Image Size

[Guest damor]

How do I decide what is the best size, in ppi, for a presentation.

Any help would be most welcome.

[ContaxMan]

How do I decide what is the best size, in ppi, for a presentation.

Any help would be most welcome.

ppi is irrelevant for a show to be seen on screen or via a digital projector - it only applies to printed images.

Here's all you need to do:

1. decide what size in pixels you wish the iamges in your shows to be. Typically this would be your screen size - a fairly standard value is 1024 pixels wide by 768 pixels high.

2. resize your images to this - ignore the ppi setting.

3. save as jpg, aiming for a file size of no bigger than about 300 k per image. Quality setting 7 works well.

I'll hide now before the ppi brigade start having a go! This topic has raised its head before on more than one occasion.

[Ken Cox]

see

http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html

and

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....st=entry17736

ken

[JRR]

Roger:

You are a brave man to raise the ppi (dpi) issue

I did it last time, so I am glad to see that someone else did it this time

Over and OUT !!!!

[Conflow]

ppi is irrelevant for a show to be seen on screen or via a digital projector - it only applies to printed images.

Here's all you need to do:

1. decide what size in pixels you wish the iamges in your shows to be. Typically this would be your screen size - a fairly standard value is 1024 pixels wide by 768 pixels high.

2. resize your images to this - ignore the ppi setting.

3. save as jpg, aiming for a file size of no bigger than about 300 k per image. Quality setting 7 works well.

I'll hide now before the ppi brigade start having a go! This topic has raised its head before on more than one occasion.

Good Man Roger,

Well said, and good practical advice also. Keep the head well down whilst the ppi missives fly and you will live to fight another day....I too share your sentiments !

Brian.conflow.

[davegee]

Original poster probably meant pixels anyway!!

DaveG

[Guest damor]

date='Nov 27 2005, 07:43 PM' name='damor' post='24214'

How do I decide what is the best size, in ppi, for a presentation.

Any help would be most welcome.

Oops what Have I said?

I thought that PPI referred to pixels per inch for image size and "quality" when proected. and that DPI referred to dots per inch for "quality" printing

so why should I not refer to PPI for screen resolution when you say 1024x768 .pixels

Using photshop I find it easier to resize (for pte purposes) to use the Pixel dimension dialoge after choosing a resolution of "x" in the documnt size dialogue.and having the "resample image" selected.

but yes I was refering to pixels and not dpi.

thank you for the settings to use. I find they are quite an improvement. By the way I am new to PTE and formums. so please excuse me if I'm not politically correct

[stonemason]

Welcome to the forum damor politically incorrect is good it gets better discussions going

regards

stonemason

[alrobin]

Yes, let's keep it going - I love a good argument!

Damor,

Here are a couple of links you might want to check out to see what all the fuss is about:

Former Forum Discussion

and

Excellent Web Discussion

Bottom line - don't lose any sleep over it - just continue to have fun with PTE and use what works for you!

[ContaxMan]

I thought that PPI referred to pixels per inch for image size and "quality" when proected. and that DPI referred to dots per inch for "quality" printing

so why should I not refer to PPI for screen resolution when you say 1024x768 .pixels

is the "per inch" bit that bothered me. But don't let it bother anyone else!

[Guest damor]

Hi Al,

There has been a helpful response from all who have apparently been brave enough to contribute.

I followed your links Al and found some realy cool tips. Have a drink on me! cheers.

I'm 56 now and have been in many situations where I have been green, life is like that,

but you never learn unless you watch,listen and ask. and have fun! I've already picked up some major info in the last few days that have helped me put a neat little show together (beginer ok) but why do people still refer to image size as dpi............ dpi is for printer settings surely

Damor

[alrobin]

Hi, Damor,

Join the club - we're all learning here in this new world of digital technology, as new things are being developed and discovered every day. We're on the "bleeding edge" of technology, in other words. So, hang in and enjoy the ride! I'm older than you, (and Ron is older than both of us )so if we can follow it (more or less), then you can too! If you are like me and like to learn new tricks, then you're in the right business!

To answer your question, DPI is a term that is, in fact, used in connection with ink-jet printing, but it has nothing to do with picture size on your monitor. Just an old-fashioned way of referring to the measure of fine detail in a print. Nowdays, it's not even that applicable to printers, even though the manufacturers still use it, but is more a way of indicating that one printer mode is better than another, or to indicate the granularity of a print. (Some printers print more in lines than in individual dots). Granted, ink-jet printing is done with "dots" of ink, but nowdays the dots can be of varying size, and laid out in different ways, so the comparison between printers becomes more complicated. Things have progressed a long way since the times of the "dot-matrix" printer.

