Photo print

Custom PhotoBook

Kevin

My most recent book was created with Photobook.  Photobook has several branches all over the world; I used Photobook America, located in Toronto.  Time to print with Photobook was significantly longer than past experience with Blurb and MPIX.  Perhaps related to two factors.  This latest book has a silk cover with a photo inset into a center window.  And I ordered multiple copies.  Blurb will print a book with full-bleed photo cover in just a few days. And  have seen MPIX (outsourced to DigiLabs) create books literally overnight.

At the time I printed with Photobook, both Photobook and Blurb had recently begun offering a new premium paper option called “luster”.  I tried it.  But honestly, looking at four books printed over a time span of 18 months, printed by three different companies …  I don’t see a significant difference in image quality.  They all have a slight sheen to the surface. Maximum black density is similar.  Image quality is entirely comparable.  As near as I can tell “premium” paper options provide only two differences: thickness and opacity.  All three companies print with an HP Indigo digital press. 

Photobook’s downloadable software is called Photobook Designer.  I found it easy to use; very comparable to Blurb BookSmart and (MPIX/DigiLabs) My Photo Books.  However, there was one problem.  For my title page, I created a graphic image with transparent areas, saved as a PNG file. The Photobook Designer software recognized PNG files with no problem.  The preview (prior to upload) looked great.  But when the book was printed, the title-page graphic was unrecognizable.  (I also used a PNG on the final page of the book and this printed just fine.)

I contacted Photobook support twice via email, including a screen-capture from the book preview (what it should look like), but received no responses; apparently their support systems were down for more than a week.  Upon calling via telephone, someone readily worked to assist me with the problem.  The book is actually printed from a PDF and they shared this PDF with me; my title page graphic was mutulated.  The problem was not the press.  The problem was not on my end. Something went wrong in upload or translation to PDF.  But because their web site states only support for JPG and TIFF, they suggested that PNG files are not guaranteed.  Photobook would not reprint the books at zero cost to me.  They did reprint the books at a deeply discounted price, after I replaced the PNG with a JPG.  (This was not a trivial replacement. I originally used PNG because it supports transparency; JPEG does not.)

This latest book was simply a personal collection of favorite images from the past year.  A couple of the images are shown here.  Click on the image for a larger view.

For more information about comapanies that help you create custom photobooks,
I recommend PhotoBookGirl.com.  (I am not affiliated with PhotoBookGirl; but I find
it is a good source of information.)

Trees @ Mt.Auburn

Trees @ Mt.Auburn

Kevin

When you get the urge to make some outdoor photographs, do you have places that you return to repeatedly?  Would one of those places be a cemetary?   Likely not.  But, Mt.Auburn cemetary (in Cambridge Massachusetts) hosts a marvelous array of flowering trees.  It really is a beautiful place, (with or without tombstones).

Today, I received another canvas print (from ArtisticPhotoCanvas.com) of an image from Mt.Auburn.  So, I am just sharing this image with you, along with another Mt.Auburn image, which I had printed earlier this year (also printed on canvas by APC).

   (To see a larger version, click on the image)







The most recent print is apparently an azalea shrub, though I do not know the exact species.  It is photgraphed with a Canon 100mm f\2.8L macro lens.  (My experience has been that this lens is superior to using a non-macro lens coupled with an extension tube)

The second is a crabapple tree, photographed with the Canon 70-200mm IS f\4.

Pixels (part 1)

admin

Perhaps the most common question regarding digital photography is … how many megapixels do I need? The answer depends upon how you intend to use the photo. You need to answer two questions: how large will the photo appear (inches or centimeters) and how many dots per inch (or centimeter).

If you want to share it on a computer screen, one megapixel is more than enough. Why? Computer displays typically have either 72 pixels per inch or 96 dots per inch. So, for example, to display a photo at a size of 6 by 9 inches, you need (6 x 96) x (9 x 96) = 497,664 pixels = 0.497 megapixels.

Computer screen: 72 – 96 dots (pixels) per inch
Photo print: 240 – 300 dots per inch
Magazine: 100 – 200 dots per inch
Poster or banner: 100 – 150 dots per inch
Billboard: 10 – 20 dots per inch

Magazines print fewer dots per inch. If you look real close, you may see the individual dots, but maybe not. It depends upon the exact printing equipment and the tendency of ink dots to blend together. Billboards, viewed from far way, use very low resolution simply because it is not apparent from far away.

So, here is another example. For a photo print 6 x 9 inches, you need (6 x 240) x (9 x 240) = 3,110,400 pixels = 3 megapixels. More pixels in your camera means that you can get larger prints without sacrificing quality. Using the same math, you can easily see that a 20 x 24 inch print needs 27 megapixels.

You may ask: 240 dots per inch? My printer supports 1000 dots per inch.
OK, here is the bottom line. If you print at the higher resolution, can you see a difference in the final print? You might see a tiny difference, but 240 dpi usually provides excellent quality and sharpness. If you are using a photo lab to make your prints, consult their guidelines, but 240dpi or 250 dpi is very common.