 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / November 2004Help with Canon 20-D
Is there a way to resize the resolution in the Canon 20-D so that when I open JASC Paint Shop Pro, it is 300 DPI and not 72 DPI? Thanks.. Bob > Is there a way to resize the resolution in the Canon 20-D so that when > I open JASC Paint Shop Pro, it is 300 DPI and not 72 DPI? Thanks.. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< > -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- The photo IS NOT 72 dpi.. That is an assumption of the software used to display your picture. When you go to print the pictures the printer driver will adjust the dpi for the size of the paper. THERE IS NO INHERANT DPI IN A DIGITAL PHOTO! This question comes up ALL the time. The short answer is NO YOU CANT. You have to zoom in/out to fit the picture to the screen for viewing. If you re-size the picture for the screen, save it under a different name so you still have the original. As you learn more about using the pictures you take you will be glad you saved the originals un-changed.  SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. >Is there a way to resize the resolution in the Canon 20-D so that when >I open JASC Paint Shop Pro, it is 300 DPI and not 72 DPI? Thanks.. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< >-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- Simply to add to what Larry said..the camera doesn't set the dpi flag in the jfif/exif header. You can..in your photo editing software. This won't effect the raw information (the picture) but rather an informational section at the begining of the jpg or tiff that simply tells other things how to display or print it. When you save a file at 72 dpi..it sets the jfif/exif info in the file header - a flag that says dpi is set and directs it to the value - 72. I'm not aware of the camera having the ability to set this flag. The editing proggy can though. And what-ever you save at-thats what will be encoded into the file(pic). BUT its not part of the image itself. It's just telling something else how to look at the pixels in terms of how many to put in any given area. Don't know paintshop, but in photoshop..you go to "edit>image size..and reset the dpi..BUT DON'T RESAMPLE. Then when save it will update the file header of the pic. You can see the effect by clicking on "show print size" because it will react dynamically to the dpi info. I never save over my jpgs. If i am going to output a pic i will save it in tiff format (no compression). Everytime you edit and resave a jpg - i beleive you are utilizing a compresion algorith and you are derogating your pic. I will save to jpg when the pic is in the final print state..or to distribute - and as larry said - UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME. Word to the wise...first thing you do when you empty the camera is to archive and index. Then play with them. Some filters and applets require a high dpi to work -- one example being Andromeda screens. I apologize to the group for the bandwith here-in..mostly non-slr. The question was slr though..and i'm curious now..though doubtful. Hope this helps a bit Bob rgds Ken filters that want high dpi's, or > Is there a way to resize the resolution in the Canon 20-D so that > when I open JASC Paint Shop Pro, it is 300 DPI and not 72 DPI? I suggest you take a look at Q2 in this FAQ: http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/pixels.html Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ======================================================================== When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to? >>Is there a way to resize the resolution in the Canon 20-D so that >>when I open JASC Paint Shop Pro, it is 300 DPI and not 72 DPI? > > I suggest you take a look at Q2 in this FAQ: > http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/pixels.html In your essay, you say the number is meaningless. Maybe to you, but some of us have our own reasons for wishing JPEGs being brought in at the resolution of choice, not 72 ppi. This in spite of understanding what it all means! It would seem to be a function of the camera's settings, but I don't know where in the menu to change it, if it's settable at all. Now that I have a fast machine, I will be using RAW even more, and there it's quite possible to set the output resolution and number of bits in the conversion to PS format from RAW. And it's no longer a sweat to create and run an action to set the ppi as I like it. -- John McWilliams >>>Is there a way to resize the resolution in the Canon 20-D so that >>>when I open JASC Paint Shop Pro, it is 300 DPI and not 72 DPI? