Photo size-Why so large anyway?

"Proctor" <Unlisted DeleteThis @email.not> wrote in message
news:KZtNb.72346$na.41915@attbi_s04...
 > I have never read anything about this question so I will ask. Why do these
 > digital cameras and photo printing apps default to such a large photo
size.
 > To me it makes no sence and seems strange. Why would anyone especailly a
 > photographer even care about printing a picture 32 inches? Why not stick
 > with a usable size and that is that?
 >
 > Proctor
 >
 >

The photo in your camera is measured in pixels, the more pixels the better
the definition of the photo. Your screen is measured in pixels per inch,
virtual inch that is as all monitors are different sizes. The more pixels
in a picture the larger it appears on screen. The print size can easily be
altered either in a photo editor or by selecting in your printer control
panel to resize the image to fit the paper. Back to the photo, the more
pixels you have not only give the picture better definition, but, also allow
you to edit it so that any noise or jaggedness introduced during editing
become negligible. If you work with a small resolution picture which most
cameras allow you to take then if you edit it or try to resize it up it
degrades the image.

Try it and see.

Rob<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Photo size-Why so large anyway? 

For me...

Having a large size allows you to crop the picture. Imagine taking a
picture of your kids and having the top half of the picture being the
sky and the edges being the garden.

You can crop out these parts and still have a picture of decent size
and quality to print.

Making an image smaller wont lose any quality from the image, but
sizing the image larger will make a bad quality image.

So when you go to print an image you can size it to 6x4 and have a
very nice quality pic.

HTH

Harry

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:31:06 GMT, "Proctor" <Unlisted.DeleteThis@email.not>
wrote:

 >I have never read anything about this question so I will ask. Why do these
 >digital cameras and photo printing apps default to such a large photo size.
 >To me it makes no sence and seems strange. Why would anyone especailly a
 >photographer even care about printing a picture 32 inches? Why not stick
 >with a usable size and that is that?
 >
 >Proctor
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Photo size-Why so large anyway? 

In article <KZtNb.72346$na.41915@attbi_s04>,
"Proctor" <Unlisted RemoveThis @email.not> wrote:

 > Why would anyone especailly a
 > photographer even care about printing a picture 32 inches?

To display your photos in an art gallery show.

To put out in front of the club where your band is playing.

As part of the poster for your science fair project.

To impress your girlfriend when she sees her picture on your wall.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Photo size-Why so large anyway? 

"Proctor" <Unlisted.RemoveThis@email.not> wrote in message
news:KZtNb.72346$na.41915@attbi_s04...
 > I have never read anything about this question so I will ask. Why do these
 > digital cameras and photo printing apps default to such a large photo
size.
 > To me it makes no sence and seems strange. Why would anyone especailly a
 > photographer even care about printing a picture 32 inches? Why not stick
 > with a usable size and that is that?
 >
 > Proctor
 >
 >
The 72 dpi is arbitrary, it has no value except for printing. 72 dpi is
mainly based on the screen resolution of your monitor.

The only dimension of importance is the pixels of the image. A 2 megapixel
image is usually 1600 X 1200 pixels, which will print an 8 X 10.6 inch print
at 150 ppi(dpi).

Change the DPI parameter and the size in inches will change. That will not
change the pixels if you turn off Resample Image in your editor.

--
CSM1
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.carlmcmillan.com" target="_blank">http://www.carlmcmillan.com</a>
--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Photo size-Why so large anyway? 

"Bill" <ws21.TakeThisOut@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:ws21-890E59.13394915012004@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
 > In article <KZtNb.72346$na.41915@attbi_s04>,
 > "Proctor" <Unlisted.TakeThisOut@email.not> wrote:
 >
  > > Why would anyone especailly a
  > > photographer even care about printing a picture 32 inches?
 >
 > To display your photos in an art gallery show.
 >
 > To put out in front of the club where your band is playing.
 >
 > As part of the poster for your science fair project.
 >
 > To impress your girlfriend when she sees her picture on your wall.

