PDA

View Full Version : Discussion about Picture Sizing



SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-21-2008, 04:04 PM
Size 1024 blows out the forum causing people to scroll right to left.

Perhaps the max should be 800 wide?

Just a thought....

old377guy
10-21-2008, 04:26 PM
good idea sharkey - I hate it when that happens. - jeff

45Sonic
10-21-2008, 04:43 PM
Does that explain where GLH's thread went ??

Airpacker
10-21-2008, 04:49 PM
His thread did not go anywhere. Just the way oversize pice were removed.

45Sonic
10-21-2008, 04:50 PM
Um can't seem to find it. Just curious I know you all are still working on everything

Tank
10-21-2008, 05:01 PM
Since were on the picture subject...is there a reason why it's limited to only 3 pics per post. I believe you can allow as many as 10 per post (such as the scope website) or even a little more would be better than 3 (the performance boats website allows 5).

cigdaze
10-21-2008, 05:08 PM
Since were on the picture subject...is there a reason why it's limited to only 3 pics per post. I believe you can allow as many as 10 per post (such as the scope website) or even a little more would be better than 3 (the performance boats website allows 5).

It's the default. We're testing the way it works as it is now with server loading, etc., but we'll entertain in the future increasing it.

cigdaze
10-21-2008, 05:08 PM
Does that explain where GLH's thread went ??

One thread was trimmed. The other thread was removed by GLH himself.

Airpacker
10-21-2008, 05:11 PM
Um can't seem to find it. Just curious I know you all are still working on everything
I am sorry, it would appear the GLH deleted the thread himself.

Strip Poker 388
10-21-2008, 05:26 PM
Sharkey I guess it depends on your screen size?
I like the 1028x768 best, it doesn't go off any of my 17in computer screens.

this is a
800x600

cigdaze
10-21-2008, 05:28 PM
Sharkey I guess it depends on your screen size?
I like the 1028x768 best, it doesn't go off any of my 17in computer screens.

this is a
800x600

I agree. I depends on screen size. 1024 x 768 is becoming a standard around other forums, too. It's a reasonable size.

Strip Poker 388
10-21-2008, 05:33 PM
I agree. I depends on screen size. 1024 x 768 is becoming a standard around other forums, too. It's a reasonable size.


it starts out as a thumbnail small, then ya click on it its still pretty small,I guess youall are mainly talking about linked picks? I did have a few that were life size on OSO:drool5::D

cigdaze
10-21-2008, 05:36 PM
it starts out as a thumbnail small, then ya click on it its still pretty small,I guess youall are mainly talking about linked picks? I did have a few that were life size on OSO:drool5::D

Though nice(+), it's kills performance(-). Gotta balance the +/-
I did very much enjoy those larger than life pics of yours. But yes, we are discussing linked pics.
:)

Strip Poker 388
10-21-2008, 05:46 PM
Though nice(+), it's kills performance(-). Gotta balance the +/-
I did very much enjoy those larger than life pics of yours. But yes, we are discussing linked pics.
:)


I thought a linked pick on a host site uses there band with,or is it the display of the large pick in a thread that would slow down the site?:D

Ted
10-21-2008, 05:53 PM
It is the combination of the linked pic slowing down the load time and blowing the screen out to the side. As you know when it blows out it de-formats the rest of the thread and makes it hard to read in some cases, it is a major complaint people seem to have.

cigdaze
10-21-2008, 05:56 PM
You are correct, Strip, in that there is no bandwidth being pulled from SO.com (because it's not stored on, nor loading from SO.com), but the issue is with the actual thread itself getting distorted (going off to the right, things not lining up, etc.), and it can take way longer to load the entire thread because of an external picture or two holding up page load.

The general consensus was to politely request that those enormous pics be kept to a minimum.

:)

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-21-2008, 06:03 PM
I agree. I depends on screen size. 1024 x 768 is becoming a standard around other forums, too. It's a reasonable size.

I use 1024 x 768 screen size myself. But you have to leave room for the display of the screen name and the rest of the forum's borders.

An attachment is not an issue of blowing out the forum because you are opening a separate page to view the image. It is the linked images.

I refrain from using anything larger than 800 max wide for linked pics so that everyone reading the forum does not have to scroll left and right.

