Photo size for 4x6 prints?
Alan Miller
obtain 4x6-inch prints, what size image should be sent?
jpg
2048x1536, 1024x768 or 800x600
compression ratio
72 pixels/inch or 300 or ?
I couldn't find that information on their site.
--
Alan R. Miller armi...@nmt.edu http://www.nmt.edu/~armiller/
dave
"Alan Miller" <armi...@nmt.edu> wrote in message
news:8k868v$j83$1...@newshost.nmt.edu...
geepondy
in a 4:3 ratio mode while a 6x4 print is a 3:2 ratio so to avoid
unwanted cropping, it's best to crop the picture yourself before
uploading to a online photo site.
Techlab
>In article <8k868v$j83$1...@newshost.nmt.edu>, "Alan Miller"
><armi...@nmt.edu> wrote:
>
>> To use an online phtoto site like PhotoPoint http://www.photopoint.com/ to
>> obtain 4x6-inch prints, what size image should be sent?
>>
>> jpg
>> 2048x1536, 1024x768 or 800x600
>> compression ratio
>> 72 pixels/inch or 300 or ?
>>
>> I couldn't find that information on their site.
>
>I don't know about PhotoPoint, but at Shutterfly, we recommend 1024 by
>768, although 640 by 480 can sometimes get decent results.
Hmm.. I'd have to disagree here. I've never seen a 640x480 that will
make a decent 4x6 print, and believe me, I've tried for years and
worked on cutting edge equipment trying to do so.
Most people seem to find 300 dpi continuous tone acceptable as a 'true
photo' quality. If the printer isn't continuous tone, then the numbers
go even higher.
>Compression ratio should be the least compression possible.
Absolutely agreed.
> Pixels per inch doesn't matter, only the number of pixels do.
That's a bit misleading, even if technically correct.
PPI DOES matter, but I take it that you're saying it will be ignored
on your end, because the printer will use it's own PPI to print, no
matter what the PPI of the incoming photo is.
No problem there, because I understand that you have little/no control
over that part of the process.
But it's important that people in this newsgroup understand the
relationship between PPI and final output, so some people here are
constantly trying to bring the new users up to speed on the
relationship between the camera or scanner's output and that of the
printer.
So while your statement is technically accurate according to YOUR
business, , the way you stated it has the potential to undo a lot of
the learning that people have gained in here over a long period of
time.
I'm NOT giving you a hard time here.. just asking you to understand
that this is the newsgroup where a lot of people come to lurk and
learn.. and the way you said that flies in the face of a lot of the
wisdom that has been dispensed in here in the past.
> If you're scanning a
>document, the pixels per inch that you scan will determine the number of
>pixels and the size of the image.
Yes. The total number of pixels is what this user was asking about,
and yes, the PPI doesn't matter when the image is sent to you.
but it DOES matter when printing, in general.
As mentioned before, below about 300 PPI (pixels per inch) most people
won't be all that excited with their prints. So it's important that
they know how to resize their images or resample (depending on the
software) to see what the image looks like at 300PPI. (And this can't
be done on a monitor very well.)
A 640x480 will yield a decent 2.133 x 1.6 inch image at 300dpi.
That's basically a thumbnail.
Blowing that up to a 4x6 will look terrible under almost any
circumstance.
Telling people it will look 'decent' is a really bad idea. It's giving
false hope to people with older cameras that they can get decent
photos from equipment that isn't designed to provide it. And I'd bet
my life's savings that not more than 1 out of 10,000 pictures shot at
640x480 will look good at 4x6.. But they'll look great at 300dpi.
>--Michelle
>
>--
>I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
Rommel
FWIW, PPI is not important when you are specifying the print size and
minimum resolution for the prints. Most online photo printers will inform
you the minimum resolution for a particular print size to get the best
results. So, if I have an 1800x1200 image and I want it printed at 4x6 -
whatever PPI I set it to will no longer matter size the necessary
information are already provided. HOWEVER, if one of the two are not
specified, then that is where PPI is needed.
