What is the resolution of "glossy magazine" photographs?

[r***@hotmail.com]

How many dpi would you say approximates the resolution of photographs
printed in "glossy magazines". Does it vary hugely?

[Neil Gould]

Post by r***@hotmail.com
How many dpi would you say approximates the resolution of photographs
printed in "glossy magazines". Does it vary hugely?

A "rule of thumb" that many people go by is that the ppi of the image
should be 2x the lpi of the printed page. Most magazines are printed on a
web press where the typical resolution will be around 150-175 lpi, so a
300 dpi image will usually suffice for those publications.

Regards,

Neil

[r***@hotmail.com]

Post by Neil Gould

Post by r***@hotmail.com
How many dpi would you say approximates the resolution of photographs
printed in "glossy magazines". Does it vary hugely?

A "rule of thumb" that many people go by is that the ppi of the image
should be 2x the lpi of the printed page. Most magazines are printed on a
web press where the typical resolution will be around 150-175 lpi, so a
300 dpi image will usually suffice for those publications.
Regards,
Neil

Thanks. That makes me wonder how some stock photographers get away with
using digital cameras, since the pixels they have will not all contain
useful image data.

[Neil Gould]

Post by r***@hotmail.com

Post by Neil Gould

Post by r***@hotmail.com
How many dpi would you say approximates the resolution of
photographs printed in "glossy magazines". Does it vary hugely?

A "rule of thumb" that many people go by is that the ppi of the image
should be 2x the lpi of the printed page. Most magazines are printed
on a web press where the typical resolution will be around 150-175
lpi, so a 300 dpi image will usually suffice for those publications.
Regards,
Neil

Thanks. That makes me wonder how some stock photographers get away
with using digital cameras, since the pixels they have will not all
contain useful image data.

??? You've lost me on this one. Pixels are pixels; they only exist in the
digital domain. It doesn't matter in the least whether the pixels
originated in a digital camera or via scanning film.

Regards,

Neil

[no_name]

Post by r***@hotmail.com

Post by Neil Gould

Post by r***@hotmail.com
How many dpi would you say approximates the resolution of photographs
printed in "glossy magazines". Does it vary hugely?

A "rule of thumb" that many people go by is that the ppi of the image
should be 2x the lpi of the printed page. Most magazines are printed on a
web press where the typical resolution will be around 150-175 lpi, so a
300 dpi image will usually suffice for those publications.
Regards,
Neil

Thanks. That makes me wonder how some stock photographers get away with
using digital cameras, since the pixels they have will not all contain
useful image data.

A 6MP 3008x2008 pixel image gives a 10.02 inch x 6.69 inch image at
300ppi with no interpolation.

[Gordon Moat]

Post by r***@hotmail.com

Post by Neil Gould

Post by r***@hotmail.com
How many dpi would you say approximates the resolution of photographs
printed in "glossy magazines". Does it vary hugely?

A "rule of thumb" that many people go by is that the ppi of the image
should be 2x the lpi of the printed page. Most magazines are printed on a
web press where the typical resolution will be around 150-175 lpi, so a
300 dpi image will usually suffice for those publications.
Regards,
Neil

Thanks. That makes me wonder how some stock photographers get away with
using digital cameras, since the pixels they have will not all contain
useful image data.

Some stock agencies are requiring certain cameras (most of the Getty owned
companies), due to a need to establish minimum standards. Consider that not
every stock image contains a great deal of detail in the image, so the need
for lots of detail, lack of interpolation, or even fine detail edges and
elements, are things not necessarily needed.

Of course, some stock photographers will cheat the rules. Things like
stripping out EXIF data, and upscaling images in software are known to be
done. However, it really does depend upon the subject matter.

There may be a mind set that lots of small details makes an image good. While
that may be technically true, possibly more true in landscape and some travel
images, the reality is that not every picture needs lots of tiny details to
become a compelling image.

The content of the images, especially stock images, is vastly more important
than technical level. Of course, if a huge enlargement reprint is the end
product, then obviously the more real information contained the better the end
results.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

[dadiOH]

Post by r***@hotmail.com
How many dpi would you say approximates the resolution of photographs
printed in "glossy magazines". Does it vary hugely?