Here is an example of the 800 wide:

http://sharkeyimages.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p530145973-4.jpg

Chris
10-21-2008, 06:05 PM
It depends on screen resolution. I have 50-year-old eyes and 1600 monitor resolution equals icons I can't read and eyestrain headaches. I also have a 5-year-old LCD monitor. Above 800x600 means huge images.

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-21-2008, 06:07 PM
The general consensus was to politely request that those enormous pics be kept to a minimum.

:)

If you think the 800 is too large, the next size down I can go is 580 wide.

An example of the 580:

http://sharkeyimages.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p530145973-3.jpg

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-21-2008, 06:09 PM
The 580 looks like it keeps everything inline including the screen name section.

Pete B
10-21-2008, 06:12 PM
1024 X 768
Fits all the screens with a little adjustment to the side, from one that post a lot of pics from a lot of events. I would think the viewers want to see not pic, and not peck back and forth throught the thumbnails. just curious, let me know what you guys decide
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/pete454/7Z0X3630.jpg

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-21-2008, 06:30 PM
Pete,

What do I need to adjust ?

I am at 1024 x 768 and I have to scroll 1 to 2 inches to see your entire photo while with the 800s I see continuity down the right side of the forum and still see a large pic.

Also I lose the text on your first line at "viewers" > (other text is cutoff at this point)

Attached is what my right side looks like:

Pete B
10-21-2008, 06:34 PM
I didnt put a avatar up, so it goes into the left hand margin, I really dont need a avatar, although some are cool, would rather post my pics in the 1024 x 768 size as to give full effect. adjustment is made at Photobucket load page. 17" is the size.

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-21-2008, 06:46 PM
The avatar makes no difference.
If I use an 800 wide it cuts into the avatar screen name area without blowing out the right side. Once you blow out the right then so does the text which is many people's complaints because they now have to scroll to read what is posted. A 580 keeps both sides in check.

We need to try to keep this site uniform. Or maybe it can't be done ?

Keeping the borders inline makes for a cleaner site and less work for the viewers. If anyone wants to see the pics in full screen, they know they can find them on the poster's hosting website.

Here is how my left side is displayed:

Pete B
10-21-2008, 06:58 PM
It may also have to do with what your screen settings are on your Computer, I have a 24 in Apple, and all fits fine here as well as on my lap top.

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-21-2008, 07:01 PM
My settings are set for 1024 x 768 pixels on the computer.

Is it just my PC ???

Or do other members have the same problem ?

MOBILEMERCMAN
10-21-2008, 07:07 PM
I hope you guys can figure it out. I am curious Sharkeys 800 wide doesn't expand my laptop screen but Petes 768 cut off at to in his water mark expanding it slightly. why do you guys think they measure different?

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-21-2008, 07:09 PM
Perhaps a widescreen format ???

Pete B
10-21-2008, 07:13 PM
try a different resolution on your screen settings

MOBILEMERCMAN
10-21-2008, 07:17 PM
Mine is at its highest 1024 x768 I did up it to 32 bit nice.

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-21-2008, 07:24 PM
try a different resolution on your screen settings

I had to up the settings to 1280 X 768 to get your images to stay inline with the forum.

Problem with that is, now my text is much smaller and I can barely read it. :(

I will go back to the 1024 width so I don't have to squint.

Afterall, it has been stated most common used screen size is 1024 x 768. ;)

BajaFresh
10-21-2008, 07:41 PM
I can't post at all. There is no attachments button.

Pete B
10-21-2008, 07:48 PM
this is 800 X 600


http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh201/Pboden19/OSS%20LOTO%202008/Sunday%20race%20pics/Daredevil31.jpg

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-21-2008, 09:08 PM
and with the 800 width, that keeps the outside borders of the Forum inline:

Rexone
10-21-2008, 09:14 PM
It is all based on your own screen resolution settings. Sharkey's right you have to allow for the forum sidebars for things get distorted. Over on performanceboats we try to keep them no wider than 800 and prefer 750. The larger ones for most peoples setting jack the thread format and create scroll bars, not to mention load slower. Just my worthless .02 :sifone:

MOBILEMERCMAN
10-21-2008, 09:15 PM
Pete your 800 x 600 matches Sharkey's 1024x 800.

