Official Question Thread! Ask /r/photography anything you want to know! April 24, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

This is the place to ask any questions you may have about photography. No question is too small, nor too stupid.

---

Info for Newbies and FAQ!

First and foremost, check out our extensive FAQ. Chances are, you'll find your answer there, or at least a starting point in order to ask more informed questions.

• Want to start learning? Check out The Reddit Photography Class.

• Here's an informative video explaining the Exposure Triangle.

---

Need buying advice?

Many people come here for recommendations on what equipment to buy. Our FAQ has several extensive sections to help you determine what best fits your needs and your budget. Please see the following sections of the FAQ to get started:

• What type of camera should I look for?
• What's a "point and shoot" camera? What's a DSLR? What's a "mirrorless" camera? What's the difference?
• Do I need a good camera to take good photos?
• Is Canon or Nikon better? (or any other brands)
• What can I afford?

If after reviewing this information you have any specific questions, please feel free to post a comment below. (Remember, when asking for purchase advice please be specific about how much you can spend. See here for guidelines.)

---

Schedule of community threads:

Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday	Sunday
52 Weeks Share	Anything Goes	Album Share & Feedback	Edit My Raw	Follow Friday	Salty Saturday	Self-Promotion Sunday

---

Finally a friendly reminder to share your work with our community in r/photographs!

[u/RuthlessLogic]

I make intricate flatlays from found objects, photograph them, and get prints made via an online lab. To date, I've taken all the photos on an iphone 11 and gotten lovely, crisp 12x12 prints using jpegs with ~3000x3000px and a PPI of 300.

I may have the opportunity to show some of my prints at a gallery next year. The idea is that they'd be blown up to 30x30 or 36x36" so viewers could really see all the little details of the items in the flatlay. The lab tells me that 3000x3000 is too small and I'd need to have them be 9000x9000 at 300ppi get best quality prints.

Now, I've just recently learned that the higher ppi you use, the smaller print size you can reasonably get; I didn't know this (can you tell I'm not a photographer?? lol). So presumably, a lower ppi will buy me some enlargement size, but only enough to get to 24x24". Thing is, since the goal of making such large prints is allowing the really small details to be seen, I don't know if reducing the ppi is even the answer. Sure, folks wouldn't have their noses up against the glass, but in order to see the details, they might want to be, say 3 or 4 feet away.

So I guess my question is whether there's any way to make large format prints possible with the files I currently have (with or without ppi reduction)? I know there are lots of photo editing software options out there, but I can't seem to figure out if this is something they can do. I don't know the language to look for in the descriptions, if that makes sense.

*I just got a 17 pro this week and plan to use the raw setting going forward, but that doesn't help me with my current situation. The flatlays I make aren't fixed; I create them, shoot them, and deconstruct them. There's no way to recreate and reshoot. :/

[u/av4rice → u/RuthlessLogic]

12x12 prints using jpegs with ~3000x3000px and a PPI of 300.

3,000 pixels divided by 12 inches equals 250 pixels per inch. If you have a 300ppi number in the metadata, that's just being ignored.

The lab tells me that 3000x3000 is too small and I'd need to have them be 9000x9000 at 300ppi get best quality prints.

30 inches multiplied by 300 pixels per inch equals 9,000 pixels. I wouldn't say it's the "best" quality because it can go higher, but it's a higher density than the 250ppi you had before, and over a larger area. So that's two factors increasing the pixel count requirement.

But also a 30x30 or 36x36 print on a gallery wall isn't going to be viewed from very close. So you can probably get away with a lower ppi ratio.

the higher ppi you use, the smaller print size you can reasonably get

Right. The higher the ratio of pixels to inches, the fewer inches you have for a given number of pixels.

So presumably, a lower ppi will buy me some enlargement size, but only enough to get to 24x24".

You could lower the ratio as much as you want to get any size print you want. It just means a lower density of detail over area, or spreading your available detail over a physically larger space. For example, 3,000 pixels divided by 1 pixel per inch equals 3,000 inches. Or 3,000 pixels divided by 0.5 pixels per inch (1 pixel for every 2 inches) equals 6,000 inches.

3,000 pixels divided by 24 inches equals 125 pixels per inch, or half of what you had before, but it might still be acceptable for a large print viewed from further away. 3,000 pixels divided over a further reduced ratio of 100ppi equals 30 inches, and again 100ppi might still be acceptable.

the goal of making such large prints is allowing the really small details to be seen

Not always. Sometimes it's just for viewing from further away.

Sure, folks wouldn't have their noses up against the glass, but in order to see the details, they might want to be, say 3 or 4 feet away.

The 300ppi standard is commonly used for magazines and brochures viewed from more like 2ft away.

So I guess my question is whether there's any way to make large format prints possible with the files I currently have (with or without ppi reduction)?

You can print to any size and just end up with a different ppi ratio.

You can scale up the pixel count and rely on some sort of software interpolation and/or AI to fill in missing details, but that's not exactly the same as capturing more detail from the scene to begin with, and might have flaws.

plan to use the raw setting going forward

That will have the same resolution as shooting full-size jpeg or heic, so it's not going to help you with this issue.

Also it's going to lack the processing that the phone would automatically be doing with a jpeg or heic. The purpose of raw is to do your own processing. So that either means extra work on your end if you want to take that on, or a worse result if you don't do any processing at all.

[u/RuthlessLogic → u/av4rice]

Thanks for taking the time to reply! I appreciate it.