OK. I will have to go over all this info you guys have given me and apply
it to some photos and see how they look. I was always under the impression
that if I only wanted to print 4x6 photos it would be a waste of money to
get a camera with too many MPs. So what you are all saying is that the more
MPs without limit will always give me a better and better 4x6 photo? Also,
If a scanned photo that has given me a default 300 DPI would be the same as
a photo taken from a DC that seems to always default to 72 P/I ?

Thanks

Proctor<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Photo size-Why so large anyway? 

Have a look at

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.normankoren.com/pixels_images.html" target="_blank">http://www.normankoren.com/pixels_images.html</a>

for an excellent explanation, especially the section

How many pixels to you need for a sharp print?

The conclusion is that there's no point having more than 300ppi
(pixels per inch) even for the sharpest print, 200ppi is almost as
good, and 150ppi is OK for larger prints -- this all assumes that the
digital camera lens is sharp enough, which is unlikely to be the case
for cheap cameras!

So this gives the following

Print size Number of pixels per inch required vs. print quality

300ppi(excellent) 200ppi(good) 150ppi(OK large)

6" x 4" 1800x1200=2.2M
8" x 6" 2400x1800=4.3M 1600x1200=1.9M
12" x 8" (3600x2400=8.6M) 2400x1600=3.9M 1800x1200=2.2M
16" x 12" (3200x2400=7.7M) 2400x1800=4.3M

So for excellent 6x4 prints, good 8x6 prints, and OK 12x8 prints you
only need about a 2 megapixel camera (not allowing for cropping the
images). A 4MP camera can produce excellent prints up to 8x6, good up
to 12x8, and OK up to 16x12.

Since most printers can only do up to A4 prints (11.7x8.25) there's no
real point having more pixels than this, especially since increasing
the number of pixels makes the image "noisier" (more grain in smooth
colours like sky). Tis is still true even if you crop the image
(select only part of it) before printing -- more pixels can't create
information which isn't there.

Cheap cameras with lots of pixels are pointless, the lenses aren't
sharp enough to make any use of this -- a higher quality camera
(Canon, Nikon, Olympus and many others) with a lower pixel count will
give far better results. But even the best compact cameras "top out"
at about 4MP as far as image quality is concerned, tests have often
shown that a "new" 5MP camera gives poorer images than its 4MP (or
3MP) predecessor, but of course in marketing MEGAPIXELS is all that
matters and screams out from the adverts...

Ian

P.S. The whole normankoren site is an absolute mine of information
about everything to do with digital cameras, scanners and printers.

"Proctor" <Unlisted.TakeThisOut@email.not> wrote in message news:<KZtNb.72346$na.41915@attbi_s04>...
 > I have never read anything about this question so I will ask. Why do these
 > digital cameras and photo printing apps default to such a large photo size.
 > To me it makes no sence and seems strange. Why would anyone especailly a
 > photographer even care about printing a picture 32 inches? Why not stick
 > with a usable size and that is that?
 >
 > Proctor<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Photo size-Why so large anyway? 

 > OK. I will have to go over all this info you guys have given me and apply
 > it to some photos and see how they look. I was always under the impression
 > that if I only wanted to print 4x6 photos it would be a waste of money to
 > get a camera with too many MPs. So what you are all saying is that the
more
 > MPs without limit will always give me a better and better 4x6 photo? Also,
 > If a scanned photo that has given me a default 300 DPI would be the same
as
 > a photo taken from a DC that seems to always default to 72 P/I ?

You're still confused between the camera and the photo paint software.
Lets say your camera takes a photo 1600x1200 pixels.
Your photo paint software can interpret this in MANY ways.

eg 22.2 x 16.6 inches at 72 dpi
or 5.3 x 4.0 at 300 dpi
etc etc

The camera isn't always at 72 dpi. That is just the way your photo paint
software inteprets it. Another photo paint programme might interpret it
differently.

Malcolm<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Photo size-Why so large anyway? 

