Megapixels and image size

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Mogweed wrote:

> I've not yet got a digital camera but I'm being drawn to the Pentax
> Optio S.
>
> I'm not a photographer by any means and phrases like "f-stops", "white
> balance", "histograms" and such like just leave me cold and mean
> nothing whatsoever to me - and, I have to admit, I have no particular
> interest in doing anything to change that situation. I'm strictly a
> 'point-n-shoot' sort of guy which is why the Pentax appeals to me -
> small enough to take anywhere and as long as it takes the holiday
> snaps (both landscape scenery and inside the bars), that's all I want.
>
> The thing I need help with is understanding megapixels and print
> sizes. I know that the Optio S is a 3.2 Mp camera and that that
> equates to a resolution of 2048 x 1536 and I also know that that will
> give a good quality print size of 8" x 10" but I've never needed or
> wanted prints of that size ("standard" sizes for us are either 6" x
> 4" or (preferably) 7" x 5" ).
>
> So, my question is, would I take the shots at 2048 x 1536 then use
> software such as Photoshop or PaintShop Pro to get them down to the
> required print size, or would I shoot at a lower resolution in the
> first place (the Optio S is capable of 1600 x 1200, 1024 x 768 and
> 640 x 480 as well)? Just how do you equate pixels to inches for
> printing?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mogweed.

The higher the resolution you take your picture at the better the print
quality and the degradation due to editing is less apparent. Lower
resolution will increase the number of pictures you can get on a card,
but, image detail will be less apparent. The option to shoot at high
resolution is always good even if you don't use it much.

When it comes to printing there is no need to re-size the image, just
select the option in your printer driver to fit to page.

The number of screen pixels described in your screen resolution is
irrelevant when it comes to printing. When you look at the EXIF info
on a picture you have taken though you will find there not only the
resolution of the picture, but, also the number of pixels per inch,
PPI, which is normally 72 ppi. Dividing your resolution by 72 will
give you an idea of the size the image is displayed at, but, due to
different sizes of screen it is in virtual inches.

Rob

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Mogweed wrote:
> I've not yet got a digital camera but I'm being drawn to the Pentax
> Optio S.
>
> I'm not a photographer by any means and phrases like "f-stops", "white
> balance", "histograms" and such like just leave me cold and mean
> nothing whatsoever to me - and, I have to admit, I have no particular
> interest in doing anything to change that situation. I'm strictly a
> 'point-n-shoot' sort of guy which is why the Pentax appeals to me -
> small enough to take anywhere and as long as it takes the holiday
> snaps (both landscape scenery and inside the bars), that's all I want.
>
> The thing I need help with is understanding megapixels and print
> sizes. I know that the Optio S is a 3.2 Mp camera and that that
> equates to a resolution of 2048 x 1536 and I also know that that will
> give a good quality print size of 8" x 10" but I've never needed or
> wanted prints of that size ("standard" sizes for us are either 6" x
> 4" or (preferably) 7" x 5" ).
>
> So, my question is, would I take the shots at 2048 x 1536 then use
> software such as Photoshop or PaintShop Pro to get them down to the
> required print size, or would I shoot at a lower resolution in the
> first place (the Optio S is capable of 1600 x 1200, 1024 x 768 and
> 640 x 480 as well)? Just how do you equate pixels to inches for
> printing?


Mogweed,

Rule of thumb is between 200-300 pixels per inch for top quality. So for a
4x6 inch print you'll need roughly 1200 by 1800 for a nice sharp print.
Truth be told, I've gotten by with as little as 72 pixels per inch on the
final print when pressed to the wall.

Which brings me to sharpening. Most images will benefit from sharpening,
and you should always do some resharpening if you resample the image in
Photoshop.