I don't know why but my screen sees them the same

Rexone
10-21-2008, 09:17 PM
Pete your 800 x 600 matches Sharkey's 1024x 800.

I don't know why but my screen sees them the same

The one Sharkey posted is 800. He just talked about 1024 screen rez

MOBILEMERCMAN
10-21-2008, 09:20 PM
Sharkey's Post #18 labeled 800 wide

Matches Pete's #34 800x600

It is height x width isn't it?

Rexone
10-21-2008, 09:23 PM
Sharkey's Post #18 labeled 800 wide

Matches Pete's #34 800x600

It is height x width isn't it?

Not for discussion of horizontal scroll bars. Only the width matters for that and that is what distorts the thread format when they are too wide for screen rez settings of the user.

MOBILEMERCMAN
10-21-2008, 09:29 PM
Does #18 and #34 appear to have the same width on your screen Rexone?

Pete B
10-21-2008, 09:32 PM
It does on my screen!

MOBILEMERCMAN
10-21-2008, 09:40 PM
progress

:leaving:

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-21-2008, 09:56 PM
Does #18 and #34 appear to have the same width on your screen Rexone?

They should be. Both images are 800 wide. ;)

Strip Poker 388
10-21-2008, 11:53 PM
this is 800 X 600


http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh201/Pboden19/OSS%20LOTO%202008/Sunday%20race%20pics/Daredevil31.jpg


Pete I get the pick as a 800x409.... It looks streched to me .like wide screen


These 2 picks are 1024x685 and a 800x535


Iam sure the thumbnails save on band width

Strip Poker 388
10-22-2008, 12:12 AM
My screen resolution is set at 1680x1050,32bit color,dpi is (norm 96) its a 23inch screen,


If someone wants to save a pick,I would figure they would want the higher rez and bigger size to save? but at 800x600 to me its to small,The thumbnails take up less band width and if they want to look at a full size picture double click to get the full version,The picks I take end up being 3264x2448.

To me its a pain to down load on a host web site then put it in a thread

Rexone
10-22-2008, 04:45 AM
Does #18 and #34 appear to have the same width on your screen Rexone?

They are identical on my screen. They have to be as they are both 800 px wide. On different screen setting, as mentioned, they will appear as different size but both still the same regardless of what that size is because both pics are still 800 pix wide.

You have to separate screen resolution from picture resolution in your mind... they are not the same animal. Screen setting (your screen) is set for viewing ie: 600 x 800, 768 x 1024 etc etc etc, a myriad of other choices with different screens. Picture resolution or more accurately for this discussion, "picture size" is a set thing when that picture is saved. If it is saved at 800 pixels wide, that is what it is until someone else actually resizes the actual photo using some form of software. So (2) 800 pixel wide pictures will appear identical width on any given screen. They will just appear smaller on a screen that is set to a higher "Screen" resolution. So that 800 pixel wide picture will fill the screen of someone who's screen size is set at 600 x 800 wide but will appear small to SP388 because his screen size is set much higher at 1680 wide x 1050 (will fill only a little under half his screen width)...

To further the discussion at the risk of confusion (hope not) I will briefly discuss actual picture resolution, in other words, dpi or (dots per inch) the picture file is actually saved at (completely different than screen resolution or screen size). Since I do both website and print work I have a good grasp of this but it was not an overnight thing and something that easily confuses many at first glance. The pictures you view online are "typically" saved at a resolution of 72 dpi or 96 dpi. The argument is that that is all the eye can see on screen. I say argument because there is one if you research this subject... but we won't go there for this basic discussion of picture resolution. Photos saved for print, by contrast, (and photos typically saved by higher end DSLR camera's) are a higher resolution. The general standard for print photos is 300 dpi. Some cameras produce this resolution directly and if not a Photo editing program like Photoshop or Fireworks can easily interpolate (resize) them. So you can have an 800 x 600 photo saved at 72 dpi and another similar 800 x 600 photo saved at 300 dpi. Both these photos appear identical dimensionally on a computer screen but the 300 dpi photo will have a hugely larger file size (more color information saved in the file). This is the reason websites don't want hi resolution OR large size (even at low resolution) photos posted as they gobble up server and user computer resources unnecessarily. Large file size photos also impact download time to the user computer regardless of where the pictures are hosted. Conversely, low rez photos don't work on a printing press. It takes much higher resolution to print sharp and clear (hence the 300 dpi standard for print work). You can plainly see this by taking a low rez photo from the web and printing it out on your high end ink jet printer... it will be soft (at best) and blurry (at worst) depending on the photo quality.

