Republican Party
- Red_Dragon - Feb 11, 2025 - 5:39pm
Musky Mythology
- Isabeau - Feb 11, 2025 - 1:57pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Isabeau - Feb 11, 2025 - 1:56pm
New Music
- R_P - Feb 11, 2025 - 1:12pm
Edit option on my playlist
- haresfur - Feb 11, 2025 - 12:52pm
Economix
- kcar - Feb 11, 2025 - 12:25pm
Live Music
- oldviolin - Feb 11, 2025 - 12:15pm
Other Medical Stuff
- black321 - Feb 11, 2025 - 11:39am
Song of the Day
- black321 - Feb 11, 2025 - 11:27am
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- Steely_D - Feb 11, 2025 - 10:50am
Wordle - daily game
- geoff_morphini - Feb 11, 2025 - 9:53am
NY Times Strands
- geoff_morphini - Feb 11, 2025 - 9:53am
NYTimes Connections
- ptooey - Feb 11, 2025 - 8:53am
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Feb 11, 2025 - 8:29am
Radio Paradise Comments
- sunybuny - Feb 11, 2025 - 7:23am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Feb 11, 2025 - 7:06am
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - Feb 11, 2025 - 6:40am
February 2025 Photo Theme - Wet
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Feb 10, 2025 - 8:45pm
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- Red_Dragon - Feb 10, 2025 - 6:17pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- Red_Dragon - Feb 10, 2025 - 6:12pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- kenkonzelman - Feb 10, 2025 - 5:51pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Feb 10, 2025 - 5:39pm
Google Inc.
- Steely_D - Feb 10, 2025 - 5:05pm
New York Dolls
- Steely_D - Feb 10, 2025 - 12:25pm
Israel
- R_P - Feb 10, 2025 - 11:36am
Test
- Red_Dragon - Feb 10, 2025 - 11:30am
RP dropouts on BlueNode
- frankfrench - Feb 10, 2025 - 10:53am
Peanut Butter Recall
- Proclivities - Feb 10, 2025 - 10:32am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Feb 10, 2025 - 10:11am
Trump
- Steely_D - Feb 10, 2025 - 9:12am
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group
- Coaxial - Feb 10, 2025 - 8:25am
DIY
- ScottFromWyoming - Feb 10, 2025 - 8:22am
Are you ready for some football?
- miamizsun - Feb 10, 2025 - 8:20am
Fires
- miamizsun - Feb 10, 2025 - 7:38am
Food
- Isabeau - Feb 10, 2025 - 6:59am
Strange & Cool Music
- miamizsun - Feb 10, 2025 - 5:13am
Love & Hate
- miamizsun - Feb 10, 2025 - 4:40am
Banksters
- R_P - Feb 9, 2025 - 1:51pm
Bluesky - instead of Twitter
- ScottFromWyoming - Feb 9, 2025 - 8:49am
Concert Reviews
- miamizsun - Feb 9, 2025 - 7:48am
Why do the Monkees never get played on R.P?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Feb 8, 2025 - 3:28pm
Immigration
- R_P - Feb 8, 2025 - 3:23pm
Birthday wishes
- oldviolin - Feb 8, 2025 - 3:18pm
Happy Birthday!!!
- Red_Dragon - Feb 8, 2025 - 1:09pm
Friends of Bill W?
- miamizsun - Feb 8, 2025 - 1:05pm
New Yorker Magazine (Feb10, 2025) "The Mail"
- Isabeau - Feb 8, 2025 - 6:26am
The Obituary Page
- islander - Feb 7, 2025 - 8:40pm
Mini Meetups - Post Here!
- buddy - Feb 7, 2025 - 5:27pm
Breaking News
- Steely_D - Feb 7, 2025 - 4:54pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- black321 - Feb 7, 2025 - 10:56am
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy
- R_P - Feb 7, 2025 - 10:20am
Environment
- Isabeau - Feb 7, 2025 - 9:10am
I'm Thankful For..
- haresfur - Feb 6, 2025 - 10:51pm
Main Mix Playlist
- buddy - Feb 6, 2025 - 5:48pm
Trump Lies™
- Proclivities - Feb 6, 2025 - 12:18pm
Play counts for songs?
- basepi - Feb 6, 2025 - 11:53am
Climate Change
- R_P - Feb 6, 2025 - 11:28am
The Grateful Dead
- black321 - Feb 6, 2025 - 7:19am
Things You Thought Today
- Steely_D - Feb 5, 2025 - 8:56pm
Surfing!
- kurtster - Feb 5, 2025 - 8:01pm
Canada
- R_P - Feb 5, 2025 - 7:57pm
RADIO 2050
- GeneP59 - Feb 5, 2025 - 3:32pm
Democratic Party
- haresfur - Feb 5, 2025 - 11:35am
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone
- buddy - Feb 4, 2025 - 8:34pm
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously
- Red_Dragon - Feb 4, 2025 - 6:55pm
kurtster's quiet vinyl
- black321 - Feb 4, 2025 - 6:22pm
The Dragons' Roost
- triskele - Feb 4, 2025 - 2:17pm
China
- R_P - Feb 4, 2025 - 11:31am
Strips, cartoons, illustrations
- ColdMiser - Feb 4, 2025 - 8:09am
New music and ratings
- William - Feb 3, 2025 - 6:43pm
Race in America
- R_P - Feb 3, 2025 - 5:34pm
Anti-War
- R_P - Feb 3, 2025 - 4:46pm
The Secret
- ScottFromWyoming - Feb 3, 2025 - 4:41pm
How's the weather?
- Isabeau - Feb 3, 2025 - 2:09pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- miamizsun - Feb 3, 2025 - 1:54pm
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Photography Chat
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 13, 14, 15 Next |
ScottFromWyoming

Location: Powell Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 12:07pm |
|
swell_sailor wrote:Right. One pixel per inch. Over 5000 inches wide. When printed at 17 inches is 300 dots per inch. Was that a test or something? I dunno what they were up to. But InDesign, over the last few iterations, has an info palette that gives you "Actual PPI" and "Effective PPI" so I don't even have to go into photoshop to investigate, most of the time. Printing on newsprint, I'll run anything from 120 to 2000 PPI without any worries. If I have to convert to grayscale, etc, I'll usually run a resize/sharpen action to get it down to a normal size if it's too big, but usually we're talking about logos so I just let it go.
|
|
swell_sailor

Location: The Gorge Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 11:36am |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: I got a photo one time that was 1 pixels/inch. Or cm. Still was plenty big enough to print 17 inches wide.
Right. One pixel per inch. Over 5000 inches wide. When printed at 17 inches is 300 dots per inch. Was that a test or something?
|
|
ScottFromWyoming

Location: Powell Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 11:23am |
|
swell_sailor wrote: jrzy didn't give the right answer. The image could be 3 million pixels in width, big enough to print on the side of the MetLife Stadium, and be described as 96 dots per inch.
I got a photo one time that was 1 pixels/inch. Or cm. Still was plenty big enough to print 17 inches wide.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming

Location: Powell Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 11:20am |
|
Alexandra wrote: Exactly. When people start throwing math equations my way, my brain automatically shuts off. I am a bona fide math-o-phobic. I'm sorry. So, open the photo with whatever you used to determine that it's at 96 dpi. Or hell email it to me and I'll just tell you what you have, really.
|
|
Alexandra

Location: PNW Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 11:19am |
|
swell_sailor wrote: jrzy didn't give the right answer. The image could be 3 million pixels in width, big enough to print on the side of the MetLife Stadium, and be described as 96 dots per inch.
Wouldn't that be awesome? My book cover that big for everyone to see?
|
|
swell_sailor

Location: The Gorge Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 11:16am |
|
buzz wrote:ScottFromWyoming wrote: Thought I'd try that one out. Didn't work? I'll tell my friend in California who teaches photography at a college out there, and is always trying to find better ways to get students to understand resolution.
i didnt do the math ( too lazy to open a calculator). it just seemed that there were easier ways to answer A's question. kinda like jrzy did. jrzy didn't give the right answer. The image could be 3 million pixels in width, big enough to print on the side of the MetLife Stadium, and be described as 96 dots per inch.
|
|
swell_sailor

Location: The Gorge Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 11:11am |
|
Alexandra wrote:
It's going to be for both a hardcopy book cover and an e-book. Mostly, I just wondered if an image at 96dpi sounds like she sent it raw without trying to size it or not. That's why I just asked if she could send the raw original—-just in case. That way I have it, and can work with it accordingly. Thanks.....and thanks everyone else too!
Just like how in my example, we don't know how far it is to the store by knowing only miles per hour, we can't know how big the image is by knowing only dots per inch. It's an incomplete formula, and it's an ass backwards way of describing image size because even when you have the rest of the formula you have to do the math.
|
|
Alexandra

Location: PNW Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 11:05am |
|
buzz wrote: i didnt do the math ( too lazy to open a calculator). it just seemed that there were easier ways to answer A's question. kinda like jrzy did. Exactly. When people start throwing math equations my way, my brain automatically shuts off. I am a bona fide math-o-phobic.
|
|
Alexandra

Location: PNW Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 11:04am |
|
swell_sailor wrote: Dots per inch or pixels per inch are essentially meaningless until you go to print. If this has to do with an e-book that will never be printed, whoever is requiring 300 dots per inch needs to go back to school.
It's going to be for both a hardcopy book cover and an e-book. Mostly, I just wondered if an image at 96dpi sounds like she sent it raw without trying to size it or not. That's why I just asked if she could send the raw original—-just in case. That way I have it, and can work with it accordingly. Thanks.....and thanks everyone else too!
|
|
buzz

Location: up the boohai 
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 11:03am |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: Thought I'd try that one out. Didn't work? I'll tell my friend in California who teaches photography at a college out there, and is always trying to find better ways to get students to understand resolution. i didnt do the math ( too lazy to open a calculator). it just seemed that there were easier ways to answer A's question. kinda like jrzy did.
|
|
swell_sailor

Location: The Gorge Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 11:00am |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: That explains it.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming

Location: Powell Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 10:59am |
|
swell_sailor wrote:Oh shoot. I've confused myself. 
|
|
swell_sailor

Location: The Gorge Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 10:54am |
|
What Scott is really saying is, it's the total dots that count, not the dots per inch. And it's not really dots until it's printed, it's pixels. Imagine this scenario....... Me: How far is it to the store? You: One mile per minute. (sounds a lot like dots per inch huh?) Me: Hm. Okay. But it seems like some of the formula is missing. I now know how many miles I'll cover in a minute, but I don't know how many minutes it will take. When I know how many minutes it will take, I can figure out how far it is to the store by doing the math. So, if we know only that the image has 96 pixels in an inch, but we don't know how many inches the image is, we really have no idea how large it is. If, for example, the image is 96 pixels per inch and has a total of 1344 pixels in width, the image is 14 inches wide. (1344÷96=14) If we decide to print this image, or display it, at only 7 inches in width, without doing anything else we double the pixel count. (1344total pixels ÷ 7inches = 192 pixels per inch.) The bottom line is, the total pixels is what matters. If, for example, the image is 3000 pixels wide, at 300 pixels per inch, and we print at 300 dots per inch we can print an image 10 inches wide. (3000 pixels, divided by 300 pixels per inch, equals 10 inches.
Dots per inch or pixels per inch are essentially meaningless until you go to print. If this has to do with an e-book that will never be printed, whoever is requiring 300 dots per inch needs to go back to school.
Oh shoot. I've confused myself. 
|
|
ScottFromWyoming

Location: Powell Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 10:36am |
|
buzz wrote:ScottFromWyoming wrote: This is what we call a "Ranch" problem. Rancher Bob has a 100 acre ranch with 20 cows per acre. Rancher Tom has a 50 acre ranch with 50 cows per acre. You have 96 cows per acre. Who has more cows?
i dont know who has more cows, but you certainly seem to have more cowpies than Bob, Tom, and Alexandra combined.  Thought I'd try that one out. Didn't work? I'll tell my friend in California who teaches photography at a college out there, and is always trying to find better ways to get students to understand resolution.
|
|
buzz

Location: up the boohai 
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 10:32am |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: This is what we call a "Ranch" problem. Rancher Bob has a 100 acre ranch with 20 cows per acre. Rancher Tom has a 50 acre ranch with 50 cows per acre. You have 96 cows per acre. Who has more cows? i dont know who has more cows, but you certainly seem to have more cowpies than Bob, Tom, and Alexandra combined.
|
|
Alexandra

Location: PNW Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 10:21am |
|
JrzyTmata wrote: 96 is for viewing on the innertubes. if printed, it will be pixelated or blurry when printed. ask the person who did it to resize from the original for 300 dpi.I hope her original is 300 or better.
I just asked her to send the original, unsized file......and yes, hopefully.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming

Location: Powell Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 10:19am |
|
Alexandra wrote:My cover art has been sent. The image is at 96 dpi. I must submit it at 300 dpi. Is this going to work? Is 96 dpi what an original image usually is? Or does it sound like it's been sized?
This is what we call a "Ranch" problem. Rancher Bob has a 100 acre ranch with 20 cows per acre. Rancher Tom has a 50 acre ranch with 50 cows per acre. You have 96 cows per acre. Who has more cows?
|
|
JrzyTmata


|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 10:15am |
|
Alexandra wrote:My cover art has been sent. The image is at 96 dpi. I must submit it at 300 dpi. Is this going to work? Is 96 dpi what an original image usually is? Or does it sound like it's been sized?
96 is for viewing on the innertubes. if printed, it will be pixelated or blurry when printed. ask the person who did it to resize from the original for 300 dpi.I hope her original is 300 or better.
|
|
Alexandra

Location: PNW Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 4, 2013 - 10:06am |
|
My cover art has been sent. The image is at 96 dpi. I must submit it at 300 dpi. Is this going to work? Is 96 dpi what an original image usually is? Or does it sound like it's been sized?
|
|
BlueHeronDruid

Location: Заебани сме луѓе 
|
Posted:
Aug 19, 2013 - 5:57pm |
|
edieraye wrote: You're everywhere in here today! Nice to see you!
|
|
|