"Malcolm Collett" <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
news:40079414.0@news1.mweb.co.za...
  > > OK. I will have to go over all this info you guys have given me and
apply
  > > it to some photos and see how they look. I was always under the
impression
  > > that if I only wanted to print 4x6 photos it would be a waste of money
to
  > > get a camera with too many MPs. So what you are all saying is that the
 > more
  > > MPs without limit will always give me a better and better 4x6 photo?
Also,
  > > If a scanned photo that has given me a default 300 DPI would be the same
 > as
  > > a photo taken from a DC that seems to always default to 72 P/I ?
 >
 > You're still confused between the camera and the photo paint software.
 > Lets say your camera takes a photo 1600x1200 pixels.
 > Your photo paint software can interpret this in MANY ways.
 >
 > eg 22.2 x 16.6 inches at 72 dpi
 > or 5.3 x 4.0 at 300 dpi
 > etc etc
 >
 > The camera isn't always at 72 dpi. That is just the way your photo paint
 > software inteprets it. Another photo paint programme might interpret it
 > differently.
 >
 > Malcolm
 >
I wasn't really confusing the two I was just noting the defaults of each
trying to relate the two but your further explaination does help. Are you
saying if I chage my camera to take smaller photos the DPI would become
larger? I will try that now and see what happens.

Thanks

Proctor<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Photo size-Why so large anyway? 

"Malcolm Collett" <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:40079414.0@news1.mweb.co.za...
  > > OK. I will have to go over all this info you guys have given me and
apply
  > > it to some photos and see how they look. I was always under the
impression
  > > that if I only wanted to print 4x6 photos it would be a waste of money
to
  > > get a camera with too many MPs. So what you are all saying is that the
 > more
  > > MPs without limit will always give me a better and better 4x6 photo?
Also,
  > > If a scanned photo that has given me a default 300 DPI would be the same
 > as
  > > a photo taken from a DC that seems to always default to 72 P/I ?
 >
 > You're still confused between the camera and the photo paint software.
 > Lets say your camera takes a photo 1600x1200 pixels.
 > Your photo paint software can interpret this in MANY ways.
 >
 > eg 22.2 x 16.6 inches at 72 dpi
 > or 5.3 x 4.0 at 300 dpi
 > etc etc
 >
 > The camera isn't always at 72 dpi. That is just the way your photo paint
 > software inteprets it. Another photo paint programme might interpret it
 > differently.
 >
 > Malcolm
 >
Ok, That didn't change the P/I. All still at 72. The photo size changed
though of course. I guess for someone who has had so many cameras for so
long I have never botherd to learn what I thought I never needed to know.
Just point-shoot-print always looked good to me. Now all I do is upload them
to my site. Way to many shoe boxes anyway.

Proctor

(-8 Deg Fhear wind howling in New Hamshire. 100 below on Mt Washington NH--
GO PATS)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Photo size-Why so large anyway? 