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >It would seem to be a function of the camera's settings, but I don't >know where in the menu to change it, if it's settable at all. You're making a very big assumption - that the camera is actually specifying *any* value for the ppi setting. Last time I looked at the EXIF data coming directly from a camera there wasn't any value given. If the software is reporting 72ppi then it's quite probably a default value being supplied by the software you are using. (The 72ppi/dpi value, btw, was the default value for postscript) John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in news:pCopd.150142$R05.116934 @attbi_s53: > In your essay, you say the number is meaningless. Maybe to you, but some > of us have our own reasons for wishing JPEGs being brought in at the > resolution of choice, not 72 ppi. This in spite of understanding what it > all means! You may wish so. And you might get it - the consumer industry implements lots of useless things if they think customers want it. > It would seem to be a function of the camera's settings, but I don't > know where in the menu to change it, if it's settable at all. It probably is not. I would be surprised if the camera outputs any PPI setting at all. The 72 PPI is probably invented by your editing software. > Now that I have a fast machine, I will be using RAW even more, and there > it's quite possible to set the output resolution and number of bits in > the conversion to PS format from RAW. And it's no longer a sweat to > create and run an action to set the ppi as I like it. I suggest you go use you time for something more useful. You will not get better pictures by implementing things not needed. /Roland > John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in news:pCopd.150142$R05.116934 > @attbi_s53: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You may wish so. And you might get it - the consumer industry > implements lots of useless things if they think customers want it. *** see below >>It would seem to be a function of the camera's settings, but I don't >>know where in the menu to change it, if it's settable at all. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I suggest you go use you time for something more useful. You will > not get better pictures by implementing things not needed. I'd save some time in post processing. That in turn allows more time for better pictures. I am always amused at those who decide for others what's useful and what's not. Please note I am not telling you what should be important for you. -- John McWilliams > I am always amused at those who decide for others what's useful and > what's not. Please note I am not telling you what should be important > for you. > > -- > John McWilliams Oddly enough most Europeans don't have the variable descriptions to words which English speaking nations have. Consequently, many Europeans who write instructions in English, misunderstand the inflections native English speakers take for granted. Roland wasn't telling anyone what should be important to them any more than Gisle was. If you read Gisle's blog to grasp the spirit with which it was written, you will see that Gisle feels many of the often confusing measurements of an image should be discarded in your mind if you don't understand them because the *real* dimensions of an image are the pixel density... Nothing else counts. I think it is unfair to presume that a document written in English by a European is telling anyone what *should be* important to them for no reason. After all, the day someone can define a measurement to a pixel, will be the day images become precisely measurable too. Gisle is essentially correct that the Pixels per inch of a camera file are useless to anyone and everyone. If there was a measurement for say; an array of pixels, it might be relevant. Hmm. Could that be megapixels, perhaps? Editing programs like Photoshop are the ones which open an image at the resolution of a monitor... Deemed (wrongly) to be 72 PPI. Just changing that to 300 dpi does not alter the size of the image or the fact that it is displayed at 72 PPI. It is the printer which needs 300 dpi. Monitor's need 72 dpi. Any description of dpi or PPI by other devises is irrelevant at the point they lose control over them. Doug >>I am always amused at those who decide for others what's useful and >>what's not. Please note I am not telling you what should be important [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > 72 dpi. Any description of dpi or PPI by other devises is irrelevant at the > point they lose control over them. I appreciate the patience with which you explain the above, but you seem to fall into the same trap as Roland, i.e., telling me it's irrelevant, when (I believe) I understand the ins and outs of resolution and pixel counts and size of image based on ppi chosen at time of printing. The fact is I'd like to be able to quickly see what size an image will print at or export to another file with no interpolation. Other than going to image->Size, I don't know how else I can achieve a graphical representation of the image's 'native' "print size". -- John McWilliams John McWilliams posted: > The fact is I'd like to be able to quickly see what size an image will > print at or export to another file with no interpolation. Other than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > John McWilliams I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure. Do you mean that it would be better if you could program the camera to define a print dpi into the image file? If so, then I guess I see your point. I still don't think it would help you much, since the ppi of monitors vary at different resolutions, so it would be nearly impossible to see the exact print size on screen at the click of a mouse. The best that you can (usually) do is to use a DTP program that imports images and at the same time resets the print dpi to a standard (usually 300). Then, at least, you can see the image