Do the math, it aint anywhere near 240ppi, the data you are using/reading/believing is incorrect...The screen would have to be only 5" wide to get 240ppi with a 1200pixel wide image. I dont know anybody using that size screen or screen resolutions so extremely high that the displayed image would only be that wide on a typical 19" screen. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:07 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... I'm getting my numbers from your files John. Here's a basic Photoshop lesson. Open a file in PS, this one will do: <http://www.jchriso.com/temp/BJWPB2007/images/BJWPB2007-000.jpg> Go to Image>Image Size... You will note: Pixel Dimensions Width: 1200 pixels Height: 801 pixels Document Size: Resolution: 240 pixels/inch (that's pixels per inch, or ppi) As I said, 240 ppi is a print resolution, 72 ppi is plenty enough for web images. Dave At 01:01 AM 3/04/2007, you wrote: >I dont know where you are getting 240ppi number from but >on a typical 19" monitor even a 1200 pixel wide image >is only about 100ppi which is NOT overkill, I can easily >see the improvement over 800 or even 1024 pixels wide. >jco > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >David Savage >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:02 PM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: >WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > >Personally I always use 1024x768 as my assumed baseline resolution for >preparing web images, even though my system runs at 1280x1024. If I >think a particular shot suffers because of this, then I add a link to a >higher resolution file. > >And BTW John, 240 ppi for a web image is massive overkill, that's print >resolution. 72 is more than enough & it also results in smaller files >which is a bonus for those on slower connections. > >Dave > >On 4/2/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you see ANY photo at 1500 pixels wide which > > is how I view them usually for full image, going smaller like to 800 > > pixels wide really hurts the details a LOT. Apparently you > > > dont care or think it matters, but then why buy a 6/10Mp camera and > > not care whether your photos are reduced in details way down to only > > 1 > > > Mp or less? jco > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
