Courtney, I wish it were that simple, but it is not. Remember, gone are the days that you dropped off a roll of film and trusted the lab would give you beautiful prints. You trusted them. Today, you are that lab technician, and the lab is trusting you got it right...this is oh so applicable. You are the photographic artist and also wearing the overcoat of the lab technician. Gone are the days, to quote Eastman Kodak from the early 20th century "...you push the button (shutter)...and we do the rest" This now is your responsibility.

Joe, correct, pixels are very much in play. That is why I teach "Think pixels, not inches."

Ric

Ric,
I don't try to theorize. The only 'technical' point about any printing system is the precision of the print.
We have to live with the fact that our prints are either cropped or with added white borders.
We are the technicians. What we are certain of is the uncertainty of the result. Even with methodic tests with the same lab, we cannot be sure to find a practical rule. As you say, drivers or operators may change.
If pixel size is the main (or only) criteria, I wish printing labs would supply this info not only for 4"x6", but for common size up to 8"x12" and other European sizes.

So, let's go back to our 'creative' problems. Here is how I see it. When I order 4"x6" inches prints, I consider the uncertainty of the cropping is maximal, while the artistic importance is minimal (for me, at least). Personnally, I start with files from 2:3 or 2:4 aspect ratios, and nearly always crop at any pleasing aspect ratio. This means I must resize canvas size, and leave white margins. I have not yet found a convenient way to do this in Elements or even Faststone resizer. My HP printer can manage that easily, while many web printing services do not offer this option.

When I order larger prints, I always leave white margins and crop manually before adding the pictures to albums. It's the same when I print at home.

So, your pixel rule for 4"x6" is ok for me, as well for theory as for practice. However, I admit that for the typical 4"x6" photographer it's a pain to acknowledge that whatever method they chose (pixels or aspect ratios), their pictures will cropped more or less randomly. 'Just shoot more wide angle...'

Since this forum is a great resource for those who want to print pages or books, I insist on the fact that while the 'bleed' problem is always there (see FAQs of PrestoPhoto), it is always possible to create pages with enough room for your pictures.

Ignorance is Bliss

I always seemed to operate on the theory that aspect ratio is the most important thing. If I know I am going to ask for a 4x6 print, then I make sure my output from Elements has an aspect ratio of 1.50. I shoot for a ppi of around 300. If I decide I want to get 5x7 prints, then I know my result in Elements should have an aspect ratio of 1.40 and try to achieve the same 300ppi. And so on for other sizes.

I do know that if I am printing at home on my Canon Pixima printer I am going to lose quite a bit of the image -- on all sides -- if I select borderless prints from the menu. If I select bordered prints I don't seem to lose anything.

If I want borderless prints, I go to a local camera store and use my memory stick at their machine. I have had excellent results and, if I'm losing anything, I have never noticed. I have no idea what kind of machine they are using. The cost per print is higher than Wal-Mart or other such locations but, for me, the results are worth it.

As I said, Ignorance is Bliss. It works for me and I don't know why.

Rusty

Michel, my previous statement had definite conotations. I will qualify. When digital "wet" printers became the main printing platforms in 2002, there were very few D-SLR's on the market, let alone used by the typical customer. The drivers for these printers were mostly develop around the aspect ratio of 3:4, which was common amongst point and shoot cameras. As the camera industry introduced APS-C etc formats, the driver software for these systems were slow in coming. They were also cost prohibitive for many business's, therefore could not keep up financially. (Hint: Software purchase price was greater than 1 to 3K.) A business owner had to make financially responsible decisions, and as more people began to print at home that factored into the cost effectiveness for the business owner. I know of a few business owners that have never updated drivers, because of the cost vs ROI (Return on Investment) and still using OEM. So some are still working with limited output capability at the 3:4 aspect ratio. And since the typical consumer does not have access, as you point out, labs do not provide that info readily, you may walk in with your calculation and file ready and it will not conform.

As Rusty has stated, sometimes ignorance is bliss. I certainly guarentee that every printer system is different, no matter the make and model. Each is unique, based upon decisions made at the lab level to use this or that driver feature and make it standard in that lab. It sometimes, to the consumer, is a crap shoot. I had in my lab two systems, a Fuji Frontier and a Noritsu 3700 series. I took time, and painstakingly educated my clientle, by offering free classes about the systems. Over 90% of my clientle took advantage of the offering and we had a very positive relationship between staff and clientle. - Ric

I think that the basic lesson for the casual non-techie here at the PCEC, is not the technical details of what is happening, but that first of all, when you send your images to be printed, whether borderless or with a border, you must get the aspect ratio correct!

Secondly, if you are printing borderless, you must assume that up to 3mm (0.125inch) may or may not get lost in the bleed. With this understanding, I always make sure that there is nothing of importance in at least double this amount (6mm or 0.25inch) anywhere around the edge of my image. This includes, but is not limited to, a person's face or other important image details, text, or perhaps the most misunderstood, a frame where it becomes very obvious when a different amount of bleed occurs on each of the 4 sides of the print.

The actual number of pixels (whether 1200 x 1800 or 1228 x 1842 for a 4 x 6) is not that critical as the resolution is still very nearly the same for either image. In short, the aspect ratio has to be correct and the resolution should be near 300 ppi especially for the smaller size prints; although it can be lower for larger prints.

I just had 3 8x10s printed as a gift for a nephew. I used London Drugs instead of Walmart because I think the turn-around is faster for 8x10s. One of my images has a border all the way around. It was 2400 x 3000 pixels at 300 dpi (does the dpi matter?). It came out great, I guess I got lucky. Woo hoo!

Courtney

Courtney, it was probably 300ppi (pixels per inch) as opposed to dpi (dots per inch). The latter refers to how the printer lays down ink (and the printer's dpi number is probably going to be a lot higher than the photoshop ppi number).

Yeah, it matters. When you divide 300 into your two pixel numbers you see that your image was sized exactly to the same aspect ratio as what you wanted to get as a print ... 8 x 10 inches.

I have no idea why you got a border on one of your prints and not on the other two.

I somehow have the idea that prints with a border do not bleed ... don't know if that is correct or not; it just seems that way to me. Maybe Ric is still monitoring this thread and, hopefully, will comment.

Rusty

Courtney, it was probably 300ppi (pixels per inch) as opposed to dpi (dots per inch). The latter refers to how the printer lays down ink (and the printer's dpi number is probably going to be a lot higher than the photoshop ppi number).

Yeah, it matters. When you divide 300 into your two pixel numbers you see that your image was sized exactly to the same aspect ratio as what you wanted to get as a print ... 8 x 10 inches.

I have no idea why you got a border on one of your prints and not on the other two.

I somehow have the idea that prints with a border do not bleed ... don't know if that is correct or not; it just seems that way to me. Maybe Ric is still monitoring this thread and, hopefully, will comment.

Rusty

Whoops. Yes, I should have said ppi, not dpi. I didn't explain very clearly about the border. Using PSE I put a border around one of my images; I did not have the lab print it with a border. I meant to say that my border printed just fine; it was not cropped on any side.

Courtney

Courtney, you were lucky this time, or else you found a place that has better control of the image and paper feed. Hey, sometimes you're the windshield, but sometimes you're the bug.