly explained. As far as I can tell, the confusion often (not always) stems from what printers ask of a customer (who is not into graphics) for e.g. an A4 with a 300 dpi image, who then asks their web designer or digital artist (who often, not always, have no clue about printing) who then argues that the resolution they have used is good enough, citing pixels. The client get confused by the words and demands and that confusion and frustration then seeps back into the mind of both those that print and digital only artists, who both then think everyone else is a moron. I was a client before I was a digital artist, and then I worked in printing. I have seen it all...
I had the same experience! One of my employees is the design expert and we wanted to print some cards and the printer business kept saying the file wouldn't work
A friend of mine tried to render an image in maya for a billboard at 600 dpi 45 feet long, I explained that it was impossible and he didn't believe me, he gave up on the fifth day of rendering!!!
The PPI is used in printing. The idea is if you draw a 1-inch square in Photoshop, it prints 1 inch wide on paper when not scaled. The moment you scale an image to fit a page during printing, PPI becomes irrelevant once again. But if you were printing a template for drilling screw holes to mount a power strip on the wall, for example, you want the scale to be precise. One inch on the screen must equal one inch in the print.
@@strixcz Just yesterday I've been asked by a graphic designer to send the pictures I took for a campaign in 300DPI (they didn't care about the resolution) and in a vector format 🤦🏻♂️ And it's not the first neither the second time I've heard it..
High PPI CAN Display the Image and Video High Quality as Possible. It is well defined. Display Panel manufacturers just don't carried and use it as the Display goes Larger in Screen Size. Compare and See the Quality of 15" 1080p to 32" 1080p. Larger Screen Size have Lower PPI, means Quality is somewhat Bad up close (you can see the pixelation because of lower PPI of Larger Screen Size) Yes it may be useless in some aspect. Like you use here a Billboard as Example. Billboard is So Big and needed to be Viewed at Super Far Distance. You only can see the difference up close, the quality of a billboard is so bad. Its quality cause lower PPI.
You are confused. 1000 x 1000 is image size not the resolution, which is always in pixels for digital media. The resolution is the (image size / display size) for instance 200 Pixels/inch. DPI is the print size = print Dots Per Inch, which is dependant on the print technology for its resolution .Don't confuse the displayed size with the image size.
What about a monitor?For example, if I were to buy 2 different monitors, one being 24 inches and the other 27 inches, but both have the same resolution of 1440p, which one will look better?
Summary: If you arent going to print anything, dont worry about PPI. And DPI has nothing to do with anything digital, only the printers capability. Great video my guy!
umm actually ... ppi does make sense in the case where the monitors dimentions are used in the equasion... so for instance you want to trace from your phone a picture. but you want/need it to be the same size as the one your friend traced from hes phone(on to paper for example). Thats where ppi along with monitor dimentions can give the exact same scale regardless if the device is 5 inces or 32 inches this has come up in web dev but i imagine it comes up in CAD projects aswell .. sadly cant speak for that since i have not collaborated many CAD projects
PPI is for print... If you have picture in 6000x4000 and want a high quality print in 500ppi the maximum size of the print would be 6x4 inches. If you want a larger picture you need larger pixels, speaking lower quality...
Heh. I laugh in my seniors face when they come up with the style guide that requires 300ppi for an artwork that is going to be part of digital media. :D
PPI = pixels per inch... i.e.; the number of pixels per inch (digital). DPI = dots per inch... i.e.; the number of dots (from your printer) per inch (analog). They both serve their own purpose.
I hate thinking about resolution! However, when I explain it to students, I say that resolution really only matters in relation to the size of the display (especially printed). Print quality depends on having "enough" pixels to be "invisible" at a "standard" viewing distance. If I use a quart of paint (not many pixels) to cover a huge wall (or print), the coverage (quality) is poor. For best coverage, a big wall needs, say, 8 quarts (lots of pixels). This is the extent of my understanding of the matter. What do you think of that analogy? (I like analogies, which help me relate understand abstract / invisible ideas, like pixels.) Thanks for these videos.
I discovered this couple of years ago, but I lack the skill of explanation. Thanks for the video. Now I can show my friends, why I prefer 12MP iPhone rather than 108MP mi phone for mobile photography. Thanks unmesh.