Whenever you hear "inches" used in conjunction with pixels on a monitor, then it can only be used to calculate the actual size in inches on the monitor, a dimension which is of no use to anyone except perhaps the designer of printer monitors. As you know, the distance between pixels on your monitor is fixed, so if your image is 1200 pixels wide, you can calculate, knowing how many monitor pixels there are per inch, how big the image will look on your monitor. Big deal! So, if your monitor shows 1200 pixels from one side to the other, then the image will fill the screen. And, if you double the number of pixels in the image, then it will take two screen widths to show it all.

In photoshop a unit called "pixels per inch" is used as a conversion factor to indicate to a printer how big to print the image. (Some people use "DPI" here, but it is a misnomer). So, if you set the image at "300 ppi", and your image is 1200 pixels wide, the print will be 4 inches wide. You can then change this parameter to change the size of the print without changing one iota the "quality" of the image on the screen, (or projected), in total number of pixels. But it's only a relative thing - nothing to do with the actual number of dots which will be printed per inch.

Hope I haven't made things more confusing. Just accept that for images projected or viewed on a monitor, it is the total number of pixels in each dimension (along with the degree of jpeg rendering, of course) which is the important factor in determining the quality of that image.

[Guest damor]

Hi, Damor,

Join the club - we're all learning here in this new world of digital technology, as new things are being developed and discovered every day. We're on the "bleeding edge" of technology, in other words. So, hang in and enjoy the ride! I'm older than you, (and Ron is older than both of us )so if we can follow it (more or less), then you can too! If you are like me and like to learn new tricks, then you're in the right business!

To answer your question, DPI is a term that is, in fact, used in connection with ink-jet printing, but it has nothing to do with picture size on your monitor. Just an old-fashioned way of referring to the measure of fine detail in a print. Nowdays, it's not even that applicable to printers, even though the manufacturers still use it, but is more a way of indicating that one printer mode is better than another, or to indicate the granularity of a print. (Some printers print more in lines than in individual dots). Granted, ink-jet printing is done with "dots" of ink, but nowdays the dots can be of varying size, and laid out in different ways, so the comparison between printers becomes more complicated. Things have progressed a long way since the times of the "dot-matrix" printer.

Whenever you hear "inches" used in conjunction with pixels on a monitor, then it can only be used to calculate the actual size in inches on the monitor, a dimension which is of no use to anyone except perhaps the designer of printer monitors. As you know, the distance between pixels on your monitor is fixed, so if your image is 1200 pixels wide, you can calculate, knowing how many monitor pixels there are per inch, how big the image will look on your monitor. Big deal! So, if your monitor shows 1200 pixels from one side to the other, then the image will fill the screen. And, if you double the number of pixels in the image, then it will take two screen widths to show it all.

In photoshop a unit called "pixels per inch" is used as a conversion factor to indicate to a printer how big to print the image. (Some people use "DPI" here, but it is a misnomer). So, if you set the image at "300 ppi", and your image is 1200 pixels wide, the print will be 4 inches wide. You can then change this parameter to change the size of the print without changing one iota the "quality" of the image on the screen, (or projected), in total number of pixels. But it's only a relative thing - nothing to do with the actual number of dots which will be printed per inch.

Hope I haven't made things more confusing. Just accept that for images projected or viewed on a monitor, it is the total number of pixels in each dimension (along with the degree of jpeg rendering, of course) which is the important factor in determining the quality of that image.

Good Day to you Al,

Thank you again.

It is, as you say,"the bleeding edge" One wonders what is to come in the future of photography.

But one thing is for sure Human nature will never change- no mater how many pixels you have in your "camera" or how big your "hard drive" the prima donna will always be there. So it is refreshing to hear from someone who actualy knows what hes talking about. Nice one Al much appreciate your views and value your opinion.

Damor.. (Dave)

[ContaxMan]

Al's given a good resume there.

dpi, ppi, who cares? Just make the picture look right.

As I'll be telling people tomorrow when I do yet another introductory technique talk for PTE at a camera club (perhaps I ought to be on commision) - for screen pixels rule OK.