Tchuss!
"Techlab" <Tec...@Photo-Rescue.com> wrote in message
news:396ef8bb....@news.erols.com...
Arnie McCullers
<snip>
> A 640x480 will yield a decent 2.133 x 1.6 inch image at 300dpi.
>
> That's basically a thumbnail.
>
> Blowing that up to a 4x6 will look terrible under almost any
> circumstance.
>
> Telling people it will look 'decent' is a really bad idea. It's giving
> false hope to people with older cameras that they can get decent
> photos from equipment that isn't designed to provide it. And I'd bet
> my life's savings that not more than 1 out of 10,000 pictures shot at
> 640x480 will look good at 4x6.. But they'll look great at 300dpi.
Come on, Charlie, "life's savings"? "1 out of 10,000"? - you must be
deeply in debt. A 640x480 printed out at 5.33x4 would be 120 ppi.
Although I normally print at 300 ppi (old PhotoSmart), I have printed
many photographs at 100 to 120 ppi - 8x10's from an FD-91 and a DC210
and severely cropped pictures from a CP950. They all looked great -
at least IMHO and the opinions of several others. Could the same
pictures look better with better gear? Probably, but the existing
images are certainly both good and good enough. After all, some of
the old master paintings still look pretty good, and I doubt many of
those have over 100 brush strokes per inch.
Arnie
CPU Doug
doing the printing for PhotoPoint. That's no secret, the Shutterfly logo is
all over the place. :)
Neither site had a PPI or DPI recommendation. From my experience with Corel
PhotoPaint 8, 1024x768 images have created some very good 7.5x10" prints.
That is after importing the .JPG file into Corel's proprietary format --
which is most probably what PhotoPoint/Shutterfly will do with their
proprietary formats.
In either case, you need not be concerned with 72 PPI, or 300 PPI, or any
other value. I would recommend the 1024x768 size. If more pixels are needed,
then their software will no doubt perform intricate extrapolation functions
to keep colors smooth and consistant. If you supply too many pixels, then
(from what I've studied about digital imaging) pixels for intermediate
colors are dropped and color shifts are more abrupt.
Doug Knoerr
PC/Windows Consulting
New London, WI. USA
To reply in newsgroups, remove ".riptide" from e-mail address.
Techlab
>Techlab wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> A 640x480 will yield a decent 2.133 x 1.6 inch image at 300dpi.
>>
>> That's basically a thumbnail.
>>
>> Blowing that up to a 4x6 will look terrible under almost any
>> circumstance.
>>
>> Telling people it will look 'decent' is a really bad idea. It's giving
>> false hope to people with older cameras that they can get decent
>> photos from equipment that isn't designed to provide it. And I'd bet
>> my life's savings that not more than 1 out of 10,000 pictures shot at
>> 640x480 will look good at 4x6.. But they'll look great at 300dpi.
>
>Come on, Charlie, "life's savings"? "1 out of 10,000"? - you must be
>deeply in debt.
I'm not, and I'll stand by my statement. (although I admit that it
will be difficult to prove, since we're already banking our
reputations on vastly different ideas of 'good' .. )
(So let's agree up front that we will probably never agree on 'good'
and get beyond that.)
>A 640x480 printed out at 5.33x4 would be 120 ppi.
And that will not look good as a 4x6.
>Although I normally print at 300 ppi (old PhotoSmart), I have printed
>many photographs at 100 to 120 ppi - 8x10's from an FD-91 and a DC210
>and severely cropped pictures from a CP950. They all looked great -
>at least IMHO and the opinions of several others.
This is where you and I agree to part company.
I don't find pictures of this quality to be acceptable at all.
I think they're poor quality, and stastics seem to tell me that the
rest of the world considers images of this type to be of inferior
quality.
This isn't about you vs. me.. this is about your images versus the
image quality the rest of the world considers acceptable.
> Could the same
>pictures look better with better gear?