As time passes, I hope you'll start to be interested in highlight, shadow,
and neutral, so you can be a Curvemeister customer :-)

Take care.
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Canopus" <FQJFXARZCCXT@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:xn0dgjz21jgoh2000@news.individual.net...
> Mogweed wrote:
>
> > I've not yet got a digital camera but I'm being drawn to the Pentax
> > Optio S.
> >
> > I'm not a photographer by any means and phrases like "f-stops", "white
> > balance", "histograms" and such like just leave me cold and mean
> > nothing whatsoever to me - and, I have to admit, I have no particular
> > interest in doing anything to change that situation. I'm strictly a
> > 'point-n-shoot' sort of guy which is why the Pentax appeals to me -
> > small enough to take anywhere and as long as it takes the holiday
> > snaps (both landscape scenery and inside the bars), that's all I want.
> >
> > The thing I need help with is understanding megapixels and print
> > sizes. I know that the Optio S is a 3.2 Mp camera and that that
> > equates to a resolution of 2048 x 1536 and I also know that that will
> > give a good quality print size of 8" x 10" but I've never needed or
> > wanted prints of that size ("standard" sizes for us are either 6" x
> > 4" or (preferably) 7" x 5" ).
> >
> > So, my question is, would I take the shots at 2048 x 1536 then use
> > software such as Photoshop or PaintShop Pro to get them down to the
> > required print size, or would I shoot at a lower resolution in the
> > first place (the Optio S is capable of 1600 x 1200, 1024 x 768 and
> > 640 x 480 as well)? Just how do you equate pixels to inches for
> > printing?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mogweed.
>
> The higher the resolution you take your picture at the better the print
> quality and the degradation due to editing is less apparent. Lower
> resolution will increase the number of pictures you can get on a card,
> but, image detail will be less apparent. The option to shoot at high
> resolution is always good even if you don't use it much.
>
> When it comes to printing there is no need to re-size the image, just
> select the option in your printer driver to fit to page.
>
> The number of screen pixels described in your screen resolution is
> irrelevant when it comes to printing. When you look at the EXIF info
> on a picture you have taken though you will find there not only the
> resolution of the picture, but, also the number of pixels per inch,
> PPI, which is normally 72 ppi. Dividing your resolution by 72 will
> give you an idea of the size the image is displayed at, but, due to
> different sizes of screen it is in virtual inches.
>
> Rob

Thanks very much Rob. You've explained it all very well - it all makes sense
to me now )

Cheers mate,

Mogweed.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message
news:7lrr601ruan2vtt2htv9u70pa0lc4lr71p@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:38:20 +0000 (UTC), "Mogweed"
> <mogweedTWOTHOUSAND@hotmail.com> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> 300 PPI is considered the extent of human eyesight, and the best print
> shops only print at this anyway. 200 PPI is still very good,
> especially if the larger print is to be displayed where people are not
> going to rub noses with it.
>
> So your 2048*1536 = 7 x 5" at best photo quality, and 10 x 7 at quite
> good quality. You could probably get away with even lower res.
>
> But always take the best shots. You may want to crop an image, and
> then you start losing resolution very fast.
>
> One thing: Avoid using the "interpolated mode if the camera has it. If
> it claims to take a photo that makes the MPi's higher than the
> camera's sensor, this is interpolation. It wastes space. It does give
> a "cleaner" picture, but you can achieve the same or better in Paint
> Shop Pro (recommended at the price!) or whatever and double your shots
> per card.
>
> Most printer software, and any decent print shop, will simply print
> your photo to fit the page you want (assuming it's the right _shape_!)
> Many have little kiosks where you can actually do some cropping etc
> onscreen, then print.
>
> If you are not into too much muckin abaht then I would consider
> getting stuff printed for you. I have learnt slowly that the average
> home printer is _not_ really suitable for printing. The main trouble
> found has been longevity of the prints. Then there is colour matching,
> expensive paper, inks etc. In the end it may even cost you _more_ to
> print your own, if quality is an issue. Do your stuff in editing
> software (the fun part), decide what you want printed, then put it on
> a CD and get it done is my advice.

