Size does matter, but seems to be limited

[Leen Koper]

I consider myself to be extremely priviliged to be able to produce images and make a living of it!
I feel even more priviliged now, as yesterday I bought myself a topquality monitor AND an Epson 7600 large format printer. Now I can hardly wait for the day of installation.

However, now I will be able to print 24 inches wide, somebody told me Elements cannot handle images over 2.50 meters (equivalent to a little over 8 ft.) long. I couldnot find anything abou this in my manual.
I did enjoy myself in advance to print a wedding image with a length of 3 meters (10ft) for display in the window of my high street studio. Of course I could reduce the size to 2.50 x 0.50 meters and it will still look extremely impressive.

Is this true and if so, why?

Leen

[Jodi Frye]

Leen, thought I posted this but it disappeared...in my PE1 help file;

Photoshop Elements supports a maximum file size of 2 GB and maximum pixel dimensions of 30,000 by 30,000 pixels per image. This restriction places limits on the print size and resolution available to an image.

So, you got plenty

[Barbara Brundage]

Chuck, do you know for sure if it's the same in Photoshop 6/PE1 as Photoshop 7/PE 2? I'm guessing it probably is, but I was wondering if there had been any changes between the two.

[Peter Duniho]

"Leen Koper" <leen...@zeelandnet.nl> wrote in message
news:2ccd5...@webx.la2eafNXanI...

> However, now I will be able to print 24 inches wide,
> somebody told me Elements cannot handle images over

> 2.50 meters (equivalent to a little over 8 ft.) long. [...]

>
> Is this true and if so, why?

I don't know the specific limitations of Elements or that printer. However,
it is generally true that there will be *some* maximum size. The reason is
that computers use finite ranges of numbers to draw things. The exact range
will depend on how many bits are used to identify each pixel uniquely, and
the resolution of the output device.

More bits allows for larger images (typical sizes would be 16 bits, 32 bits,
or 64 bits), while higher resolution actually results in smaller images,
since the same maximum number of pixels takes less physical space. I
wouldn't expect Elements to have a limit on the physical size of the image,
but rather the number of pixels. The actual physical size limit would
depend on the resolution being used to print. That said, I don't have any
idea what the actual limitations of Elements are.

I doubt anyone would notice if you printed out two 1.5 meter banners and
hung them together, rather than doing a full 3 meters all at once. But if
you really wanted to try for a full 3 meters (rather than reducing down to
2.5 meters long), it's possible printing at a lower resolution would allow
for a longer banner.

Congratulations on the new printer. And here I was thinking my new Epson
2200 was neat. :)

Pete

[Chuck Snyder]

Just in case someone thinks that we Elements folks are getting a bad deal on
the max file size and pixel dimensions....the same limits apply to big
sibling Photoshop 7.

)

Chuck

[Peter Duniho]

"Jodi Frye" <lws...@mybizz.net> wrote in message
news:2ccd5...@webx.la2eafNXanI...

> Photoshop Elements supports a maximum file size of 2 GB
> and maximum pixel dimensions of 30,000 by 30,000 pixels
> per image.

Only 30,000 pixels on a side? I'm surprised it's so few. That sounds
large, but when you're talking large-format printers, it's not that much at
all. For a printer with a 2880 dots-per-inch resolution, that's less than
11 inches. Of course, scaling should get you larger, but still...that's not
as many pixels as it sounds like. :)

Pete

[Beth Haney]

But if it's a 30,000 pixel per side per image maximum, that'll get a 100 inch X 100 inch print at 300ppi. That's over 8 feet square!

[Beth Haney]

I don't claim to be one of the "smart people", as you put it Byron, but I've had the same understanding for a while, too.

[Byron Gale]

"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message
news:313F54C855586ABE...@in.webx.la2eafNXanI...

>
> Only 30,000 pixels on a side? I'm surprised it's so few. That sounds
> large, but when you're talking large-format printers, it's not that much
at
> all. For a printer with a 2880 dots-per-inch resolution, that's less than
> 11 inches. Of course, scaling should get you larger, but still...that's
not
> as many pixels as it sounds like. :)
>
> Pete

Pete,

It takes more than one printer dot to create an image pixel... at least,
that's how I've understood similar discussions in the past.

Stand by momentarily until smart people come along to answer more fully.

Byron

[Beth Haney]

Jodi has PS 6.0, so maybe she can verify Chuck's answer. Given that PS 6 and PSE 1 are "twins" and PS 7 and PSE 2 are, too, his answer sure makes sense.

[Barbara Brundage]

Thanks, Chuck!

[Barbara Brundage]

Hi, Chuck. Sorry I wasn't clearer. I meant does anyone know for sure if those are the same limits for the newer versions (PE2/PS7).

[Chuck Snyder]

Barbara, re max size in PE1/PS6, I believe that's what Jodi was citing in her answer to Leen's original post. I just checked in PE1, and it's the same; don't have PS6, but would opine that it's in the same boat.

Chuck

[Chuck Snyder]

Barbara, yes, those I checked myself - same limits on PE2/PS7.

[Jodi Frye]

For anyone wondering, PS6 >same help page as PE1, same limits

[Peter Duniho]

"Byron Gale" <hey-m0e_delete_ev...@comcast.net> wrote in
message news:FF2D3D996329DB57...@in.webx.la2eafNXanI...

> It takes more than one printer dot to create an image pixel... at least,
> that's how I've understood similar discussions in the past.

