Perhaps Roy is using a monitor from the last century as they were a good bit smaller. It just makes me want to ROFLMAO when I sit in an office full of itty bitty Dell screens with folks doing design on them. I work on an iMac with a 27” screen.
My iMac now runs on Sierra, and whoever it was who said making the upgrade from Yosemite to Sierra wasn’t telling the whole truth. A lot of things change, like if you own a Trackball, you need a new one as the old software doesn’t cut it. I got Sierra so I could dictate to my iMac, and that works fine although getting the iMac to discern the differences between the words was tough at the start.
Jan
Must admit that the fine points of size elude me but I think that monitor “resolution" is definitely a factor. If the monitor is 72 ppi then the 1000 pixel size image will appear to be about 14 inches on the screen … if the monitor is 100 ppi then the same image will only be 10 inches on the screen. The higher the resolution of the monitor the smaller any given image will appear. Is this thinking about right or are there other factors involved?
Andy
On Jan 14, 2017, at 1:00 PM, photoroy6@xxxxxxx wrote:
Andy,
I think there might be another factor in the viewing size. I did both 1000 pix in longest dimension and 200Kb in maximum size. I'm on a computer in a library in VA and a few of my images have run off the 18" monitors here. I have put 36 images on a flash stick that I made from 4 x 6" proofing files. I left the ppi of the images at 300. When I get back to NC in a few weeks I will change them down to 150 or 100 ppi and see what happens to the size on the screen. The resolution on most monitors is around 100 ppi so this seems like a reasonable explanation.
Roy
Large images that run off the edges of average monitors are a pain.
Art Faul
The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Camera Works - The Washington Post
.
