You can change this number to whatever you want or need it to be. But if you do change this, make this the first thing you change. Then set your Pixel Dimensions after changing the Resolution. If you change the Resolution after changing the Pixel Dimensions the Pixel Dimensions will change to reflect your new Resolution and it can get very confusing.
Note that all files are of the same image and are the same pixel dimensions. And all of them, when open in Photoshop, are the same The File Size for each of these is Yet the "saved on disk" file sizes are radically different. Now, suppose you want to submit this image to a stock agency that requires a 48MB file. What do you need to do? The first thing you need to do is to recognize that they are asking for an uncompressed 48MB size. This is the size of the file open in your image editor.
It is not the size of the file on your hard disk though it could be if you were submitting a TIF file. Your JPG version is going to be radically smaller on your hard disk than it is going to be in memory. Well worth its politely requested donation! I blame that on high-speed internet. By the time photo sharing came a long, a lot of people already had high-speed internet.
I on the other hand only recently made the switch to high-speed. I often deleted emails with attached photos directly from the server without looking at the photos, simply because it would take too long to download on dial-up.
The newsletter would often be 8 or 9 mb and the mailbox limit was 10 mb. I, on the other hand, would use Paint Shop Pro and reduce the file size, by simply resizing to 4. A kb picture would shrink to 35 kb of course I kept the original exactly as the camera output it, in case we wanted to print a copy. The answer is not to take such huge pics to start with unless you intend to make large hi quality prints from them.
In other words the primary colors of light are quite different from the primary colors of ink. Regarding the primary colors, I was thinking the same thing about RGB being incorrect. We learn pigment primary colors when we are kids which are RYB — no other pigment can make those colors, but combined they make the secondary colors. But then learning old school photo printing, the primaries of light are CMY used in the same way as above.
It is confusing and working from computer screen to printer we have to think about both. And then cmy k are the primary colors used for printing press work. I appreciate though that you said a pixel is a dot.
Gonna send my web publishing students to this page. Thank you Leo! Regarding file size and quality, I tend to go along with graham lundebgaard Oct.
Having also previously believed that blowing up pictures is not to be had, I now know better. IrfanView, amongst others, offers this facility, with a choice of algorithms. Using the max. I also agree with the point made in another comment: Optics, not pixel count is decisive for picture quality.
BOTH optics and pixel count up to a point are important. Good glass gives you a sharper image no pun or plug intended. No amount of processing will restore a soft original image.
But if you intend to make a really large hard print AND have cropped the original, you need a significant number of pixels. I agree the pixel race is highly overrated and the difference between 16 and 18 mp is insignificant.
While I can get about a max 8 x 10 print from my now former 4mp compact camera, the 18 mp DSLR camera with better glass gets me sharp prints to 16 x 20 and more. But if you think you would like to see blowups on your wall or as gifts, my take is that you want to have both elements at their best. Leo disagreed and I wanted to second his motion. As he smartly pointed out, images can always be dumbed down res lowered but not from a practical standpoint up.
With memory cards so cheap and of high capacity, why compromise. I can think of only one of two situations where you might wish to cram hundreds of pix on a card. For example, taking photos of everything you own for insurance purposes where the only thing you might do is look at them on a screen.
But for virtually all other endeavors, size matters. Allow me to agree with graham lundebgaard. A very informative and interesting discussion that Leo presented. Thank you Leo. But let me ask one question. I mean without any compression techniques used.
Dolby 5. When it gets transmitted it will be greatly compressed to maximise the number of channels per transponder. A few random notes on the subject: 1.
It is more common for me to deal with upsizing. I sometimes collect photos from others who have been on a group tour and then prepare a slide show. Often the pictures are taken with a smart phone and people send files that are way too small to be of practical use. I could also use a good explanation of exactly what amount of up-sizing can be accomplished with good results I understand that depends on the ultimate use , and whether there are special techniques for doing so.
There are programs such as the free SmillaEnlarger, which purport to enlarge photos and fill in the information to get rid of pixilation. Perhaps someone with experience using that or a similar program can post their experience in a comment and even link to or embed a comment here. Or in your case, John, you might want to try Smilla out and see if it does what you need and let us all know.
So glad you covered the correct measure of resolution, which is not DPI or PPI but the actual number of pixels in the image. Until you go to print the image at a specific size the only thing that matters is the actual resolution, measured in pixels.
Digital images contain pixels, not dots. There is a difference, and if you look at the Image Size dialog in Photoshop you will see that this measurement is correctly shown as PPI. Measuring the output resolution of a printer or platesetter would be an appropriate use of DPI, since printers place dots on paper. Is it possible to make a poster from it in size of 70m x m meters and print without losing quality? PS: I had to repaint the picture and give it some filters and rebuild the scene some how in photo shop to get dpi.
Yes and no. I have some great shots of the Oct. Images file size averages 1. How large could I go on a dpi colour printer until blur starts.. I am sure at least 11 by 17 but I would like to go for a banner size.
Say 36 by 60??? The requirement is pixels wide and pixels high. Your dimensions are reversed, so you would have to resize it so your maximum height is pixels. The corresponding width should be about pixels in order to maintain the original proportions. The EXIF tags are a and b. A comment regarding colour represenation. I understand that the primary colours for light mixing are usually RGB additive mixing but those for pigments are the subtractive ones, the red and blue being different colours to the additive ones.
I have uploaded a pic of resolution x pixels and file size of KB on my website. But when i downloaded the image its size became KB irrespective of any browser i download it on. Can you please tell me why it happened? Helo sir…. Here I have a doubt.. Perhaps you crop the image, and then save it at a bigger size or higher resolution. Or you could take a.
Either of those steps would result in a bigger file. Hi Leo, this may seem like a dumb question but I wanna be sure. So x pixels is the exact pixel size of the image that you need in order to print an image with dpi. Means, it is perfect for a print size of Certainly more than what an average user would ever need for printing everyday photos. Photo labs recommend at least dpi input for normal prints.
But megapixel is not the end of the story here. In real life situations, properly exposed, clean noise free sharp images can be upsized about 2x more than the theoretical print size, before any image quality degradation become truly noticeable at usual viewing distances. Using good optics, low ISO setting, correct exposure , proper depth of field , keeping camera shake free and proper post processing is critical to get quality print out.
If you follow good shooting practices, virtually any of the currently available DSLRs on the market should be able to produce quality prints to match the maximum size a consumer inkjet can produce. Offcourse starting with high megapixels will always give you a good start. In general, bigger sensors produce better image quality. Because, their pixels or light sensor are bigger and can gather more information than the smaller one.
Which results cleaner and better images.
0コメント