Absolutely, fucking guaranteed...
>Probably, but the existing
>images are certainly both good and good enough.
Which means.. exactly what?
> After all, some of
>the old master paintings still look pretty good, and I doubt many of
>those have over 100 brush strokes per inch.
This would have made a GREAT statement if you were going out in
glory..
.. but you went out with a whimper...
Phil Wheeler
Arnie McCullers wrote:
>
> Come on, Charlie, "life's savings"? "1 out of 10,000"? - you must be
> deeply in debt. A 640x480 printed out at 5.33x4 would be 120 ppi.
> Although I normally print at 300 ppi (old PhotoSmart), I have printed
> many photographs at 100 to 120 ppi - 8x10's from an FD-91 and a DC210
> and severely cropped pictures from a CP950. They all looked great -
> at least IMHO and the opinions of several others. Could the same
> pictures look better with better gear? Probably, but the existing
> images are certainly both good and good enough. After all, some of
> the old master paintings still look pretty good, and I doubt many of
> those have over 100 brush strokes per inch.
>
I'm with you, Arnie. I shoot almost everything at 640x480 with minimal
jpeg .. since I email lots of stuff. I've printed a few samples at 6x8
inches on my HP printer and they look pleasing to me and others. Sure,
double the pixels or more might look better, but pleasing and
technically perfect are not always the same.
Phil
FOR7
>>Although I normally print at 300 ppi (old PhotoSmart), I have printed
>>many photographs at 100 to 120 ppi - 8x10's from an FD-91 and a DC210
>>and severely cropped pictures from a CP950. They all looked great -
>>at least IMHO and the opinions of several others.
>
>
>I don't find pictures of this quality to be acceptable at all.
>
>I think they're poor quality, and stastics seem to tell me that the
>rest of the world considers images of this type to be of inferior
>quality.
I also agree the quality would stink. That is not to say that the image could
not be attractive in its own way but it definitely would not be photo quality.
I think there are basically two camps in this group from what I've noticed. One
would be the ones that come from a strong traditional photo background and
those that are mainly or strictly digital in that they also capture their
images with a digital camera. That said it seems that the level at which both
groups consider the quality of an image acceptable can vary greatly. I shoot
traditional and scan with a neg/slide scanner and print out on a higher end
Epson for personal use and I also shoot medium format and print my own
traditional 35mm and medium negatives so my level of what I consider to be
acceptable quality is probably going to differ from someone who primarily
captures his images with a digital camera. It is all relative really, but I
think it is safe to say that printing at 100ppi is NOT going to give you photo
quality. Sorry.
E.T.
fo...@aol.com
Mike Russell
I suspect I would enjoy your photographs, because I've always admired the
technique that goes into making large, sharp images. And yet ...
I disagree "sharply" with your statement that a 100ppi print lacks this
thing you call photo quality. Perhaps you meant, merely, that they were not
salon photo quality?
Monitors typically display at 72 ppi, and even high quality ones are under
100ppi, yet the quality of the image on a monitor is quite good. There is
no essential reason that a printed image would look worse than a video one,
and in fact the defects of the printer would tend to hide the lack of
resolution rather than enhance it.
But let's grant that some photographs are noticeably less sharp than others.
If you get up close, with or without a magnifier, you are doing something
very different from the majority of people who look at photographs.
Would you say Edward Weston's photographs qualify as "photo quality"? Would
you say that he comes from a "strong traditional background"?
Perhaps you may want to look at some of Weston's photographs before
answering yes. Although he relied almost entirely on large format contact
prints, very few of his images were really optically sharp. Judging
qualitatively, his nudes are all well below 100ppi. His famous shell series
done in 1927, is not tack sharp either - they were done as many minute time
exposures in a rather rickety house. I'd guestimate they are about 150 ppi,
although these pictures are certainly sharper than his nudes.