Thank you very much to all of you who took the time and trouble to reply to
my question. I don't know what's going on with my ISP's newsfeed but most of
your replies have only shown up in the last 30 minutes.

Anyway, once again, cheers folks. Your help is much appreciated.

Mogweed.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Mogweed typed:

> I've not yet got a digital camera but I'm being drawn to the Pentax
> Optio S.
>
> I'm not a photographer by any means and phrases like "f-stops", "white
> balance", "histograms" and such like just leave me cold and mean
> nothing whatsoever to me - and, I have to admit, I have no particular
> interest in doing anything to change that situation. I'm strictly a
> 'point-n-shoot' sort of guy which is why the Pentax appeals to me -
> small enough to take anywhere and as long as it takes the holiday
> snaps (both landscape scenery and inside the bars), that's all I want.
>



That's what i said when i bought my first camera. I didn't know much about
it, just wanted point-and-shoot. But after a year or so, things become
different. You come up with pics, which are too dark, wrong colors, wrong
whatever... and you'd like to have some manual control.
Remember, all cameras do have auto setup, like you want. But some of them
also have the possibility of setting things manually. Especially look for so
called sport setting - if camera doesn't have it, you won't be able to shoot
fast moving things.





> The thing I need help with is understanding megapixels and print
> sizes. I know that the Optio S is a 3.2 Mp camera and that that
> equates to a resolution of 2048 x 1536 and I also know that that will
> give a good quality print size of 8" x 10" but I've never needed or
> wanted prints of that size ("standard" sizes for us are either 6" x
> 4" or (preferably) 7" x 5" ).
>
> So, my question is, would I take the shots at 2048 x 1536 then use
> software such as Photoshop or PaintShop Pro to get them down to the
> required print size, or would I shoot at a lower resolution in the
> first place (the Optio S is capable of 1600 x 1200, 1024 x 768 and
> 640 x 480 as well)? Just how do you equate pixels to inches for
> printing?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mogweed.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I have done 1 megapixel pictures 11 x 14" and they look fine. It depends on
what kind of sharpness you need for the print. Think of the huge oil
paintings you see but when you get up close they are nothing but bad
brushstrokes. If you want to take aerial spy photos of the guy nextdoor's
wife nude sunbathing then yes the pixel blowup may matter.

The printers "slur" or blend the pixels into gradually changing colours now
and pixelation does not occur like it was known in the old days. At least
not square pixelation anyway.

"dp" <perley@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:77ydnRoal_DfUvPdRVn-tA@adelphia.com...
> Mike Russell wrote:
>
> > Rule of thumb is between 200-300 pixels per inch for top quality. So for
a
> > 4x6 inch print you'll need roughly 1200 by 1800 for a nice sharp print.
>
>
> You get a little relief on this for bigger prints depending on your
> purpose. A large print is *generally* going to be viewed from a farther
> distance, especially if hung on a wall.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