When I used to run ads I'd specify a screen of 135 for mags. Less than
what the mag normally used (180?) but what they normally used always
looked muddy...lacked clarity.

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

[Lassi Hippeläinen]

Post by dadiOH

Post by r***@hotmail.com
How many dpi would you say approximates the resolution of photographs
printed in "glossy magazines". Does it vary hugely?

When I used to run ads I'd specify a screen of 135 for mags. Less than
what the mag normally used (180?) but what they normally used always
looked muddy...lacked clarity.

The local glossy photo mag, which is pretty tech-oriented, once printed
images from 200, 300 and 400 dpi originals side by side. There was no
visible difference between 300 and 400.

-- Lassi

[Neil Gould]

Post by Lassi Hippeläinen

Post by dadiOH

Post by r***@hotmail.com
How many dpi would you say approximates the resolution of
photographs printed in "glossy magazines". Does it vary hugely?

When I used to run ads I'd specify a screen of 135 for mags. Less
than what the mag normally used (180?) but what they normally used
always looked muddy...lacked clarity.

The local glossy photo mag, which is pretty tech-oriented, once
printed images from 200, 300 and 400 dpi originals side by side.
There was no visible difference between 300 and 400.

Aside from their screening resolution (lpi) and method (stochastic,
traditional, etc.), whether one can see a difference between higher
resolutions depends on the image. The content of many images don't require
higher resolutions, but that isn't true for *all* images. In my area
(technical publishing), the content can often reveal visible differences
between 300 and 400 ppi images, even with traditional screening. It's one
of my frustrations that people get locked into "rules of thumb" on these
matters, and ignore the content.

Regards,

Neil

[Bill Hilton]

Post by r***@hotmail.com
How many dpi would you say approximates the resolution of
photographs printed in "glossy magazines". Does it vary hugely?

I've had a handful of digital photos published in 'glossy mags' and
they all requested 300 ppi files at full page size (which varies
depending on the magazine page layout).

Only one I know of with higher resolution standards is "National
Geographic" (which I've never submitted to), which was originally
asking for 400 ppi, but then their page size is smaller. The editor of
their sister publication "Geo Traveler" told me in July they prefer
that their contributors use digital cameras with at least 6 Mpixels,
though 8 Mpixels was preferred for cropping. He also said in the past
two years they've switched heavily to digital.

To put a number on it, this means an 8 Mpixel image can print slightly
less than 8 x 12" at 300 ppi without interpolation, and images from
larger sized sensors interpolate larger than this with minimal loss of
quality. This is one reason so many magazines are 'going digital'.

Bill

[Neil Gould]

Post by Bill Hilton

Post by r***@hotmail.com
How many dpi would you say approximates the resolution of
photographs printed in "glossy magazines". Does it vary hugely?

I've had a handful of digital photos published in 'glossy mags' and
they all requested 300 ppi files at full page size (which varies
depending on the magazine page layout).

This would typical, if your image was to be used full-page size.

Post by Bill Hilton
Only one I know of with higher resolution standards is "National
Geographic" (which I've never submitted to), which was originally
asking for 400 ppi, but then their page size is smaller.

Chances are good that "National Geographic" is printed at over 200 lpi,
which would mean that the image resolution should be at least 400 ppi,
following the typical "rule of thumb".

Neil

[Karl Winkler]

Post by r***@hotmail.com
How many dpi would you say approximates the resolution of photographs
printed in "glossy magazines". Does it vary hugely?

Most of the magazines I've worked with use a 133 line screen, or 266
ppi. Some covers are more, and some specialty ads on custom paper can
be more. But from what I've seen, images can look mighty good with a
133 line screen if they are on decent paper and the plates are done
right. Not as good as a real photo print, mind you.

One of my pet peeves is magazines that say "the image has to be 300
dpi" when they don't specify a dimensional size. I once (accidentally)
sent an image at 180 ppi that was definitely useable (it was something
like 14x18" at 180) but they bounced it back saying "it has to be 300
dpi". Duh - easy to resize in any photo editing software.

One reason I think stock photos need to be larger is for cropping. One
client might want only Shakira's face for their celebrity column, while
other (more sane) photo editors will include her whole body for the
layout.

Karl Winkler
http://www.karlwinkler.com