Robert writes: > I have a Canon G2 which I have been very happy with. My purposes for the > camera have never once included actually printing one of the images. It > had occurred to me that 72 ppi was probably not the optimum resolution > to print with as all the scans I have ever had anything to do with were > professional drum scans done at 300 dpi. > So, I noticed, in a quick look that if I simply go under "Image Size" > and change the Pixel per Inch from 72 to, say, 150, that my pixel > dimensions go from 2272x1704 to 4733x3550. Hey! Where did all those new > pixels come from? Photoshop. It's one of PS's worst features and confuses the bejesus out of LOTS of people :-/ >I don't want that. I want 2272x1704@150 or 300 dpi. hehe, you KNOW what you want! (I like a decisive man;-) >I want my original pixels. No more, no less. there's a song in this.. > Further investigation has shown me that unchecking the "Resample Image" > box will, when changing the 72 to 150, give me an image which has gone > from 31.556x23.667 inches to 15.147x11.36 inches while retaining the > 2272x1704 pixel count. > A change to 300 dpi will afford me an image 7.573x5.68 inches with a > 2272x1704 pixel count. that's it! > Will not an image print better at 150 or 300 ppi than at 72 ppi? > If the answer is yes, then... It is yes if you send it to print through photoshop.. in some other progs you just send the image to print and specify the size, having already made the mental calculations as to correct size the 'X' x 'Y' pixel image should appear > Is this in fact the best way to change the ppi of an image? Or dpi if > you are considering, as I do, each pixel to be a digital dot. that's pretty much the way through PS > jerk! jeez. worse than me AND jan put together. you talking to me blue-eyes? Karl
