«

>>> Why do you feel the 240 DPI value is significant
>
>>Apparently he wants to print at 300 ppi and so feels the 240 ppi
>>default is too low.
..

> Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
>
> What software are people using that this matters?

Photoshop ... Elements ... spooling directly to a Lightjet ...
everything I've ever used to print relies on the ppi and pixel
dimensions to determine the file size.

> My experience has been that a given file gets printed to a given size,
> and that's the end of it. I can take a "240 ppi" file and print it at
> 4x6, or at 20x30, either way without changing the ppi.

Not without interpolating the image. I don't know the file size of the
Nikon D200 but assuming it's 6 Mpixels and say 2,000 x 3,000 pixels
then at 240 ppi it would print 8.33 x 12.5" and at 300 ppi it would
print 6.67 x 10".

Changing the ppi without interpolating obviously changes the print
size.

For whatever reason the original poster wants 300 ppi for his default,
which can be set in most RAW converters as a placeholder or in the
image editor. It's not a big deal.

> It seems to me that keeping track of file size, print size, and ppi
> means keeping track of one value too many.

You only need to keep track of two values, the ppi and the print size.
For a given pixel array they track each other. 'File size' follows
directly from the pixel count if it's a tiff or similar, but not for a
jpeg, which is compressed.

Bill

Bill Hilton wrote:

>
>
>>> MJL Photo wrote:
>>
>>> Can I change this output resolution to 300dpi, or is it always 240dpi?
>>> Is this change in the camera, the converter software or elsewhere.
> .
>> Jim Townsend wrote:
>>
>> Why do you feel the 240 DPI value is significant
>
> Apparently he wants to print at 300 ppi and so feels the 240 ppi
> default is too low.

He made no mention of printing. He asked if he could change the
setting in the camera among other places.

Here's the quote from the original post.

"Can I change this output resolution to 300dpi, or is it always 240dpi?
Is this change in the camera, the converter software or elsewhere."

I'll rephrase my question to the original poster:

Why do you feel the 240 DPI value from the camera is significant?

Jim Townsend wrote:

> Here's the quote from the original post.
>
> "Can I change this output resolution to 300dpi, or is it always 240dpi?
> Is this change in the camera, the converter software or elsewhere."
>
> I'll rephrase my question to the original poster:
>
> Why do you feel the 240 DPI value from the camera is significant?

This question arises periodically, as sure as new taxes and panhandlers
at the supermarket. All you can do is point them to Scantips or perhaps
some FAQ that discusses it in great detail. It is a simple insight, in
the end, that we all have to come to grips with. One of the problems is
cheap photo editing programs that do not let you resize without
resampling. If you see what happens in the Image Size window of Elements
or Photoshop, you can understand the relationship between ppi and size,
resampling or not.

Gary Eickmeier

>> Bill Hilton wrote:
>>
>> Apparently he wants to print at 300 ppi and so feels the 240 ppi
>> default is too low.
-

> Jim Townsend wrote
> He made no mention of printing. He asked if he could change the
> setting in the camera among other places.
>
> Here's the quote from the original post.
>
> "Can I change this output resolution to 300dpi, or is it always 240dpi?
> Is this change in the camera, the converter software or elsewhere."
>
> I'll rephrase my question to the original poster:
>
> Why do you feel the 240 DPI value from the camera is significant?

I think he first posted as MJL Photo and then, in the third post in
this thread he posted a second time as "vancouver", which I guess could
be confusing ... anyway, in the "vancouver" post he answered your
question like this ...

>Not confused.
>Of course this is all about printing.
>Trying to achieve - all files to automtically to be processed to 300dpi, not
>240 for print. I don't want to use a photo editor to change all images
>photographed.

Seems straight forward enough of an answer to me ... assuming of course
the OP is also "vancouver".

Bill

On 19 Nov 2006 06:24:08 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "Bill Hilton"
<> wrote:

>I think he first posted as MJL Photo and then, in the third post in
>this thread he posted a second time as "vancouver", which I guess could
>be confusing ... anyway, in the "vancouver" post he answered your
>question like this ...
>
>>Not confused.
>>Of course this is all about printing.
>>Trying to achieve - all files to automtically to be processed to 300dpi, not
>>240 for print. I don't want to use a photo editor to change all images
>>photographed.
>
>Seems straight forward enough of an answer to me ... assuming of course
>the OP is also "vancouver".

A pretty good assumption given these posts originate from the same IP
address.
--
Ed Ruf ()
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html

Bill Hilton wrote:

>> Why do you feel the 240 DPI value from the camera is significant?
>
> I think he first posted as MJL Photo and then, in the third post in
> this thread he posted a second time as "vancouver", which I guess could
> be confusing ... anyway, in the "vancouver" post he answered your
> question like this ...
>
>>Not confused.
>>Of course this is all about printing.

Ah.. I missed that one.