Re: Slugger pic

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 program
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 images.
I had intended to convert the original jpg file to a tif as an additional
file so that the photolab would have a choice if they preferred certain
types of images for printing, though I don't know whether the conversion
would have any adverse affect.  Changing the 387kb jpg to a tif creates a
larger file:  5,635 kb, also 72 dpi.

Kitty


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marge Talt" <mtalt@hort.net>
To: <gardenchat@hort.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 2:08 AM
Subject: Re: [CHAT] Slugger pic


> ----------
> > From: Kitty <kmrsy@comcast.net>
> > Thanks.   I'm hoping the photo is large enough to make a decent
> 8x10.  It's
> > a 387 kb jpg.   All other 8x10s have been from 35mm negs.  I assume
> a photo
> > lab can use a diskette.
>
> Well, Kitty, the image you have up on the web is 480x360 pixels and
> would print out at 6.668 x 5".  It is also 72 pixel resolution, which
> is less than I usually use for jpg files - 96 is what I use for
> monitor viewing.  72 is the resolution for .gif files.  For some
> reason, my digital camera (which is older) saves at 72 pixels at
> normal high setting...annoying.  There's another higher setting, but
> the file size produced is more than my system can handle.
>
>  For printing, you need minimum 150 pixels and 250 or 300 will give
> you a better image - print actually doesn't do much beyond 300
> pixels.  However, if your camera saves jpgs at 72 pixels as a .jpg
> file, you are out of luck because there's just not enough data saved
> to increase the pixel level and not get a fuzzy image.
>
> Perhaps you have the original image at a higher resolution or larger
> size?  I snatched your web image and stuck it in Photoshop to see
> what size it would print at and the resolution and it said it was
> 42kb file size, so if your original is 387kb, it must be larger or at
> a higher rez....
>
> You are actually better off saving in .tif format if your camera
> permits and you want to print out something - if you can handle the
> file size - because .tif doesn't compress like .jpg and compression
> loses data.
>
> Slides are much higher rez.  When I scan a slide, it's at 2400
> pixels, giving me a 15megabyte or more file size.  I have to reduce
> those images immediately or my whole system gets indigestion.
>
> > OrangeCat, Orange Kitty - don't we have great imaginations when it
> comes to
> > pet names?! :+D
>
> Aren't we, tho'?  I mean, our cat's name is Teeny Kitty; previous
> cat's name was Cat-cat...how creative can you get?
>
> Marge Talt, zone 7 Maryland
> mtalt@hort.net
> Editor:  Gardening in Shade
> -----------------------------------------------
> Current Article: Corydalis
> http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/shade_gardening
> ------------------------------------------------
> Complete Index of Articles by Category and Date
> http://mtalt.hort.net/article-index.html
> ------------------------------------------------
> All Suite101.com garden topics :
> http://www.suite101.com/topics.cfm/635
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Support hort.net -- join the hort.net fund drive!
> http://www.hort.net/funds/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Support hort.net -- join the hort.net fund drive!
http://www.hort.net/funds/
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index