I suggest that by rejecting lower resolution photographs, you are actually
marginalizing yourself, and not those whose work you reject as "interesting
in their own way, but not photo quality". If you accept the body of
Weston's work as "photo quality", as most of the world does, then you cannot
argue that 100dpi is inadequate. If you reject Weston, then you are
isolating yourself from the bulk of the historic work of photography, as
well as a large segment of the emerging one of digital photography. How
small an island can you stand on without being all wet?
And I don't think you are really "Sorry". :-)
"FOR7" <fo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000710022155...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
LKRZ
>(from what I've studied about digital imaging) pixels for intermediate
>colors are dropped and color shifts are more abrupt.
Actually, if you supply too many pixels, they send you an e-mail requesting
that you take out some pixels and try again.
Arnie McCullers
>
> Arnie McCullers <Lyn...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >Come on, Charlie, "life's savings"? "1 out of 10,000"? - you must be
> >deeply in debt.
>
> will be difficult to prove, since we're already banking our
> reputations on vastly different ideas of 'good' .. )
I'm not exactly banking my reputation. I'm just saying that everyone
has different standards, and that some standards may not include an
absolute limit on ppi. As they say on NYPD Blue, "Everything's a
situation."
> (So let's agree up front that we will probably never agree on 'good'
> and get beyond that.)
Absolutely. I consider subject, composition, color, and impact on
viewer more important than resolution (sharpness) as far as 'good'
is concerned.
> >A 640x480 printed out at 5.33x4 would be 120 ppi.
>
> And that will not look good as a 4x6.
Of course not, it would be grossly distorted. :)
> >Although I normally print at 300 ppi (old PhotoSmart), I have printed
> >many photographs at 100 to 120 ppi - 8x10's from an FD-91 and a DC210
> >and severely cropped pictures from a CP950. They all looked great -
> >at least IMHO and the opinions of several others.
>
> This is where you and I agree to part company.
>
> I don't find pictures of this quality to be acceptable at all.
How can you tell? You haven't seen them. The pictures of my
grandkids are fabulous. (Of course, I may be prejudiced.)
> I think they're poor quality, and stastics seem to tell me that the
> rest of the world considers images of this type to be of inferior
> quality.
>
> This isn't about you vs. me.. this is about your images versus the
> image quality the rest of the world considers acceptable.
"Rest of the world"?? From the responses in this thread and from
the other posts in this ng, I'd say that there are at least a couple
of people who agree with me that there is no absolute definition of
'good'. If I've told you once, I've told you a million times
"Never Exaggerate!"
> > After all, some of
> >the old master paintings still look pretty good, and I doubt many of
> >those have over 100 brush strokes per inch.
>
> This would have made a GREAT statement if you were going out in
> glory..
> .. but you went out with a whimper...
<chuckle> ... and that was my best line. I just feel that people
who make absolute pronouncements from their thrones of infallibility
tend to look a little foolish.
Arnie
BTW, anything happen between you and that reporter from Texas(?) ?
We were about to turn a fire hose on you when you mysteriously
disappeared.
n...@email.non
given PPI? I've looked all over my Lexmark options and can't find any
options for specifying the PPI to use. (lexmark z51)
--
surfer (n...@email.net)
Techlab
>Techlab wrote:
>>
>> Arnie McCullers <Lyn...@home.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Come on, Charlie, "life's savings"? "1 out of 10,000"? - you must be
>> >deeply in debt.
>>
>> I'm not, and I'll stand by my statement. (although I admit that it
>> will be difficult to prove, since we're already banking our
>> reputations on vastly different ideas of 'good' .. )
>
>I'm not exactly banking my reputation.
That's OK, I wasn't going to give you my life's savings, either.. ;-)
> I'm just saying that everyone
>has different standards, and that some standards may not include an
>absolute limit on ppi. As they say on NYPD Blue, "Everything's a
>situation."
Absulutely. I don't find ppi or dpi to be the same limit for
everyone, but there are some clear lines that can be drawn where a
print is acceptable or not. Oddly enough, I find this limit tends to
move up with inkjet users and digital camera operators as the
technology of their own equipment gets better.
