Map sizes, hexgrids aso

[Paracelsus]

I am working on a huge file in Photoshop (CS3) of a map sized 7648 pixels x 6158 pixels at 300 pixels/inch. In metrics it's 65 cm x 52 cm.

The reason why I keep it this large is that I would like a nice high resolution print, when I print it.
I have a few questions about this.

a) Is it at all necessary to keep it at this high resolution to get a nice print?
b) At what resolution does DrawHexGrid produce its hexes?
c) What size of 1 hex do I have to make my grid so 44 fit a 300 ppi map?
d) How many hexes do I have to make per row and per column to make it fit a map like mine (or whatever size except 72 ppi)?

Thanks in advance.

[Azélor]

I already worked on a file over 500 mega pixels but it was possible only because it had a few layers.
But yours is a pretty standard size for maps.

a- more dot per inches mean you can print a large map on a small piece of paper. So ideally a high resolution is good but too high is just a waste. 300 is perfect.
b,c,d- I have no idea

[Gamerprinter]

As a digital printer I can attest that for full color maps, a pixel resolution of 300 dpi is what is needed for print, that clearly shows the map details without blurring or format artifacts. You can effectively print 200 dpi, as long as there is an absence of fine details in the design. Any lower resolution will not be a quality print. If there is lots of fine text and/or detailed linework, printing at resolutions greater than 300 dpi, perhaps 600 dpi is better for that kind of detail. As far as preferred scales, while many maps need only be printed to letter size (8.5 x 11) or smaller as a half page or quarter page art for a publication, most printed maps (at least the sizes I most commonly use) are 18" x 24", 24" x 36", 36" x 48", or more rarely 36" x 96" - of course the latter scale would make for a huge GB size file.

As an aside I always feel users of image editors (like Photoshop, GIMP, Paintshop Pro, etc.) are disadvantaged compared to users of vector applications (like Illustrator, Inkscape, Xara Designer, etc.) where designs are described in inches, but pixels aren't even a consideration until the map is completed and needs to be exported to an image format (like JPG, TIF, PNG, etc.). You never work in pixels in a vector program, rather in specific shapes and fills. Any map I create in vector I can export to any resolution. I am also able to rescale from letter size to 36" x 48" on the fly while in vector format, to achieve any final result I am looking for whether it is intended to be a large format print, or a low resolution of map for use in virtual tabletop applications. If working with an image editor, you must define the pixel resolution and map scale at the start and be limited to that choice for the rest of the work required - image formats cannot be easily rescaled in varying resolutions and map size. You can always make these changes in vector without a problem.

[Paracelsus]

Thank you for your replies.
I have done some small things in Inkscape and habit is the only reason why I primarily work in Photoshop.
I'd have to learn a new program from scratch.

[Gamerprinter]

Well Inkscape is free, whereas Xara Photo & Graphic Designer 10 is not (only $80), but though it is very capable, it doesn't overwhelm you with endless tools. I find Xara to be very intuitive and easy to learn. Vector is a different animal than image editing though, I think of it as vector is drawing, while image editing is painting. I draw shapes, apply image fills (that are often imported image files), apply bevels, shadows and edge feathering - all very fast and easy, with infinite undo to back up if something doesn't work right. Visit Xara.com and view the videos of the tools in use - it should give you an idea how fast and easy it is to use.

But you're right, you'll have to learn it to use it well. Inkscape is free, but I think has a steeper learning curve than Xara.