This brought me back to school so quickly! We had a similar debate in class on ppi and resolution. It gave me a better understanding of using a seemingly irrelevant data metric as a tool in my belt to use when determining photo quality when needing to print the final result. Your content is great Unmesh and thank you for reviving my interest in this field! Also, your videos got me to finally budge and buy a graphics tablet... I couldn’t be happier :)
Thank you. I have to explain this to folks about once a month. Most of my background is in digital pre-press and getting across the idea that there is no such thing as an "inch" in digital graphics can be maddening.
So let me ask a question. My monitor also has a physical size. If I should consider the size of my paper when I am considering printing, should I consider the size of my monitor when I am considering looking at my image on that monitor?
No your screen has nothing to do with your printing. The size of your screen and the resolution of your screen will give you the ppi value of that screen but it doesn't matter to your digital image. Higher resolution screens vice you more real estate (you can see more of your digital image) but the zoom function allows you to see your images fine. There's no need to match the screen resolution to image resolution
I understand the separation of conceptual PPI not meaning much, but it is always useful to keep in mind as everyone viewing it has to view it on a physical medium, whether it's screen or print.
Thanks for this good explanation. But standard ppi values like 72 can also be important in the digital environment. For example, in web design, two copies of the same image with different ppi values affect the screen layout differently. The web designer can easily fix this (by scaling the image size with css) but standard values are useful for fluidity and speed.
No they don't. For Web design a 300ppi image v a 1ppi image from the same file dimensions (same No of pixels) will both look identical on a Web page. Try it.
@@jimdavies Absolute measurement units (inc, cm, points) are almost not used in web design. Because if it is used, the differences I mentioned occur. That's the small chance I'm talking about. If there is no difference between 1 ppi and 72 ppi, why not use 72 ppi to eliminate this small possibility? However, for example, we do not have to print a word document. If you put two images with the same resolution and different ppi in a word document, you can understand what I'm talking about. The image with a higher ppi will appear smaller.
@@derslerim yes because word docs are displayed at a fixed resolution. So work in a similar way to DTP. They display how your image would appear if you printed it.... but this is not how you print photos
@@jimdavies If it's about printing photos, you're right. But absolute units can be used in other digital environments as well as in Word Document. In short, the importance of ppi does not depend on web-screen-print environments. It depends on the unit of measure used in the software or environment used. I think it's a good standardization rather than a myth (often not needed). Thanks for your comments
So ppi - a physical size of an image, is needed to differentiate between a picture made for a 3*4 meters billboard and an A4 paper. That's what I knew before. Haven't seen the video yet. P.s. so I was right, nice.
@@danser_theplayer01 you just need pixels to print the size you need. What ppi is, is the result of those pixels divided by the print size you need. If that's what you're saying we agree :)
jesus christ! FINALLY - someone that actually explains it well. all those other tutorials - i kept saying "that doesn't even make sense." they forget to emphasize the physical-digital aspect of all of this.
I fight the universe on this subject all the time, especially in the photo clubs I've participated in. I guess because it has to do with numbers and people panic about scary 'MATH'. Nice to see you address it.
ppi does make sense when referring to screen resolution or a print out of an image because then the ppi is the only way to get a consistent quality measurement
Awesome video as usual Unmesh. Coming from the print world these concepts are so hard to explain to people so I appreciate this so much. Now then, how soon until your video on how incredibly bad Luminar Neo is. Wow seriously considering getting my money back on this.
Ppi/dpi is not "made up," but rather a relative measurement in order to extend the digital image into the physical world (printing). You will be sorry if you think DPI doesn't matter and you're trying to sell print work.
PPI is for monitor, DPI is for printers, And to even confuse you more there's LPI (Lines Per Inch).. and that is for printing. (or is it the other way around?) lol
PPI is also relevant to the point size of the text you write in your PS document. An embedded PPI is also relevant if you mount the image directly in Indesign.
Desktop printing like in-design shows in a digital form exactly how an image would look printed so yes ppi is represented as the physical size of the image. It's effectively showing you your page. So yes ppi does matter for that
okay i love this video, and the little tiny tidbit at the end-- " if your printer can print 300 dots per inch (and you have nice paper) -- it's my understanding that most/all printers cannot print that many dots per inch, as of a few years ago the highest physical capability was somewhere around 290, even IRIS printers and the like... so they cannot print higher than they are able to physically put on paper, right? so we should not ever want to make super high (more than 300) resolution for even the best printers? FIGHT ME!! Also WHEN IS UNMESH GOING TO PLAY THE PIANO FOR US!!!