As usual Nick, good points....agree

Eddie



"Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message
news:7lrr601ruan2vtt2htv9u70pa0lc4lr71p@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:38:20 +0000 (UTC), "Mogweed"
> <mogweedTWOTHOUSAND@hotmail.com> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> 300 PPI is considered the extent of human eyesight, and the best print
> shops only print at this anyway. 200 PPI is still very good,
> especially if the larger print is to be displayed where people are not
> going to rub noses with it.
>
> So your 2048*1536 = 7 x 5" at best photo quality, and 10 x 7 at quite
> good quality. You could probably get away with even lower res.
>
> But always take the best shots. You may want to crop an image, and
> then you start losing resolution very fast.
>
> One thing: Avoid using the "interpolated mode if the camera has it. If
> it claims to take a photo that makes the MPi's higher than the
> camera's sensor, this is interpolation. It wastes space. It does give
> a "cleaner" picture, but you can achieve the same or better in Paint
> Shop Pro (recommended at the price!) or whatever and double your shots
> per card.
>
> Most printer software, and any decent print shop, will simply print
> your photo to fit the page you want (assuming it's the right _shape_!)
> Many have little kiosks where you can actually do some cropping etc
> onscreen, then print.
>
> If you are not into too much muckin abaht then I would consider
> getting stuff printed for you. I have learnt slowly that the average
> home printer is _not_ really suitable for printing. The main trouble
> found has been longevity of the prints. Then there is colour matching,
> expensive paper, inks etc. In the end it may even cost you _more_ to
> print your own, if quality is an issue. Do your stuff in editing
> software (the fun part), decide what you want printed, then put it on
> a CD and get it done is my advice.
>
> >I've not yet got a digital camera but I'm being drawn to the Pentax Optio
S.
> >
> >I'm not a photographer by any means and phrases like "f-stops", "white
> >balance", "histograms" and such like just leave me cold and mean nothing
> >whatsoever to me - and, I have to admit, I have no particular interest in
> >doing anything to change that situation. I'm strictly a 'point-n-shoot'
sort
> >of guy which is why the Pentax appeals to me - small enough to take
anywhere
> >and as long as it takes the holiday snaps (both landscape scenery and
inside
> >the bars), that's all I want.
> >
> >The thing I need help with is understanding megapixels and print sizes. I
> >know that the Optio S is a 3.2 Mp camera and that that equates to a
> >resolution of 2048 x 1536 and I also know that that will give a good
quality
> >print size of 8" x 10" but I've never needed or wanted prints of that
size
> >("standard" sizes for us are either 6" x 4" or (preferably) 7" x 5" ).
> >
> >So, my question is, would I take the shots at 2048 x 1536 then use
software
> >such as Photoshop or PaintShop Pro to get them down to the required print
> >size, or would I shoot at a lower resolution in the first place (the
Optio S
> >is capable of 1600 x 1200, 1024 x 768 and 640 x 480 as well)? Just how do
> >you equate pixels to inches for printing?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Mogweed.
>
> ****************************************************
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
> us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
> ........no I'm not.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

>
>
> That's what i said when i bought my first camera. I didn't know much about
> it, just wanted point-and-shoot. But after a year or so, things become
> different. You come up with pics, which are too dark, wrong colors, wrong
> whatever... and you'd like to have some manual control.
> Remember, all cameras do have auto setup, like you want. But some of them
> also have the possibility of setting things manually. Especially look for
so
> called sport setting - if camera doesn't have it, you won't be able to
shoot
> fast moving things.
>

You can if you have manual settings. Sports setting are good as they are
auto. The G5 has manual and you can set shutter priority for speed. Next set
manual focus so it doesn't spend time 'hunting' and you're off....well
almost. 35mm camera beat the heck out of digi for sports shooting.

Eddie

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

FiSH typed:

> Although I'm new at digital photography, I use the maximum resolution
> on my camera. You never know when you may get that special shot that
> deserves a large poster print. I bought 4 extra memory cards just
> because.
>
>
>
> Mogweed wrote:
>> I've not yet got a digital camera but I'm being drawn to the Pentax
>> Optio S.
>>
>> I'm not a photographer by any means and phrases like "f-stops",
>> "white balance", "histograms" and such like just leave me cold and
>> mean nothing whatsoever to me - and, I have to admit, I have no
>> particular interest in doing anything to change that situation. I'm
>> strictly a 'point-n-shoot' sort of guy which is why the Pentax
>> appeals to me - small enough to take anywhere and as long as it
>> takes the holiday snaps (both landscape scenery and inside the
>> bars), that's all I want.
>>
>> The thing I need help with is understanding megapixels and print
>> sizes. I know that the Optio S is a 3.2 Mp camera and that that
>> equates to a resolution of 2048 x 1536 and I also know that that
>> will give a good quality print size of 8" x 10" but I've never
>> needed or wanted prints of that size ("standard" sizes for us are
>> either 6" x 4" or (preferably) 7" x 5" ).
>>
>> So, my question is, would I take the shots at 2048 x 1536 then use
>> software such as Photoshop or PaintShop Pro to get them down to the
>> required print size, or would I shoot at a lower resolution in the
>> first place (the Optio S is capable of 1600 x 1200, 1024 x 768 and
>> 640 x 480 as well)? Just how do you equate pixels to inches for
>> printing?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mogweed.