Well, it does and it doesn't. We've just had a couple of threads in which
people have written statements that agree with what I've written, and at the
same time have said that they disagree with me. So I'm not really
interested in starting that all over again.

However, the basic point is the same, regardless. No matter how many
printer dots you think it takes to create an image pixel, 30,000 image
pixels just isn't that big. Not when you are printing banner-sized images.
Even if you're only printing 3000 pixels lengthwise per 8.5"x11"page (image
resolution of less than 300 dpi), you only get 110 inches (just over 9 feet)
doing that.

That sounds like a lot, but for someone (like Leen) who's purchased a
large-format printer, that's hardly worth the trouble. Depending on where
exactly the limitation is implemented, one could lower the resolution of the
printout but again, why bother getting a high-resolution large-format
printer in that case? Pretty soon, you might as well be printing on a 15
year old, pin-feed dot-matrix printer. I've got an old ImageWriter II color
printer that can do 144 dpi just fine.

Most users will never run into this limitation. For those that do, it will
seem rather arbitrary and out-dated.

Pete

[Juergen D]

An image that large is to be viewed from a certain distance. I don't
believe you need to be anywhere near 300 dpi. That should give some
maneuvering room.

Juergen

[W Bobrowski]

You may need to consider rasterizing the output to the printer, rather than increasing the size of your original image. Try RasterPlus from GraphX <http://www.graphx.com/products/rasterplus_win_500.asp>?

Best regards,
Walt

[Jodi Frye]

Leen, please come back and tell us what you were capable of doing with Elements and your new printer. Details would be appreciated ( resolution, image size etc...) This is of interest to me.

[Richard Coencas]

At 240ppi, which is suffcient for just about any printer, using the rule of thumb of 2xlpi, yoiu can get over 10' x 10'. If you want to go larger than that I might suggest looking into Illustrator.

[Peter Duniho]

"Juergen D" <jdirr...@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:C0E96D606159D3EA...@in.webx.la2eafNXanI...

> An image that large is to be viewed from a certain distance.

It depends. I have seen some full-wall murals that are just as presentable
at six inches as they are at twenty feet. You see different things at
different distances, of course. But you wouldn't want a low-resolution
reproduction.

Pete

[Leen Koper]

Thanks to all of you for your kind.
Delivery wil be at the end of the month as I specified as there is so much to do at the moment, that I don't have time to listen to the intsructions. As far as I could see at the demonstration using the RIP software this shouldnot be that difficult....I hope.

Today I decided to print the image somewhat smaller as I had a quick look at prices of frames that size.... I should have done that before asking this question
Printing at 60x180 cm will do the job of impressing potential customers too I suppose. ;-)

Jodi, of course I will keep in touch to tell wether this printer will be my reliable friend or not.
One thing I can tell allready: my printing cost at the moment will be reduced by almost 50% due to the lower costs of ink by using the 220 ml cartridges. Now 60% if my costs are in inks, this will be reduced to 1/6 of the present ink costs!

Leen

[Nancy S]

Rich,

Would you please run by me the 2xlpi, I've forgotten. Thank you.

Nancy

[Richard Coencas]

Nancy,

LPI stands for lines per inch, which is usually something hidden in the print drive settings and you rarely have to touch it unless you are dealing with high end printers.

The general LPI for most inkjets is between 75 and 150, and the standard forumula for printing is 1.7 to 2x the LPI for best results. So that puts 330ppi on the highest end of what is necessary for a good result and you can usually get away with resolutions of 200 to 240 safely.

Do a Google search. There are lots of good articles and sites on this subject that go into a lot more detail than I can.

Rich

[RobertHJones]

Leen,

I hope that your new printer will turn out to be a reliable friend. As a
non-professional, I will never be able to justify or afford a printer like
that. I can only dream.

I'm glad you will be able to lower your ink costs. You must do a lot of
printing, which means business is good! I looked at the cost of those ink
cartridges and it would bust my budget to replace them all at once.

I wish you the best and hope you get a good return on your investment.

Bob

[W Bobrowski]

Also check out this new product from Extensis, pxl SmartScale, for scaling images, within an application like PS Elements, or for output purposes:

<http://www.extensis.com/pxlsmartscale/index.html?ref=hp>

Best regards,
Walt

[Nancy S]

Rich,

Thank you. I've read in a few places that Epsons 'like' to receive an image at 240 res., perhaps this is based on lpi. I'll do some Googling as you suggest.

Nancy

[Leen Koper]

Just came home from the studio.
Thanks again to all of you for the extra information; I've measured my shop window and looked at the prices of frames this size. The frame will probably 10 times the price if the print......
Nevertheless I think it is worth every penny when I will be able to see the faces of potential customers looking at an environmental portrait of two lovely children at this size. ;-)

In the meantime I learned that bilboards -which happen to be just a little larger- usually are printed at very low resolutions, so I suppose for prints at my size a resolution of about 200 ppi will do.
This means an resampling of about 3x the size of my camera resulution; so, no problem at all.

RobertH, thank you for your kind words. Indeed I do have to print rather high volumes and this printer will get to the break even point within a few months when I compare to the prices of my pro lab and within a year compared to my present Epson 2100 printer thanks to the lower ink costs.
Next to that now I usually try to sell my images at 12x18 as this is the maximum print size of my printer. After installing this "monster" I will be able to sell at 24x36 inches!

I'm so excited about this printer although I still don't have it yet. I feel like a child a few days before boxing day!
As soon as it is operational I will mail you all about my further excitement or dissappointment. ;-)

Leen