Thank you for this explaination! Great video once again! I have general question regarding what should be the printing resolution (DPI) of a wallpaper that have to be printer on a 400cm by 250cm ?
Hello sir by the way thanks for making this informative content, I have an doubt If i have 20 inch FHD monitor with 110ppi, And 27 inch 2K monitor with 108ppi So same ppi means same image quality just different is siting 2feet distance from 20inch monitor and 4 feet for 27invh monitor, Am i right ??? And is 16inch laptop with full hd is better image quality than 24inch FHD or 27 inch 2k ??
This drove me crazy when I had to work with advertising print producers: "I need that picture at 300 dpi." - "Yeah, but it could be a stamp at 300 dpi or a billboard at 300 dpi. How many pixels do you need?" - "I need 300 dpi." - "Sigh… OK, 300 dpi at what size?" - (calls lithographer) "300 dpi at A3." This went on for years. It was literally impossible to convince them that points devided by inches multiplied by print size is just: points.
Lol. Some photogs used to say Nikon is better than Canon. Because Nikon exiff data showed 300dpi vs 72dpi on Canon. They said 300dpi "digital image" is "sharper"
I’m having issues. A0 in ai at 300dpi. I make my vector artwork and export as .psd (to use in Procreate on m2 iPad Pro 2022. If I’m lucky Procreate will open it (‘if it has 1 layer. If more than 1 layer the thing won’t open. Exceeds limits error. So….. can I create my A0 in ai as 150dpi for an A0 print? That way it should open in procreate???
PPI is just a SCALE factor, you are taking the physical image, with a CONSTANT number of PIXELS, and SCALING it to a different size, without removing or adding any pixels to the image. It´s the same as getting closer or farther from the image. That is all that changing PPI does!
Nah, PPI isn't imaginary, and digital pixels *do* have a size. They are the size of the LEDs. Some displays have big pixels, like maybe your car radio. Others have teeny tiny pixels, such as modern, high-end phones like the iPhone and Galaxy. PPI and "resolution" are both measurements, but they measure different things. Resolution is the size of the grid (eg. 10x10), while PPI is the *density* of the grid. The higher the density, the more realistic the image can be, with fewer jaggies, smoother curves. That's why when you view an original iPhone image on a desktop monitor, the image is huge (if viewing at 100%). It's the same resolution, but it went from the high-density (high-PPI) display of the iPhone to the low-density display.
There’s this website I’ve been wanting to post work on but they have certain dimensions they ask for and it’s usually 8.5x11in 300dpi (2550x3300px) but I feel like I can never export at any of those dimensions. If I choose 300dpi I get the dimensions you showed and then they don’t accept my pictures.
Hello, I am using Midjourney AI to make coloring book pages for instant download as well as amazon coloring books. When I do photography I have Raw images and therefore I can print with 300 resolution. after upscaling using topaz labs software, the image is much larger and looks great but the resolution is still at 72? how can i change this 72 res to 300 for printing? (I use photoshop)
If you create a 1080 x 1920 file in photoshop with 1ppi & another at 300ppi. Drop a 1080 x 1920 image. In 300ppi the image is clear, but in 1ppi the image is tiny & blurry. Why so? Can anyone tell?
Thanks for sharing and teaching, awesome tutorials. I am just lost when you spoke about the billboard having 72 dpi, less resolution? Why? Because you look at it from a distance it has not to be very sharp? If I want to make from a photo a poster of hight 120cm by width 100cm of course very sharp I do need 300dpi no?? (it is for printing f.e. on canvas)
Your explanation did not in any way address screen resolution or the importance of document size when it comes to the output of your document. A strange explanation for me. Sorry to be negative but I think you missed why PPI and DPI id important always, and how it DOES have physical relevance. POOR VIDEO.
Sorry mate. You missed the point of pixels vs. dots. The computer screen shows pixels, the printer prints dots of ink. Also, the term PPI (for example a computer screen might be 96 PPI), it means pixels per square inch. Horizontal and vertical density are usually the same.
PPI is not imaginary, you are just using the metric wrong. It's about displays not digital images. if you have two 50" tvs and one is 1080p and other is 4k the second one has more PPI The pixels on the tv screen are very much real and have actual size. How many of that pixels per inch determines image quality.