Coincidence? Perhaps..
But 5 years ago, this agrument was about the Epson 600 and digital
cameras with a max. resolution of 640x480 and the print size in
question was 8x10. Many people proclaimed them as 'photo quality'.
>> (So let's agree up front that we will probably never agree on 'good'
>> and get beyond that.)
>Absolutely. I consider subject, composition, color, and impact on
>viewer more important than resolution (sharpness) as far as 'good'
>is concerned.
I understand that. But coming from the photofinishing end, I'm
responsible for making sure that this subject, composition, color and
impact come across to the viewer. And for me, that means I need every
bit of resolution, sharpness detail or data that I can get my hands on
so that I can make the image presentable.
I'm not willing to trade off anything for something else. I need ALL
of it in order to get a product I consider saleable.
>> >A 640x480 printed out at 5.33x4 would be 120 ppi.
>>
>> And that will not look good as a 4x6.
>
>Of course not, it would be grossly distorted. :)
DOH! Just caught that! What was I thinking? (or not..)
But what I meant is that 120 dpi would not look good.
Just this afternoon, before I left the store, a regular customer came
in with two floppies looking for prints from the Pictrography 3000.
I could have made a nice piece of change doing the work, and the
customer told me "money isn't a problem" .. the images were all
640x480. I printed out three on a page as a sample.
She left without ordering any prints. She was unhappy with the
samples, but at least she understood that the lack of detail wasn't
due to the equpiment, it was due to the lack of information in the
image file.
>> >Although I normally print at 300 ppi (old PhotoSmart), I have printed
>> >many photographs at 100 to 120 ppi - 8x10's from an FD-91 and a DC210
>> >and severely cropped pictures from a CP950. They all looked great -
>> >at least IMHO and the opinions of several others.
>>
>> This is where you and I agree to part company.
>>
>> I don't find pictures of this quality to be acceptable at all.
>
>How can you tell? You haven't seen them. The pictures of my
>grandkids are fabulous. (Of course, I may be prejudiced.)
I don't have to. (grandchildren aside.. I know I'm fond of mine,too.)
You're specifying an exact product, and asking for precise results
from it.
I can tell you, without seeing the images, that the results will be
less than acceptable from my lab. (Meaning nobody in my store would be
'proud' to give you the prints and then charge you money for them.)
If you're happy with them, that's a different story.I'm not here to
tell you what you should be hapy with. WE will know that we just let
prints go out of the store that were of 'less than acceptable quality'
.. and we really don't want to do that.
>> I think they're poor quality, and stastics seem to tell me that the
>> rest of the world considers images of this type to be of inferior
>> quality.
>>
>> This isn't about you vs. me.. this is about your images versus the
>> image quality the rest of the world considers acceptable.
>"Rest of the world"?? From the responses in this thread and from
>the other posts in this ng, I'd say that there are at least a couple
>of people who agree with me that there is no absolute definition of
>'good'. If I've told you once, I've told you a million times
>"Never Exaggerate!"
Heh .. you caught that. I wasn't sure you would.. ;-)
but being a bit more serious..
There IS a moving boundary. The bar of acceptability is going up.
And I'm happy about that, as finally the manufacturers are getting
serious about the photo quality market.
>> > After all, some of
>> >the old master paintings still look pretty good, and I doubt many of
>> >those have over 100 brush strokes per inch.
>>
>> This would have made a GREAT statement if you were going out in
>> glory..
>> .. but you went out with a whimper...
>
><chuckle> ... and that was my best line. I just feel that people
>who make absolute pronouncements from their thrones of infallibility
>tend to look a little foolish.
Actually, I thought it was funny, but your post was already under my
skin, so I had to say SOMETHING!!
I admit I went overboard. I'm sorry.
Yeah.. I made some points that I put in an 'absolute' mode.. and
perhaps I shouldn't have done that.
Like most people, once I accept something as 'fact', I tend not to go
back on it .. or allow any leeway from it.