"Ian Dedic" <ian.dedic.TakeThisOut@fme.fujitsu.com> wrote in message
news:ccd4e670.0401160601.2a62b0a5@posting.google.com...
 > Have a look at
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.normankoren.com/pixels_images.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.normankoren.com/pixels_images.html</font</a>>
 >
 > for an excellent explanation, especially the section
 >
 > How many pixels to you need for a sharp print?
 >
 > The conclusion is that there's no point having more than 300ppi
 > (pixels per inch) even for the sharpest print, 200ppi is almost as
 > good, and 150ppi is OK for larger prints -- this all assumes that the
 > digital camera lens is sharp enough, which is unlikely to be the case
 > for cheap cameras!
 >
 > So this gives the following
 >
 > Print size Number of pixels per inch required vs. print quality
 >
 > 300ppi(excellent) 200ppi(good) 150ppi(OK large)
 >
 > 6" x 4" 1800x1200=2.2M
 > 8" x 6" 2400x1800=4.3M 1600x1200=1.9M
 > 12" x 8" (3600x2400=8.6M) 2400x1600=3.9M 1800x1200=2.2M
 > 16" x 12" (3200x2400=7.7M) 2400x1800=4.3M
 >
 > So for excellent 6x4 prints, good 8x6 prints, and OK 12x8 prints you
 > only need about a 2 megapixel camera (not allowing for cropping the
 > images). A 4MP camera can produce excellent prints up to 8x6, good up
 > to 12x8, and OK up to 16x12.
 >
 > Since most printers can only do up to A4 prints (11.7x8.25) there's no
 > real point having more pixels than this, especially since increasing
 > the number of pixels makes the image "noisier" (more grain in smooth
 > colours like sky). Tis is still true even if you crop the image
 > (select only part of it) before printing -- more pixels can't create
 > information which isn't there.
 >
 > Cheap cameras with lots of pixels are pointless, the lenses aren't
 > sharp enough to make any use of this -- a higher quality camera
 > (Canon, Nikon, Olympus and many others) with a lower pixel count will
 > give far better results. But even the best compact cameras "top out"
 > at about 4MP as far as image quality is concerned, tests have often
 > shown that a "new" 5MP camera gives poorer images than its 4MP (or
 > 3MP) predecessor, but of course in marketing MEGAPIXELS is all that
 > matters and screams out from the adverts...
 >
 > Ian
 >
 > P.S. The whole normankoren site is an absolute mine of information
 > about everything to do with digital cameras, scanners and printers.
 >
Well thats great. I guess I won't need THIS group anymore Thanks Ian.
With this explaination I guess one could say there is a BEST camera
afterall. The one with the best lense at about 4 MP and that is it. Hotshoe
is not that important the way I see it. If you can use external flash that
would really be better. Flash a bit away from camera is actually better in
my opinion. So now we are down to the view finder but if you use a tripod
why not an external monitor too. So now we are talking near perfection
relying purely on the quality of the lense to deliver the sharpest image
possible. Am I accurate or can someone dispute my logic?

Proctor<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Photo size-Why so large anyway? 

On 16 Jan 2004 06:01:29 -0800, ian.dedic.DeleteThis@fme.fujitsu.com (Ian Dedic)
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

I am not knocking what is said below, but the figures are for the
"real keenie" <G>

Bear in mind with all these figures that "excellent" means really,
really good. I have an A4 home-print cropped from a 4MP picture down
to 1.5MPi. It is good. I would say better than "OK".

If you want to inspect a print with a magnifying glass then you will
see the faults. I feel that for normal use, the bigger the print, in
general the further away you stand, so the effect is the same.

So I do not appear to be simply "dissing", the comment below that 150
PPI is Ok for larger prints is what I am referring to.

 >Have a look at
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.normankoren.com/pixels_images.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.normankoren.com/pixels_images.html</font</a>>
 >
 >for an excellent explanation, especially the section
 >
 > How many pixels to you need for a sharp print?
 >
 >The conclusion is that there's no point having more than 300ppi
 >(pixels per inch) even for the sharpest print, 200ppi is almost as
 >good, and 150ppi is OK for larger prints -- this all assumes that the
 >digital camera lens is sharp enough, which is unlikely to be the case
 >for cheap cameras!

**************************************************** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I was frightened by the idea of a conspiracy that was
causing it all.
But then I was terrified that maybe there was no plan,
really. Is this unpleasant mess all a mistake?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Photo size-Why so large anyway? 

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:27:18 GMT, "Proctor" <Unlisted.DeleteThis@email.not>
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

Not to address your direct challenge, I don't think. <G> What I am
trying to say is, it's not that simple :-<.

You have to bear in mind that often you want to crop an image. In that
case, your 4MPi image can rapidly be halved in both directions. This
is why there are cameras for "pros" that have a lot higher pixel
count. You crop an image in both directions by half and you quarter
the pixel count. You also magnify lens faults etc.

In order the get lower noise etc, higher pixel counts are usually
placed on larger sensors. This needs larger lenses = $$ :-<

So at this stage the 4MPi camera is the best affordable option for the
average joe AFAICS.

