hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Slugger pic

You're welcome, Kitty.  Well 1600 x 1200 pixels will give you an
8x10.  The 72 pixels per inch probably won't  produce a really sharp
image in print format.  You can convert the .jpg to .tif but it won't
produce any added data in the file - it decompresses it, but doesn't
add anything, if that makes any sense....the number of pixels per
inch is what you've got to work with.  I find with my digi camera
images that I can't improve them dramatically because they were
originally compressed files at that low resolution and there simply
isn't enough data there to work with.   Part of that is the ability
of my older camera in the first place.  Newer cameras shoot at higher
megapixels to start with.

I take it you don't have a color printer to print out your own pix? 
You might want to talk to the photo lab and see what they think about
the resolution of the original image re: the quality of final output.

Marge Talt, zone 7 Maryland
Editor:  Gardening in Shade
Current Article: Corydalis
Complete Index of Articles by Category and Date
All Suite101.com garden topics :

> From: Kitty <kmrsy@comcast.net>
> Marge, Thanks for the info
> I reduced the scale of the original photo so I could post a
reasonably sized
> file for viewing.
> The original is a jpg - which is all my camera will do - but it is
1600 x
> 1200 pixels, 24 bits per pixel, 387kb.  It took me awhile to find a
> on my computer that would tell me its resolution, but eventually
found that
> it is indeed 72 dpi.
> For file sharing I do use jpg or gif and for printing, usually tif
> I had intended to convert the original jpg file to a tif as an
> file so that the photolab would have a choice if they preferred
> types of images for printing, though I don't know whether the
> would have any adverse affect.  Changing the 387kb jpg to a tif
creates a
> larger file:  5,635 kb, also 72 dpi.
> Kitty

Support hort.net -- join the hort.net fund drive!

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement