Boy - am I glad I asked the questions I did!
I'm answering in this one cause it's the most recent one I read...
All of you have given me such good info and none of you talked down to
me (hehe - sensitive old broad that I am)
One misconception I had had was that .png files were better for printing
and had little to do with viewing on the monitor...
someone at cafepress had gotten on my case about this (skipping long
annoying story) . I see that for stuff I load to have
printed on anything - my graphics - I should use png instead of jpg in
all cases as, apparently, it makes the graphics look better on
the monitor as well as in print.
As to smugmug -- I load the highest res because, in fact, people do buy
(though not enough!) from the site and the files
I load will be the ones they use to print from... No one can print
from any of my images there - if they tried the paper would be blank.
(there is a setting for right click protection)
thanks, guys!
ann
annsan.smugmug.com
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Ann Sanfedele <ann...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
Is there any point to display an image on line at 300 PPI as opposed to 72
(or 96) with the same outside dimensions of, say
1200 x 800 ? Or as .png as opposed to jpg ?
In most browsers and image viewing applications, the density setting
is ignored so whatever pixel dimensions you set is all that matters.
Some applications, usually graphics and page layout apps, honor the
density setting in images.
PNG (Portable Network Graphics) is a losslessly compressed image file
format that was designed to improve upon the proprietary GIF format
(owned by CompuServe). There's a good discussion of it on Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics
It's at its best for use with graphic images, not photographic images.
JPEG and the little-used JPEG-2000 are better formats for photographic
images.
Yet it seems to me that some images you guys pointing to 1 mg to 3 mg files
on line do look "better"... on my LCD monitor...
It's all a matter of how well they are rendered for the display and
how the software you're using to view them handles the display
rendering processing.
Almost all the files I send to smugmug are 300 ppi/dpi and 12 inches across
- and a few mgs... but I don't know if
the site translates them to show them on my site at a lesser resolution.
For printing, a 240 to 360 ppi density image at the on-paper dimension
is the right thing to do. For display on the web, I usually set the
image size to fit in a box about 800x800 in size. I set the density to
72 because at that density on an 800x800 pixel image, Photoshop
renders my annotation text to the pixel dimensions that looks good, to
my eye.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