I should back down from that, I know..
>BTW, anything happen between you and that reporter from Texas(?) ?
>We were about to turn a fire hose on you when you mysteriously
>disappeared.
?? I''m afraid you're got me mixed up with someone else.
But, frankly. I'm intrigued..
Frank DuPont
You must be getting old like the rest of us and maybe a few more brain
cells have been misplaced.
I think her name was something like Lorie and she was from some where in
the north because she had some pictures of a first snowfall. You and her
were into some emails that had nothing to do with cameras but something
appeared to be developing! You both disappeared at the same time and we
never heard the ending of the soap opera.
Frank
Techlab wrote:
>
>Big snip
Arnie McCullers
>
> Arnie McCullers <L.A.Mc...@LaRC.NASA.gov> wrote:
>
> >Absolutely. I consider subject, composition, color, and impact on
> >viewer more important than resolution (sharpness) as far as 'good'
> >is concerned.
>
> I understand that. But coming from the photofinishing end, I'm
> responsible for making sure that this subject, composition, color and
> impact come across to the viewer. And for me, that means I need every
> bit of resolution, sharpness detail or data that I can get my hands on
> so that I can make the image presentable.
>
> I'm not willing to trade off anything for something else. I need ALL
> of it in order to get a product I consider saleable.
Exactly. As a professional, you should have higher standards than
us happy snappers. If we had to meet your standards for printing,
Aunt Nellie wouldn't get very many pictures in the mail, and she
thinks they're great.
By coincidence (I hope), last night my daughter e-mailed me four
640x480 images to print for her. It's time to put up or shut up.
I guess I'll wheel out the old bicubic interpolation and unsharp
mask and see if I can generate a couple of million sharp pixels.
Arnie
Arnie McCullers
>
> Techlab
> You must be getting old like the rest of us and maybe a few more brain
> cells have been misplaced.
>
> I think her name was something like Lorie and she was from some where in
> the north because she had some pictures of a first snowfall. You and her
> were into some emails that had nothing to do with cameras but something
> appeared to be developing! You both disappeared at the same time and we
> never heard the ending of the soap opera.
> Frank
Thanks, Frank. I was beginning to think that I had become (more?)
senile.
Arnie
> Techlab wrote:
> >
> >Big snip
Techlab
>Techlab
>You must be getting old like the rest of us and maybe a few more brain
>cells have been misplaced.
I'm not going to deny either possibility..
>I think her name was something like Lorie and she was from some where in
>the north because she had some pictures of a first snowfall. You and her
>were into some emails that had nothing to do with cameras but something
>appeared to be developing! You both disappeared at the same time and we
>never heard the ending of the soap opera.
>Frank
I'm interested, but I can tell you in all honesty, I don't remember
this. I think you might have me confused with someone else, or are
referring to an incident I don't remember,.
Belive me.. I'm not holding my memory to any sort of standard.. I just
spent 2 days frantically searching for the missing rent money that I'd
already given to the landlord..
UH.. BTW.. do you have her phone number?
Techlab
>Techlab wrote:
>>
>> Arnie McCullers <L.A.Mc...@LaRC.NASA.gov> wrote:
>>
>> >Absolutely. I consider subject, composition, color, and impact on
>> >viewer more important than resolution (sharpness) as far as 'good'
>> >is concerned.
>>
>> I understand that. But coming from the photofinishing end, I'm
>> responsible for making sure that this subject, composition, color and
>> impact come across to the viewer. And for me, that means I need every
>> bit of resolution, sharpness detail or data that I can get my hands on
>> so that I can make the image presentable.
>>
>> I'm not willing to trade off anything for something else. I need ALL
>> of it in order to get a product I consider saleable.
>
>Exactly. As a professional, you should have higher standards than
>us happy snappers. If we had to meet your standards for printing,
>Aunt Nellie wouldn't get very many pictures in the mail, and she
>thinks they're great.