This is why ideally pictures designed for use on the web or more specifically a forum site like this one, should be about 800 pixels wide at about 72-96 dpi. Most users have their screens set at around 1024 x 768 these days and it's what "most" websites are designed to work with. Obviously as said before this size picture will appear small to someone with high screen size settings. This screen size category is not the majority though in terms of a cross section of computer users. Most have a typical 17 to 19 inch monitor (measured horizontally like a TV) these days with 1024 x 768 rez being about the average.

Hope that was not too basic or lengthly. I know there will be basic users and those with higher knowledge levels reading so I always try to lay this out at a basic level so those folks can begin to understand all this stuff.

Pete B
10-22-2008, 07:51 AM
Pete I get the pick as a 800x409.... It looks streched to me .like wide screen


These 2 picks are 1024x685 and a 800x535


Iam sure the thumbnails save on band width

the hgt is 409 due to the fact it is a cropped photo, the width is 800 and thats what the mods want to fit between the frames of the thread.
I like the 1024 better, but if it screws things up for some, I would rather make them a bit smaller. thumbnails to me are a pita. I usually skip threads when the pics are formatted this way , maybe I'm lazy when it comes to surfing. does using a different host use more bandwidth??

Chris
10-22-2008, 08:06 AM
We have a new piece of software that makes thumbnails instantly pop to full size in a transparent window. Try it- kinda' cool.

Pete B
10-22-2008, 12:05 PM
alrighty then

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/pete454/Motley1.jpg

MOBILEMERCMAN
10-22-2008, 12:55 PM
Cool Shot Pete

Strip Poker 388
10-22-2008, 01:08 PM
these are full screen shot picks

first pick screen is 800x600
2nd pick at at 1280x1024
3rd ..............1680x1280,I like this one better on my screen the 1280 and below gets grainy,1680 lettering is smaller compared to the 800 which is like kindergarten/blind person big.


Rexone how do I ck the DPI of a photo????

Thanks:)

Strip Poker 388
10-22-2008, 01:14 PM
at the 1680 size I can split the screen and surf 2 sites at once ,or 2 threads


I see the sites auto picture re sizer is at 813x 510, it was a 1672x1049

Pete B
10-22-2008, 02:29 PM
These wont be of Print quality after I post them. only the originals are of that quality.

Rexone
10-22-2008, 03:05 PM
SP388, to check pic size simply right click on the pic and go to properties. It should show you the dimensions and file size.

You can also see this by viewing the file in Windows Explorer in the "detail" viewing mode on your machine.

Yes the site is auto resizing the attachments it appears. If you host off the site tho you will see pics full size and that is where everyone needs to self regulate by resizing themselves before hosting (some hosting sites do it too).

Rexone
10-22-2008, 03:07 PM
opps sorry you said check dpi. you can't do that by viewing properties. You can do it tho in most photo editing programs. I personally use Photoshop because I do a lot of photo work but there are cheaper programs and several free ones.

If you have MS Office 2003 it includes a program call Microsoft Picture Manager under Office Tools. You can do basic resizing in this and it will tell you the dpi (resolution) of the photo.

I believe you can do the same in Office 2000 with the earlier version which I believe is called MS photo editor... I don't have that on this particular machine so I will check it later and edit post if this is incorrect or if the earlier version won't show you the dpi.

I am poor and cannot afford the late Office so 2003 is as far as I go. I'm sure the late ones have similar capability. I am poor due to the aquisition of Photoshop CS3 extended and Lightroom 2, both of which I highly recommend for serious photo work. ;)

Remember when resizing pics you can downsize and retain quality but you cannot upsize (much). In other words you can't grab a pic off the internet and resize it to 300 dpi and expect decent quality for printing large. Photo editing programs use a process called interpolation when resizing. Basically they guess what adjacent pixels should look like when upsizing in terms of color value of pixels. You will not get sharp pics upsizing in this manner (for print work). You have to start with the hi rez file.

cigdaze
10-22-2008, 04:37 PM
Thread split, and updated the original.

clayinaustin
10-22-2008, 04:59 PM
Here is an 800x600 pic. It that the right size? :D

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/claywashington/gifs/girls800.jpg

clayinaustin
10-22-2008, 05:06 PM
Here is the same pic at 1024x768

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/claywashington/gifs/girls1024.jpg

cigdaze
10-22-2008, 05:07 PM
They're great!. :)

clayinaustin
10-22-2008, 05:08 PM
Note - My screen size is 1280 x 1024, so the larger pic is fully visible and does not cause scrolling on my IE window.

