Andy
I understand your concern with images running off the monitors especially since you have two laptops which have limited size screens. However I am only speculating--- Karl will have to tell us the truth about this technical stuff. You raise an interesting point about resolution. I can set various resolutions on my Dell 24" monitor but keep it at the native resolution where I told it is sharpest. I have no idea what the resolution on this monitor in this VA library is. I can not check the property description as it is not permitted on this Hanover County Library network system. We'll just have to wait until the technies come on line.
Roy
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Davidhazy <andpph@xxxxxxx>
To: PhotoForum educational network <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat, Jan 14, 2017 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: PF members' gallery today, 01-14-17
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.
>
From: Andrew Davidhazy <andpph@xxxxxxx>
To: PhotoForum educational network <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sat, Jan 14, 2017 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: PF members' gallery today, 01-14-17
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.
>