What is a best lens? Back to cropping. If you have a longer zoom, then
in many cases you will not need to crop as much. But longer zoom will
often "soften" the lens. Usually, however, if the lens is reaonable,
optical zoom will beat cropping. Again the :square of the crop" law
applies as far as pixelation is conerned.

As far as your last statement, "near perfection" depends on the size
of the print. If you are doing 8x6's then OK, as per the table
provided by Ian you have "excellent".

 >"Ian Dedic" <ian.dedic.DeleteThis@fme.fujitsu.com> wrote in message

  >> The conclusion is that there's no point having more than 300ppi
  >> (pixels per inch) even for the sharpest print, 200ppi is almost as
  >> good, and 150ppi is OK for larger prints -- this all assumes that the
  >> digital camera lens is sharp enough, which is unlikely to be the case
  >> for cheap cameras!
  >>

 > Well thats great. I guess I won't need THIS group anymore Thanks Ian.
 >With this explaination I guess one could say there is a BEST camera
 >afterall. The one with the best lense at about 4 MP and that is it. Hotshoe
 >is not that important the way I see it. If you can use external flash that
 >would really be better. Flash a bit away from camera is actually better in
 >my opinion. So now we are down to the view finder but if you use a tripod
 >why not an external monitor too. So now we are talking near perfection
 >relying purely on the quality of the lense to deliver the sharpest image
 >possible. Am I accurate or can someone dispute my logic?

**************************************************** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I was frightened by the idea of a conspiracy that was
causing it all.
But then I was terrified that maybe there was no plan,
really. Is this unpleasant mess all a mistake?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Photo size-Why so large anyway? 

"Old Nick" <nsnfwhite RemoveThis @iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:6cog00pppda93t4oq0t24u6b0vv9gd5cac@4ax.com...
 > On 16 Jan 2004 06:01:29 -0800, ian.dedic RemoveThis @fme.fujitsu.com (Ian Dedic)
 > vaguely proposed a theory
 > ......and in reply I say!:
 >
 > I am not knocking what is said below, but the figures are for the
 > "real keenie" <G>
 >
 > Bear in mind with all these figures that "excellent" means really,
 > really good. I have an A4 home-print cropped from a 4MP picture down
 > to 1.5MPi. It is good. I would say better than "OK".
 >
 > If you want to inspect a print with a magnifying glass then you will
 > see the faults. I feel that for normal use, the bigger the print, in
 > general the further away you stand, so the effect is the same.
 >
 > So I do not appear to be simply "dissing", the comment below that 150
 > PPI is Ok for larger prints is what I am referring to.
 >
  > >Have a look at
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.normankoren.com/pixels_images.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.normankoren.com/pixels_images.html</font</a>>
  > >
  > >for an excellent explanation, especially the section
  > >
  > > How many pixels to you need for a sharp print?
  > >
  > >The conclusion is that there's no point having more than 300ppi
  > >(pixels per inch) even for the sharpest print, 200ppi is almost as
  > >good, and 150ppi is OK for larger prints -- this all assumes that the
  > >digital camera lens is sharp enough, which is unlikely to be the case
  > >for cheap cameras!
 >
 > **************************************************** sorry
 > remove ns from my header address to reply via email
 >
 > I was frightened by the idea of a conspiracy that was
 > causing it all.
 > But then I was terrified that maybe there was no plan,
 > really. Is this unpleasant mess all a mistake?

Bottom line: the higher the initial picture file size that comes out of the
camera the more room you have to edit the picture without apparent
degradation. The picture that comes out of the camera should be archived as
it is for future use and/or editing and editing should always be done on a
copy of the original not the original. You may be happy with the printed
results as it come out of the camera at present and think why not resize it
for the pictures size you are printing, but, if you do not save the original
in the format it was created in then one day you will find that, as your
skills improve, you want to edit the picture and print it out larger and you
will wish you had archived the original.

Rob<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Photo size-Why so large anyway?