Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > dumb questions

Reply
Thread Tools

dumb questions

 
 
Angelo DePalma
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2003

Let's say I wanted to get 4x6 prints of digital photos. Is there any
situation where higher resolution would be worse than lower resolution? For
example is 2200 x 1700 ALWAYS better than 640 x 480 in a 4x6 print? an 8x10?

Second dumb question: What do the "superfine," "fine," "standard," etc.
settings mean on my Dimage 4.0 MPixel camera? For a given dots x dots value,
what does this setting do?

Third dumb question: When I display photos on my computer screen and tell it
to use "actual size" the pictures are sometimes huge. What is the
significance of this a) in the eternal scheme of things and b) for purposes
of getting prints.

BTW I never print these myself, I'm referring to having prints made.

Thanks in advance,

Angelo DePalma

Thanks,

Angelo


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bryce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2003
it's dependent upon what your screen resolution setting is at.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2003
>From: "Angelo DePalma" http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

> For example is 2200 x 1700 ALWAYS better than 640 x 480 in a 4x6
> print? an 8x10?


If you mean from the same image file, then yes, bigger should be better.

>Second dumb question: What do the "superfine," "fine," "standard," etc.
>settings mean on my Dimage 4.0 MPixel camera? For a given dots x dots value,
>what does this setting do?


You can apply various amounts of compression to a file saved as a jpeg. The
less compression, the better the image quality but the larger the file. The
settings you mention are for different levels of jpeg compression. I suggest
using superfine all the time.


>Third dumb question: When I display photos on my computer screen and tell it
>to use "actual size" the pictures are sometimes huge. What is the
>significance of this a) in the eternal scheme of things ...


Sometimes you need to see the actual pixels, like when running unsharp mask,
for example. The reason it looks so big is because your monitor probably has
an effective resolution of 72 or 96 dots/inch, depending on how the phosphors
are spaced and how much you paid for it. So it's roughly equivalent to looking
at a print which was printed very large.

> ... and b) for purposes of getting prints.


How you display the photos on the screen has no meaning when it comes to
prints. You're probably going to print at 200 - 300 ppi (pixels per inch) but
at 'actual pixels' you're likely viewing it at 72 or 96 ppi on the monitor. To
get a very rough idea of what the print will look like set the image to display
at 25%.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Juan R. Pollo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2003
First - yes
Second - see manual. Superfine indicates highest resolution.
Third - when you say actual size, it shows entire picture at monitor's
resolution. The bigger the resolution, the bigger the picture. Remember -
Bigger is always better.

HTH

Juan

"Angelo DePalma" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Let's say I wanted to get 4x6 prints of digital photos. Is there any
> situation where higher resolution would be worse than lower resolution?

For
> example is 2200 x 1700 ALWAYS better than 640 x 480 in a 4x6 print? an

8x10?
>
> Second dumb question: What do the "superfine," "fine," "standard," etc.
> settings mean on my Dimage 4.0 MPixel camera? For a given dots x dots

value,
> what does this setting do?
>
> Third dumb question: When I display photos on my computer screen and tell

it
> to use "actual size" the pictures are sometimes huge. What is the
> significance of this a) in the eternal scheme of things and b) for

purposes
> of getting prints.
>
> BTW I never print these myself, I'm referring to having prints made.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Angelo DePalma
>
> Thanks,
>
> Angelo
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Angelo DePalma
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2003
Thanks to Bill Hilton and Juan.

Angelo


 
Reply With Quote
 
Edwin Pawlowski
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2003

"Juan R. Pollo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> . Remember -
> Bigger is always better.
>



Not always. Bigger is better for printing, but if you are posting a photo to
a binary newsgroup or email it to a friend, most people appreciate the
smaller file sizes. Screen resolution will not take advantage of the huge
file size and the download times can be very long.
Ed


 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Stauffer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2003
There is NEVER a case where less resolution is BETTER. There may be
times with small prints where you cannot see the difference, but never
where less is better. You can always downsample an image with software
if needed, though printer drivers usually do that automatically anyway
if you print with more resolution than what the printer can handle.

Angelo DePalma wrote:
>
> Let's say I wanted to get 4x6 prints of digital photos. Is there any
> situation where higher resolution would be worse than lower resolution? For
> example is 2200 x 1700 ALWAYS better than 640 x 480 in a 4x6 print? an 8x10?
>
> Second dumb question: What do the "superfine," "fine," "standard," etc.
> settings mean on my Dimage 4.0 MPixel camera? For a given dots x dots value,
> what does this setting do?
>
> Third dumb question: When I display photos on my computer screen and tell it
> to use "actual size" the pictures are sometimes huge. What is the
> significance of this a) in the eternal scheme of things and b) for purposes
> of getting prints.
>
> BTW I never print these myself, I'm referring to having prints made.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Angelo DePalma
>
> Thanks,
>
> Angelo


--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
(E-Mail Removed)
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
 
Reply With Quote
 
Angelo DePalma
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-07-2003
Thanks to Don and Rosita.

Angelo

"Don Stauffer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> There is NEVER a case where less resolution is BETTER. There may be
> times with small prints where you cannot see the difference, but never
> where less is better. You can always downsample an image with software
> if needed, though printer drivers usually do that automatically anyway
> if you print with more resolution than what the printer can handle.
>
> Angelo DePalma wrote:
> >
> > Let's say I wanted to get 4x6 prints of digital photos. Is there any
> > situation where higher resolution would be worse than lower resolution?

For
> > example is 2200 x 1700 ALWAYS better than 640 x 480 in a 4x6 print? an

8x10?
> >
> > Second dumb question: What do the "superfine," "fine," "standard," etc.
> > settings mean on my Dimage 4.0 MPixel camera? For a given dots x dots

value,
> > what does this setting do?
> >
> > Third dumb question: When I display photos on my computer screen and

tell it
> > to use "actual size" the pictures are sometimes huge. What is the
> > significance of this a) in the eternal scheme of things and b) for

purposes
> > of getting prints.
> >
> > BTW I never print these myself, I'm referring to having prints made.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Angelo DePalma
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Angelo

>
> --
> Don Stauffer in Minnesota
> (E-Mail Removed)
> webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dumb, Dumb Vista Au79 Computer Support 4 02-11-2007 03:40 PM
Dumb Questions =?Utf-8?B?UnVzc2VsbA==?= Microsoft Certification 0 04-02-2006 03:08 AM
Dumb, dumb dumb Qestion David Napierkowski Digital Photography 6 10-31-2004 11:14 PM
ClassPath-DUMB questions? for Windows 2000 or XP. Ravichandran Mahalingam Java 0 03-05-2004 04:39 PM
dumb newbie question (or newbie dumb question) Jerry C. Perl Misc 8 11-23-2003 04:11 AM



Advertisments