OK, I'll admit that. I DO look for far more in an image than most
people do. OK.. now you've stroked my ego and given me an 'easy out'
.. now what?
(Thanks,. BTW..) ;-)
>By coincidence (I hope), last night my daughter e-mailed me four
>640x480 images to print for her. It's time to put up or shut up.
OK, I'm still here.
>I guess I'll wheel out the old bicubic interpolation and unsharp
>mask and see if I can generate a couple of million sharp pixels.
Better yet.. let me print them on a continuous tone printer.
Let me know before they're to arrive (let me be ready for them) but
let me print them for you. It's free, I promise.
Let me make you some prints.
Compare them to whatever you want to.
E-mail me with a snail mail address.
I only ask that you post your results here.
(after all, this is about learning, right?)
Frank DuPont
I'm willing to bet the farm that I have the right Techlab, heaven help
us if there are two of you.{G}
Just to help your memory a bit, she worked for a newspaper, was
divorced, was looking for a digital camera to use at the newspaper, she
wanted the Oly 2500 but had to get a Oly 2000 because of the cost and
she sounded like a very interesting person!!!
Anyway I think you are pulling my leg!
Back to the topic for a minute. I just printed some 13x19 prints from my
Sony D770 (1.5 meg pixels) and I was rather surprized at how good they
were. No, I'm not saying they are great or photo quality or my camera is
better then any other one but with lots of work I got a good looking
picture. I used my 1270 with mat paper, upsampled to 180 and had to do
lots of work with the blur tool in Photoshop to hide some noise. All in
all I ended up with some rather nice posters to put up in the school
showing some of the kids doing many different kinds of sports. So I
guess it depends on what your goals are when it comes to number of
pixels to make a print and sometimes you have to except less then
perfect.
Frank
CPU Doug
foot down. And guys... don't try arguing with her. Ask any guy who is, or
ever was, married and they'll all tell you the same thing: In an arguement
between a man and a woman it's an unfair contest; Women are pro's at it and
they never lose.
(crawling away now to avoid the cross-fire)
Thanks again Michelle.
Arnie McCullers
>
> Arnie McCullers <L.A.Mc...@LaRC.NASA.gov> wrote:
>
> >By coincidence (I hope), last night my daughter e-mailed me four
> >640x480 images to print for her. It's time to put up or shut up.
> >mask and see if I can generate a couple of million sharp pixels.
>
> Better yet.. let me print them on a continuous tone printer.
>
>
> (after all, this is about learning, right?)
Absolutely! I would be delighted to take you up on your kind
and generous offer. I think, however, that printing the four
low-res pictures wouldn't prove much. How about if I send you
one low-res 640x480, a medium-res (maybe a 1 MP), and a couple
of CP950 shots. That would provide a greater range for
comparison. Let me know at home (literally) lyn...@home.com
and I'll e-mail them to you along with a snail address.
As far as my printing is concerned, I interpolated to 300 ppi
and adjusted brightness and contrast with PP8's Maps function.
One came out pretty good; two had severe lighting* problems
but still came out decent after editing; and one had more
detail than pixels and just looked bad - really mushy.
Arnie
* The people were in a dimly lit room barely illuminated with
a weak, cool flash. The walls, however, were covered with
bright colored prints and posters illuminated by bright,
warm flood lamps. The people looked like ghosts.
Techlab
>Techlab
>I'm willing to bet the farm that I have the right Techlab, heaven help
>us if there are two of you.{G}
OH, geez.. heaven help ME!!
>Just to help your memory a bit, she worked for a newspaper, was
>divorced, was looking for a digital camera to use at the newspaper, she
>wanted the Oly 2500 but had to get a Oly 2000 because of the cost and
>she sounded like a very interesting person!!!
>Anyway I think you are pulling my leg!
I'm really not, Frank.. but this description is jogging my memory..
..especially the 'very interesting person' and the iidea that people
were watching the thread..
