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
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
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


Hi Marge and Rich et al

A 3 megapixel camera will give you outstanding pictures for virtually all
uses.  The only reason you might need more pixels is if you are intending to
make prints larger than 8x10.  I have an Olympus c750 4 megapixels with a
10x zoom.  Great camera and takes incredible shots.  All of the pics on my
website were taken with that camera.  The reason I got 4 megapixels is
because I do make posters occassionally for some of the shows.  For most
users 3 is adequate and you can find very nice cameras for $150 I think.
Make sure that you get a camera that you can recharge the batteries and
256mg memory chip.  Much less than that is almost worthless.

DF
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard T. Apking" <richa@midlands.net>
To: <gardenchat@hort.net>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [CHAT] Slugger pic


> Hi Marge, and all,
> Am thinking about getting a digital type camera mainly in order to share
> with you guys some of my garden stuff, like the label holders, and
actually
> some pics of plants.  After reading your responses to Kitty's questions,
it
> seems as though you are some kind of authority, or at least have a more
than
> working knowledge of these things.  About the only thing I know for sure
is
> that you don't need film, and the pics are easier to put on the web.  Help
> me if you have the time please.  Rich in Z-5 where  it is 72 today and
just
> beautiful.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Marge Talt" <mtalt@hort.net>
> To: <gardenchat@hort.net>
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 10:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [CHAT] 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
> > 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
> >
> > ----------
> > > 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
> > 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
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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



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