dumb questions

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Angelo DePalma, Sep 4, 2003.

  1. 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
     
    Angelo DePalma, Sep 4, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Angelo DePalma

    Bryce Guest

    it's dependent upon what your screen resolution setting is at.
     
    Bryce, Sep 4, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Angelo DePalma

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Angelo DePalma"

    > 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%.
     
    Bill Hilton, Sep 4, 2003
    #3
  4. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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
    >
    >
     
    Juan R. Pollo, Sep 4, 2003
    #4
  5. Thanks to Bill Hilton and Juan.

    Angelo
     
    Angelo DePalma, Sep 4, 2003
    #5
  6. "Juan R. Pollo" <> 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
     
    Edwin Pawlowski, Sep 5, 2003
    #6
  7. Angelo DePalma

    Don Stauffer Guest

    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

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Sep 5, 2003
    #7
  8. Thanks to Don and Rosita.

    Angelo

    "Don Stauffer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    >
    > webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Angelo DePalma, Sep 7, 2003
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?UnVzc2VsbA==?=

    Dumb Questions

    =?Utf-8?B?UnVzc2VsbA==?=, Apr 2, 2006, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    811
    =?Utf-8?B?UnVzc2VsbA==?=
    Apr 2, 2006
  2. It's Personal

    Dumb questions about pcAnywhere 11

    It's Personal, Jan 17, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,782
    BuffNET Tech Support - MichaelJ
    Jan 19, 2004
  3. Paddy

    Re: 3 Dumb DSL Questions

    Paddy, May 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    407
    Toolman Tim
    May 3, 2004
  4. David Napierkowski

    Dumb, dumb dumb Qestion

    David Napierkowski, Oct 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    364
  5. Au79

    Dumb, Dumb Vista

    Au79, Feb 10, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    543
    WhzzKdd
    Feb 11, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page