At 06:06 PM 12/5/2006, you wrote:
But for some of us, thinking in pixel dimensions is not the most natural. I would much rather work in inches and let the pixel dimensions fall where they will. Three hundred for prints, 75 for web and screen.
I need to go back and read all the posts about this. I have looked at them but not yet absorbed them.
Lea
(who is likely missing something still on grasping all this)
On Dec 5, 2006, at 7:38 PM, Jeff Spirer wrote:
Guy -
If you are submitting to the gallery, the dpi setting is completely irrelevant and changing it is pointless.
All you have to do is change your pixel dimensions either by directly changing them or by setting the crop tool to the proper dimensions and cropping. Ignore the dpi setting.
At 04:56 PM 12/5/2006, Guy Glorieux wrote:
I'm still a bit confused about what I'm not doing right.
Take for instance the specifics of a picture I might want to submit to the Gallery.
-- Original Image size: 2592 x 1944 pixels at 180dpi (14,4M)
Reduce to gallery format:
-- New Image size: 500 x375 pixels at 72 dpi (550K)
Save to 80K:
-- JPEG compression 7/12 (medium)
For some reason, I don't find the results very acceptable, at least when I make the comparison with -- for instance -- the amount of details in Renate's beautiful "Mykat Watching Fall" which also weighs only 80K. Is it because the original picture is too small or too big? Should I do an Unsharp Mask before reducing or after reducing? Is there a particular routine that I should use to reduce the image size?
All in all, I can't help but feel that there is something I'm missing...
Guy
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Herschel Mair
- To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
- Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 7:59 AM
- Subject: Re: DPI-was Image cathedral at Les Baux
- If someone wants to steal your photo they can strip the EXIF etc, themselves. That's a real false sense of security.
- I honestly don't give much thought to that concern anymore. What can they do with my image? I have the original RAW file if there's a dispute. I've never had a problem with piracy in the 35 years I've been shooting for a living.
- I would be honoured to find that some kid liked my work so much that they pretended they took the shot. Good luck to them.
- Why should I let the 0.001% possible image gangster get in my way.
- I would hope that I can trust my clients with proofs.
- h
- Herschel Mair
- Head of the Department of Photography,
- Higher College of Technology
- Muscat
- Sultanate of Oman
- Adobe Certified instructor
- + (986) 99899 673
- www.herschelmair.com
- ----- Original Message ----
- From: Emily L. Ferguson <elf@xxxxxxxx>
- To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students < photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2006 7:56:07 AM
- Subject: Re: DPI-was Image cathedral at Les Baux
- At 7:37 PM -0800 12/4/06, Herschel Mair wrote:
- >If you want to speed up the process, you should "Save for web" in Photoshop.
- >
- >FILE>SAVE FOR WEB
- If you do this, however, all your IPTC and EXIF info is stripped out
- and your image runs the risk of falling into the orphan works
- category which is not worth the risk, in my opinion. Alternatively,
- if your file is so huge that you really have to strip that info out,
- your filename really needs to have the standard copyright signifiers
- in it.
- --
- Emily L. Ferguson
- mailto:elf@xxxxxxxx
- 508-563-6822
- New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
- http://www.vsu.cape.com/~elf/
- http://e-and-s.instaproofs.com/
- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
lea murphy
www.leamurphy.com
www.whinydogpress.com
blog: web.mac.com/leamurphy
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