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-22-2008, 11:38 PM
Here is the same pic at 1024x768

The Board has come to the decision to not use a size greater than 800 wide.

Not everyone has the large screens and anything larger than the 800 is blowing out the side of the Forum.

Fever Mike
10-22-2008, 11:41 PM
I do not know how you all do it but my pictures show up very small on the forum.

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-22-2008, 11:57 PM
I do not know how you all do it but my pictures show up very small on the forum.

Attachments are small, basically a determined size thumbnail you can click on for a larger file in a new window.

The large pics you see without a thumbnail are hosted on another server, then linked to this site with the image brackets.

Strip Poker 388
10-23-2008, 05:21 PM
opps sorry you said check dpi. you can't do that by viewing properties. You can do it tho in most photo editing programs. I personally use Photoshop because I do a lot of photo work but there are cheaper programs and several free ones.

If you have MS Office 2003 it includes a program call Microsoft Picture Manager under Office Tools. You can do basic resizing in this and it will tell you the dpi (resolution) of the photo.

I believe you can do the same in Office 2000 with the earlier version which I believe is called MS photo editor... I don't have that on this particular machine so I will check it later and edit post if this is incorrect or if the earlier version won't show you the dpi.

I am poor and cannot afford the late Office so 2003 is as far as I go. I'm sure the late ones have similar capability. I am poor due to the aquisition of Photoshop CS3 extended and Lightroom 2, both of which I highly recommend for serious photo work. ;)

Remember when resizing pics you can downsize and retain quality but you cannot upsize (much). In other words you can't grab a pic off the internet and resize it to 300 dpi and expect decent quality for printing large. Photo editing programs use a process called interpolation when resizing. Basically they guess what adjacent pixels should look like when upsizing in terms of color value of pixels. You will not get sharp pics upsizing in this manner (for print work). You have to start with the hi rez file.



all the picks on my computer say there 96x96 dots. How do I save a picture at 300dpi off the web?

or when I take a picture with my camera how do I save them at 300dpi?

Thanks
Rob:)

Strip Poker 388
10-23-2008, 06:43 PM
I save this as a jpeg and a tiff,the tiff redused the dpi 96 ,the jpeg save as 300dpi


big pick,forewarned :)
http://www.riksdagen.se/upload/bilder/press/pressbilder/vastra_riksdagshus_300dpi.jpg



I guess the web picks I save are mostly 96dpi???

this saved as a 300x300dpi also
http://www.hapag-lloyd.com/en/pr/media/ColomboExpress_300dpi.jpg


I read if it starts out as a 96 it doesent like being change to a 300dpi?



these links/picks open on another page/site so it doesent use any sos band width or slows SOS down.


this bulding picture is small with a 400dpi ,I guess it doesent have to do with width

this one is 700dpi
http://danielyager.com/uploads/fire3.jpg

Rexone
10-23-2008, 11:52 PM
all the picks on my computer say there 96x96 dots. How do I save a picture at 300dpi off the web?

or when I take a picture with my camera how do I save them at 300dpi?

Thanks
Rob:)

Normally you will not find 300 dpi pics on the web because they are not necessary to view on screen. 300 dpi file size for an image at same screen size is very large. Normally the pictures you will commonly find on the web will be 72 dpi or 96 dpi. The more dpi the bigger the file size for the same size (dimensionally) picture.

Different cameras set at hi resolution save at various dpi. Mine for example saves at 240. 240 is acceptable for most print but I convert most to 300 and just downsize the dimensions accordingly to maintain the same file size. The late model Photoshop program does a good job with this. 240 would be fine for most print jobs though.

