> > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I agree, multistep downsampling can give a better image, than a single > > downsample, at least in PS. I've done that for images that are > > for the web > > (100 PPI is what I target), and I believe they do look better. > > Why are you targeting a certain ppi for the web? I think you should rather > go for a certain image size rather then ppi.
Hi Robert, I target a size at a particular PPI and that gives me, say, for a 4x6 at 100, so 400 x 600 pixels. > > I know you say you leave them at the scanned resolutions, but > doesn't that > > put you at the mercy of what ever the browser does, and may degrade your > > image? When I have a "large" image in the browser, a lot of times it > > re-sizes the image, after it's done loading it... > > The browser does not care about the ppi. It just displays it > pixel by pixel. Right, but why does it matter how I got the number of pixels? If I simply take my 4000 x 6000 image, and resize it in PS to 4 x 6, I still get a 4000 x 6000 image... Something besides the image size has to change, and would be the resolution. Austin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