Was this the incident where there was some blatant online/usenet
flirting going on? If so, then I can say that I remember it, I backed
off (and so did she) as I was embarassed a bit, but it was all in
fun. It was a thread that reduced to one line retorts.. (mostly humor
and innuendo..), but I remember about a year ago I was swapping
one-liners with someone who was pretty witty and could trade jab for
jab..
>Back to the topic for a minute.
Damn.. we were just getting to the good stuff..
:-)
>I just printed some 13x19 prints from my
>Sony D770 (1.5 meg pixels) and I was rather surprized at how good they
>were. No, I'm not saying they are great or photo quality or my camera is
>better then any other one but with lots of work I got a good looking
>picture.
Understood..
> I used my 1270 with mat paper, upsampled to 180 and had to do
>lots of work with the blur tool in Photoshop to hide some noise.
I think this is the whole point.. it takes some work to make the
images look good, while some people expect them to look great, right
out of the camera. but this won't happen except on an unusual shot.
> All in
>all I ended up with some rather nice posters to put up in the school
>showing some of the kids doing many different kinds of sports. So I
>guess it depends on what your goals are when it comes to number of
>pixels to make a print and sometimes you have to except less then
>perfect.
No arguments here.. I have no problem with the concept of 'Good
Enough" under any circimstances.
When someone says "Photo Quality" you can believe I will speak up if
it isn't .. and I think others should, since so many consumers are
getting their information in this group prior to making a purchase.
Photos are photos. So Photo Quality means that the resultant product
should have the same qualities as regular photos do. Some may get
close, but many don't. I just think it would be more appropriate if
the images that don't meet the same criteria as a photo be called
something else.
I give lots of leeway, and I usually don't say anything with close
calls. But there's lots of examples that just aren't in the ball park.
Techlab
>>
>> (after all, this is about learning, right?)
>
>Absolutely! I would be delighted to take you up on your kind
>and generous offer. I think, however, that printing the four
>low-res pictures wouldn't prove much. How about if I send you
>one low-res 640x480, a medium-res (maybe a 1 MP), and a couple
>of CP950 shots. That would provide a greater range for
>comparison. Let me know at home (literally) lyn...@home.com
>and I'll e-mail them to you along with a snail address.
Got them tonight, thanks. Jjust my luck, two other people sent me
images at the same time.. I clicked on "Check For New E-Mail' and then
went and took a shower. I timed it about right.. :-)
>As far as my printing is concerned, I interpolated to 300 ppi
>and adjusted brightness and contrast with PP8's Maps function.
>One came out pretty good; two had severe lighting* problems
>but still came out decent after editing; and one had more
>detail than pixels and just looked bad - really mushy.
I'll do some editing to make them look better, but I'll also include
the straight prints for comparison.
I took my Jaz to the office, so I won't be able to do them tomorrow.
And that Zip just keeps clickin and clickin...
Frank DuPont
Thanks for making my day, glad to know that my 63 year old chemo laden
brain still has some working parts!
Frank
Techlab wrote:
>
> Frank DuPont <fdu...@netonecom.net> wrote:
>
> >Techlab
> >I'm willing to bet the farm that I have the right Techlab, heaven help
> >us if there are two of you.{G}
>
> OH, geez.. heaven help ME!!
>
snip
> ..especially the 'very interesting person' and the iidea that people
> were watching the thread..
>
> Was this the incident where there was some blatant online/usenet
> flirting going on? If so, then I can say that I remember it, I backed
> off (and so did she) as I was embarassed a bit, but it was all in
> fun. It was a thread that reduced to one line retorts.. (mostly humor
> and innuendo..), but I remember about a year ago I was swapping
> one-liners with someone who was pretty witty and could trade jab for
> jab..
>
> >Back to the topic for a minute.
>
> Damn.. we were just getting to the good stuff..
> :-)
>
>Snip
Techlab
>Techlab
>Thanks for making my day, glad to know that my 63 year old chemo laden
>brain still has some working parts!
Ouch.. chemo.. Sorry to hear that, Frank. I know it's no fun..