Rexone
10-24-2008, 12:18 AM
I save this as a jpeg and a tiff,the tiff redused the dpi 96 ,the jpeg save as 300dpi

Normally for print you would use the 300 dpi version as a tiff (a 300 dpi jpg is fine in most cases as well). The jpg file format just has less color info.

Normally you will find jpg images on the web. 96 or 72 dpi.



big pick,forewarned :)
http://www.riksdagen.se/upload/bilder/press/pressbilder/vastra_riksdagshus_300dpi.jpg



I guess the web picks I save are mostly 96dpi???

Yes, or 72 is very common also.


this saved as a 300x300dpi also
http://www.hapag-lloyd.com/en/pr/media/ColomboExpress_300dpi.jpg


I read if it starts out as a 96 it doesent like being change to a 300dpi?

That is correct. The only case were you will obtain 300 dpi quality is to maintain file size. In other words if you took a very large 96 dpi pic and converted it to a very small size dimensionally at 300 dpi it would look decent. It is all about color information in the original file. You cannot take an 8" wide 96 dpi picture and convert it to and 8" wide 300 dpi picture for printing. Simply doesn't have enough color information in the file to do this successfully. It will come out very blurry or grainy. You can downsize but not upsize (much).

The large pics you linked to would be great for print. They look great online too but file size is huge for the internet at well over a meg. If you view a 96 dpi version on screen you probably will see little if any quality difference. The large file size makes for very slow loading of anyone viewing the pic. If they were imbedded in the forum page with bb code the entire page would load slowly even on dsl. For anyone with dial up, fogettabouit. :)



these links/picks open on another page/site so it doesent use any sos band width or slows SOS down.


this bulding picture is small with a 400dpi ,I guess it doesent have to do with width

this one is 700dpi
http://danielyager.com/uploads/fire3.jpg

The dpi or dots per inch does not determine width. It only determines the dots per inch or the color information contained in one inch. In printing everything is dots of ink per inch. If you look through a loop or magnifying glass at print work you will see the little dots. This is what dpi is. At less dpi the image gets grainer to the eye. The human eye cannot see 300 dpi as dots on paper. But as it becomes less dpi you can so in turn the picture looks grainy. At 72 dpi (printed) you can see the actual dots because they are far apart.

On a computer screen it's different. Everything is pixels. There are screen pixels and image pixels (dpi). The human eye can't differentiate anything much greater that 96 on screen as that is the screen pixels. Anything greater dpi and you can't tell much if any difference. Try saving a picture at 30 dpi and view it on screen and you will get the effect. It will be very grainy. View the same pic at 300 dpi on screen and you'll have trouble telling it from the 96 image in most cases. Screens vary.

Hope that explains more than confuses. :huh: :)

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-24-2008, 05:13 PM
Great info Rexone ! :)

As a reminder to posters using hyper links to display their images, the
S.O. Forum has asked to keep the images no wider than 800 pixels as it distorts the forum's borders for most users.

See link below:

http://www.seriousoffshore.com/forums/showthread.php?t=320

Fever Mike
10-24-2008, 11:34 PM
Attachments are small, basically a determined size thumbnail you can click on for a larger file in a new window.

The large pics you see without a thumbnail are hosted on another server, then linked to this site with the image brackets.

Ah thanks!!!!! Always wondered about that! Good to see you hear Tim and awesome pictures too!

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-25-2008, 12:03 AM
Ah thanks!!!!! Always wondered about that! Good to see you hear Tim and awesome pictures too!
Thanks ! Same here... Hope all is well for you !

SHARKEY-IMAGES
10-25-2008, 03:57 PM
Another option is in the User CP.

You can create your own Gallery and hot link the img from there. But you need to make sure you image is 800 wide or less because I don not think there is an auto resizer in that...

http://www.seriousoffshore.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=7&pictureid=33

Strip Poker 388
10-25-2008, 04:17 PM
Normally for print you would use the 300 dpi version as a tiff (a 300 dpi jpg is fine in most cases as well). The jpg file format just has less color info.

Normally you will find jpg images on the web. 96 or 72 dpi.




Yes, or 72 is very common also.