In any case it's best to use max pixels. If you need more shots, it's better
to increase compression than lower pixels.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:26:18 GMT, FiSH
<jzsm26aEATYOURSPAM@prodigy.net> vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

>Although I'm new at digital photography, I use the maximum resolution on
>my camera. You never know when you may get that special shot that
>deserves a large poster print. I bought 4 extra memory cards just because.

Do you use
- uncompressed max res?
- compressed interpolated max res?

I ask this by way of being a ....... painful prick.

Seriously. I ask because I use uninterpolated max res compressed as
little as possible.

It's the compromise between quality and process/save time for each
shot, and stoarage space limiting photos.

Canopus. Do you at least sympathise? I also ask the tough questions.
****************************************************
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:9PQbc.255$37.36429@news.siol.net...
>
> I agree about analog cameras - they are still better than digital. But,
> digital has so many positives, than analogs are (or will) dying. Just for
> instance, in analog you have 36 shots and you save every one, think twice
> before shoot etc...in digital you have 200-300 and you shoot without
> thinking. So, result is: in analog you get 20-30 shots, from them maybe
> 10-20 good ones. in digital you get 200-300 shots, from them maybe 100-200
> good ones. Now go and think out... And i don't even need to say about how
> can you see if analog shot has succeded?
>
>
35mm format (NOT 'analogue'), are still superior in picture quality,
especialy slides and slow film and studio quality cameras.Yes, you can get a
Hasselblad with digital back for $US18,000, but otherwise this format is
still better.

But for us mortals, you are right, digicams offer quick and easy pics and
one can immediatley see if a pic is anywhere near acceptable, if not,
delelte. Main prob is shutter lag....

Eddie

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com> wrote in message
news:aoWdnX6brIAbE-3d4p2dnA@golden.net...
> Most "professionals" do not use 35mm chemical cameras for anything
serious.
> 2.25" square is the choice of anybody more than a serious hobbiest.
>
> 35mm is a dead issue and I believe they announced film creation will be
stop
> in a few years.

You are right

I forgot to mention in this post profesional large format and studio
cameras, but, the Hasselblad IS a pro studio non-35mm cam.

Eddie

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

a Rolleiflex using 120 film works nice too! ahh, the days of 2.25"
negatives!
"Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au> wrote in message
news:407148cb$0$16595$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com> wrote in message
> news:aoWdnX6brIAbE-3d4p2dnA@golden.net...
> > Most "professionals" do not use 35mm chemical cameras for anything
> serious.
> > 2.25" square is the choice of anybody more than a serious hobbiest.
> >
> > 35mm is a dead issue and I believe they announced film creation will be
> stop
> > in a few years.
>
> You are right
>
> I forgot to mention in this post profesional large format and studio
> cameras, but, the Hasselblad IS a pro studio non-35mm cam.
>
> Eddie
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Just think 10-15 megapixels and the 2.25 chem/cams may be gone too...LOL
They are out there for the big bucks.... ooops the 2.25 ***ARE*** big
bucks!

"Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au> wrote in message
news:4071d4ee$0$16592$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...
>
> "The Mailman" <notadp@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:V2dcc.190377$Cb.1727888@attbi_s51...
> > a Rolleiflex using 120 film works nice too! ahh, the days of 2.25"
> > negatives!
> > "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:407148cb$0$16595$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...
>
> Wow, how my mouth used to water when I saw those 'Rollies'. All I could
> afford when a lad was a Russian 'Lubitel II', then I went and left it, a
> light meter and other odds and ends on a train.Took years to admit to my
> mother what I had done.
>
> Eddie
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Printer pictures fade over a year or so, as I have found out on many.