[Guest damor]

Welcome to the forum damor politically incorrect is good it gets better discussions going

regards

stonemason

Hi And thanks to you too stonemason,

agree with you 110%

redards to you.

Al's given a good resume there.

dpi, ppi, who cares? Just make the picture look right.

As I'll be telling people tomorrow when I do yet another introductory technique talk for PTE at a camera club (perhaps I ought to be on commision) - for screen pixels rule OK.

you would be welcome at swansea any time I know most of us would be realy interseted in hearing that. sounds too good to miss.

[Maureen]

Hi Dave

Was at Swansea last night (Joe Cornish talk).

(I'm a Club member there too)

Glad to hear you're using PTE.

Gave a talk there last year using PTE etc.

Should also be giving a demo at the WPF Lampeter Weekend next September.

See notes on www.digital-av.co.uk

Love to all "Swansea Jacks" !

BW Maureen

[ContaxMan]

Hi Dave

Was at Swansea last night (Joe Cornish talk).

(I'm a Club member there too)

Glad to hear you're using PTE.

Gave a talk there last year using PTE etc.

Should also be giving a demo at the WPF Lampeter Weekend next September.

See notes on www.digital-av.co.uk

Love to all "Swansea Jacks" !

BW Maureen

Joe Cornish talk

Lucky you, Maureen. I attended a workship with Joe at Whitby earlier this year - excellent. Almost made me buy a 5x4.

[Guest damor]

Hi Dave

Was at Swansea last night (Joe Cornish talk).

(I'm a Club member there too)

Glad to hear you're using PTE.

Gave a talk there last year using PTE etc.

Should also be giving a demo at the WPF Lampeter Weekend next September.

See notes on www.digital-av.co.uk

Love to all "Swansea Jacks" !

BW Maureen

Hello Maureen,

Yes I saw you, did say hello to you I think. and hope I did.

an enjoyable evening. Spent sunday with Joe on a workshop at Three Cliffs on The Gower.

That, too, was a good day, Lighting wasn't up to much but, there you go.

hope to see you at swansea some time soon. enjoyed your evening before.

thanks for saying Hi.

Regards

Dave

[Ronniebootwest]

PPI and DPI when will we learn eh?

Still it all makes for interesting discussion, as proven by this current thread.

Ron West

[Guest damor]

PPI and DPI when will we learn eh?

Still it all makes for interesting discussion, as proven by this current thread.

Ron West

In "camera club land" there are many people unlike those of us, who have been used to digital photography for the past 7 -8 yrs, who are not conversant with "digital or computer talk". There are even more people outside the realms of club photography who have less knowledge than those new to club photography,

I'm sure the list would go full circle until it came back to the person who wrote the first book. and I bet he/she still talks about it. You and me both are still learning so the topic will always make for interesting comment. I'm sure there are those who know it all and dont want to talk about it. but even they would pass a comment some time.

So, in short, long live conversation, what ever the topic.

Dave.

[Skeevie]

Hi all...

I just got P2E and have yet to make a show of any kind. I was just browsing the forum and ran across this topic. I am a certified computer idiot, so please bear with me on this. I have photoshopCS2, and manage to do basic stuff. I freely admit to being lost on the resizing of pictures for P2E.

When I set the crop size to 1024x783, what "resolution" do I enter? I guess I should ask how to get the file size down to under 300k as recommended in this thread (although I have seen under 100k mentioned more often.)

Type slowly so I can understand. I should be the "fool" to beta test any new "fool proof" idea.

Thanks in advance for any help.

~Skeevie~

[JRR]

Skeevie:

(I am likely a sucker for answering this as members of the forum who have been around will know what I mean, but we do try to help...)

The file size should be around 300kb, saving as jpg will let you see the size of the file either using SAVE AS or SAVE for web. You can't go by a fixed quality setting.

The "resolution" is a red herring as has been "discussed" many times. It is used to determine print size. Ignore res and just crop to pixel size you want.

I hope this does not get the old discussions going again.....

[Skeevie]

Hi Jim...

Thank you so much for the quick response. I understand not wanting to get the dpi/resolution/ppi/whatever debate going again and I appreciate your bold venture.

The info on "save as" or "save for web" is what I was looking for. I've seen different viewpoints and suggestions on actual file size and wanted to see what I was missing in controlling that.

Thanks again!

Have a great day!

~Skeevie~