That is correct. The only case were you will obtain 300 dpi quality is to maintain file size. In other words if you took a very large 96 dpi pic and converted it to a very small size dimensionally at 300 dpi it would look decent. It is all about color information in the original file. You cannot take an 8" wide 96 dpi picture and convert it to and 8" wide 300 dpi picture for printing. Simply doesn't have enough color information in the file to do this successfully. It will come out very blurry or grainy. You can downsize but not upsize (much).

The large pics you linked to would be great for print. They look great online too but file size is huge for the internet at well over a meg. If you view a 96 dpi version on screen you probably will see little if any quality difference. The large file size makes for very slow loading of anyone viewing the pic. If they were embedded in the forum page with bb code the entire page would load slowly even on dsl. For anyone with dial up, fogettabouit. :)



The dpi or dots per inch does not determine width. It only determines the dots per inch or the color information contained in one inch. In printing everything is dots of ink per inch. If you look through a loop or magnifying glass at print work you will see the little dots. This is what dpi is. At less dpi the image gets grainer to the eye. The human eye cannot see 300 dpi as dots on paper. But as it becomes less dpi you can so in turn the picture looks grainy. At 72 dpi (printed) you can see the actual dots because they are far apart.

On a computer screen it's different. Everything is pixels. There are screen pixels and image pixels (dpi). The human eye can't differentiate anything much greater that 96 on screen as that is the screen pixels. Anything greater dpi and you can't tell much if any difference. Try saving a picture at 30 dpi and view it on screen and you will get the effect. It will be very grainy. View the same pic at 300 dpi on screen and you'll have trouble telling it from the 96 image in most cases. Screens vary.

Hope that explains more than confuses. :huh: :)

Thanks for the good info:), How can I take a 300dpi or higher picture with my camera,or download it with out loosing the info??

I remember something about a raw file?? I don't see that feature on this Camera.


Is it my camera or the settings in the computer that makes it a 96dpi or loosing the color info etc,its a Canon S5IS 8meg.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_s5is.asp

Thanks
Rob

Rexone
10-25-2008, 07:44 PM
Thanks for the good info:), How can I take a 300dpi or higher picture with my camera,or download it with out loosing the info??

What I think you are asking here is how to save a 300dpi file for printing and preserve it even though you want to download it for viewing on the internet....

You will need a photo editing program and you will resize and then "save as" (preferably into a separate folder on your computer), a different name. For example if your original image out of the camera is named Joe, you could name the resized low res image, Joe-1.. or something to distinguish the hi rez (print quality) copy from the low rez 800 pix wide internet copy which you would then upload to your photo site.


I remember something about a raw file?? I don't see that feature on this Camera.

Looking at your camera specs it does not mention the ability to shoot raw or tiff. They are 2 different things and I don't want to get too long winded here. Basically a Tiff is a file that contains much more color information than a Jpg file. Only necessary for high end printing. A hi rez (300dpi) jpg is just fine. A raw file is something different. It is a file that has not yet been converted into a traditional tiff or jpeg or photoshop format. It is basically raw information that can only be read by a handful of higher end photo editing programs. The advantage with raw is you can make a lot of corrections if you screw up that are much more difficult or impossible to make on a jpg file. I shoot mostly raw these days. The downside is you have to be proficient with photo editing and have a higher end program like Photoshop CS2 or later (or equiv) to open the raw file. Lower end programs won't open raw. For your purposes I would not worry about tiffs or raw especially considering you camera supports neither (this is not a bad thing btw).


Is it my camera or the settings in the computer that makes it a 96dpi or loosing the color info etc,its a Canon S5IS 8meg.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_s5is.asp

Thanks
Rob



Your camera is 8mpxl which is more than adequate to produce a 300 dpi photo of decent size. What dpi your camera shoots at in the ultra fine setting is not readily available in the specs. But it will be a large file and if you shoot in this mode you will want to obtain some cards with large capacities for file storage in the field. The downside to shooting large files is storage capacity and with some cameras it will slow the response time in continual shot mode. I don't know enough about your camera to comment further in that regard. Most decent photo editing programs will let you see the dpi the original file is in and then let you convert the dpi to something less and choose your dimensional size you want (like 800 px wide) and "save as" as described above.

If you'd like me to look at a file out of your camera shot in the highest mode just pm me and I will send you my email address to send it to. I can then tell you exactly what your file is and how you will need to handle it to both save in hi rez for printing and save a copy (low rez) for the internet.