"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:aj3470p55h2balis4soecrdcpc52jjc4om@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:31:28 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Just think 10-15 megapixels and the 2.25 chem/cams may be gone too...LOL
> >They are out there for the big bucks.... ooops the 2.25 ***ARE*** big
> >bucks!
>
> 6 Megapix costs almost as much as a decent computer with 15" LCD
> monitor. And 6 megapix camera can take pictures that looks great on
> 8x10 printout and there's very few printer designed to print bigger
> than 8x10 so that'd add cost as well.
>
> I know Epson 1520 can take ledger or A3 size.
> --
> To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Dye sublimation may not but the normal ink-jet ones do. Liquid will smear
them immediately and UV will fade them badly over a year or so.

"Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au> wrote in message
news:40727fa9$0$16574$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com> wrote in message
> news:Z--dnW7GReL4he_dRVn-sw@golden.net...
> > Printer pictures fade over a year or so, as I have found out on many.
> >
>
> Not any more. Epson have a 'test-bed' in my local store with a pic in a
> glass of water. The Canon CP200 6 x 4, dye-sublimation printer does not
> fade. My bubble jet canon will but they say after 25 years.....but all my
> old stuff has.....but then, so has lot of prints from my 35mm days.
>
>
> Eddie
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

When I travel extensively, particularly abroad, I do not like to carry
any more cards than necessary, and I am reluctant to remove and replace
them. It's because some OLY cameras and SM cards do not always get
along. So, my solution is to think carefully about what I may someday
want to print more than 8x10, particularly after cropping. Otherwise, I
shoot at less than highest resolutions to get as many photos on the card
as possible, depending on PS when I get home. When traveling
domestically I often carry a small subnote and offload to it. Then I
worry less about filling the card. This all said, with my 2 and 3.2 meg
cameras I am getting extremely fine prints up to 8x10.

FiSH wrote:

> Although I'm new at digital photography, I use the maximum resolution on
> my camera. You never know when you may get that special shot that
> deserves a large poster print. I bought 4 extra memory cards just because.
>
>
>
> Mogweed wrote:
>
>> I've not yet got a digital camera but I'm being drawn to the Pentax
>> Optio S.
>>
>> I'm not a photographer by any means and phrases like "f-stops", "white
>> balance", "histograms" and such like just leave me cold and mean nothing
>> whatsoever to me - and, I have to admit, I have no particular interest in
>> doing anything to change that situation. I'm strictly a
>> 'point-n-shoot' sort
>> of guy which is why the Pentax appeals to me - small enough to take
>> anywhere
>> and as long as it takes the holiday snaps (both landscape scenery and
>> inside
>> the bars), that's all I want.
>>
>> The thing I need help with is understanding megapixels and print sizes. I
>> know that the Optio S is a 3.2 Mp camera and that that equates to a
>> resolution of 2048 x 1536 and I also know that that will give a good
>> quality
>> print size of 8" x 10" but I've never needed or wanted prints of that
>> size
>> ("standard" sizes for us are either 6" x 4" or (preferably) 7" x 5" ).
>>
>> So, my question is, would I take the shots at 2048 x 1536 then use
>> software
>> such as Photoshop or PaintShop Pro to get them down to the required print
>> size, or would I shoot at a lower resolution in the first place (the
>> Optio S
>> is capable of 1600 x 1200, 1024 x 768 and 640 x 480 as well)? Just how do
>> you equate pixels to inches for printing?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mogweed.
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:39:18 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com>
wrote:

>Mine under glass are fine after years also. The bare ones are faded right
>out with the same paper and inks.
>
>May be air, UV or both.

More likely UV. Most picture frames are rarely airtight but most
glass have UV filter built in. I had an 8x10 picture I left on the
table next to a 200 watts fluorescent bulb. 6 months later, it's
mostly yellow and black.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with tds.net