in scale in relation to a given page size. But even if you have to reset the dpi manually, is it all that much work? You could always use IrfanView to batch the jobs for you. SignaturePetros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos > John McWilliams posted: > > The fact is I'd like to be able to quickly see what size an image will [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Petros > Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos Adding to that... Photoshop has a lot of facilities to allow you to do just what you want. You can define the print resolution, for example and then click a menu item "print size" or another one "Pixels" and see the size of the image represented on the screen. Of course the cost of Photoshop might slow you down a tad! >>John McWilliams posted: >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > represented on the screen. Of course the cost of Photoshop might slow you > down a tad! I got the entire suite at a nice student price a few months ago, even though my 'real' (full time) student days are a distant memory. Community colleges are great; I are a student at Vista, located next to the UC Berkeley campus. You've sort of hit the nail again: it's the above I want to do *without* the step of going into image size and set to 240 or 300 whichever I am using for that batch. SignatureJohn McWilliams I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. -- John McWilliams > I appreciate the patience with which you explain the above, but you seem > to fall into the same trap as Roland, i.e., telling me it's irrelevant, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > going to image->Size, I don't know how else I can achieve a graphical > representation of the image's 'native' "print size". You would do well to read Gisle's webpage as a starter. By all means use resize as you see fit, but make sure you're working on a 'work' copy, not the original, lest ye boo-boo the works. I don't even look very much at the print dpi number in the file until I'm ready to print. I make seperate files for each print size, and for each print size the next to last step is to USM at that size. This is critical. The very last step is to set the print dpi to the optimum for my printer (300) and then save that edition. Prior to that I work on the simple assumption that if I want a print to be 10 inches x 7.5 inches, then the image has to be 300 x 10 X 300 x 7.5 pixels in size. So take all the freedoms you want, but print dpi only matters at the time you commit the image to the printer. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- [SI] rulz: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >I appreciate the patience with which you explain the above, but you seem >to fall into the same trap as Roland, i.e., telling me it's irrelevant, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The fact is I'd like to be able to quickly see what size an image will >print at or export to another file with no interpolation. You never need any interpolation to print at any size. >Other than >going to image->Size, I don't know how else I can achieve a graphical >representation of the image's 'native' "print size". An image has no native print size. It may or may not have a *default* print size, but that is only a tag placed in a file and has no direct relationship to any real property of the image itself. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in news:wTupd.669079$8_6.386282 @attbi_s04: > I am always amused at those who decide for others what's useful and > what's not. Please note I am not telling you what should be important > for you. If it i simportant to you - it is of course important to you. All I is saying that I don't understand why. I can see no advantages of setting any PPI value in the file. What is your plan for this number? /Roland > John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in news:wTupd.669079$8_6.386282 > @attbi_s04: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What is your plan for this number? For one, I like to see at a click what size the image will print at with no resizing. For another, when I bring an image into an existing one, I prefer they match up without scaling. If everything is 240 ppi then I am all set. -- John McWilliams John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in news:PTnqd.478134$D%.230319 @attbi_s51: > For one, I like to see at a click what size the image will print at with > no resizing. OK - fair enough. Personally I want to print at a certain size - and then I get whatever PPI that is available. Always printing at e.g. 240 PPI and then accepting whatever size that is, is an unusual request IMHO. > For another, when I bring an image into an existing one, I > prefer they match up without scaling. Hmmm .. I am not really sure what you mean here. Do you say that e.g Photoshop scales copy and paste according to PPI? I did not think so - and I just tested. Photoshop does not care at all with regard to PPI settings when copying. > If everything is 240 ppi then I am all set. > John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in news:PTnqd.478134$D%.230319 > @attbi_s51: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > PPI that is available. Always printing at e.g. 240 PPI and then accepting > whatever size that is, is an unusual request IMHO. However, that's not what I do with printing, fwiw. >>For another, when I bring an image into an existing one, I >>prefer they match up without scaling. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I did not think so - and I just tested. Photoshop does not > care at all with regard to PPI settings when copying. It does with my version of CS. If I copy in a 72 ppi image into a 300 ppi image, the former will be scaled down tremendously. -- John McWilliams >> John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in news:PTnqd.478134$D%.230319 >> @attbi_s51: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >-- >John McWilliams That doesn't sound like it's using the PPI settings, then. If you've got a 600-pixel wide image, with no explicit PPI setting, then PhotoShop will display it assuming a default value of 72ppi, and will tell you the image is around 8.5" wide. If you copy-and-paste that image into a 300ppi document you'll end up with an image that's only 2" across. But that doesn't mean that PhotoShop has rescaled the image - quite the reverse. If PhotoShop was using PPI settings copying and pasting an 8.5" wide image would always result in a final image 8.5" across. >>>John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in news:PTnqd.478134$D%.230319 >>>@attbi_s51: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > If PhotoShop was using PPI settings copying and pasting an 8.5" > wide image would always result in a final image 8.5" across. Well, all right, I shouldn't have used the word scaled down, as it implies an action that doesn't take place. I should have said it would appear out of scale due to how it's displayed. SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>>John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in news:PTnqd.478134$D%.230319 >>>>@attbi_s51: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >implies an action that doesn't take place. I should have said it would >appear out of scale due to how it's displayed. So, if I understand correctly, you: 1) are upset that when PhotoShop copies and pastes a 600-pixel source image it inserts a 600-pixel wide destination image 2) feel that somehow setting the ppi value in the source image will change this behaviour I've always felt it was a mistake to associate a PPI with an image at any time prior to the final print stage - it just confuses people. Forget about ppi - just think about image dimensions in pixels. > So, if I understand correctly, you: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > at any time prior to the final print stage - it just confuses people. > Forget about ppi - just think about image dimensions in pixels. ----------------------- Don't tell him to forget ppi, that's where all this crap started! >>So, if I understand correctly, you: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ----------------------- > Don't tell him to forget ppi, that's where all this crap started! You don't understand me correctly, and I am not confused. But, thanks a lot anyway. SignatureJohn McWilliams John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in news:tPtqd.169568$R05.46927 @attbi_s53: > It does with my version of CS. If I copy in a 72 ppi image into a 300 > ppi image, the former will be scaled down tremendously. Aha! Now I understand. You are viewing the pictures at "print size". And when you copy and paste you want the copy to be the same apperent size as the original. OK - as I said before - your preferences are your preferences. You do whatever you like. Is it OK that I give you some advices though? OK? I assume you have answered yes :) The "print size" is only correct if you have callibrated your monitor to the correct pixel pitch - default 72 PPI. You have to change that value in the "Preferences" dialog if use have another pixel pitch on your monitor. Personally I recommend you to use "print size" only as a fast preview for the print size and never use it when editing. Why? (1) It is best to edit at 25, 50, 100 or 200%. This will give you the best idea about the effect of your manipulations. To edit using print size will probably not get you one of those. Moreover, it is a good idea to switch between those scalings for different kind of manipulations. Sometimes you want to see the entire image and sometimes you want just details. I know of no way to get double or half the print size in Photoshop. (2) As you have already seen - you got problems with your camera. And you will probably get problems with all cameras you buy and all pictures you are going to scan or get from friends. Your method to use "print size" is not the standard way - so you will always be forced to do it the hard way. You are begging for problems. (3) You will probably print at a given size sometimes, e.g. using the print with preview. Then, the view as "print size" is not correct any more. (4) Your method confuses more than it helps. It gives you the (faulty) view that your images have a physical a size. They have not. It is just pixels. If you have had that in mind you should have understood why the picture got larger while copying. It does not get larger, it only looks that way. /Roland > In your essay, you say the number is meaningless. Maybe to you, but > some of us have our own reasons for wishing JPEGs being brought in > at the resolution of choice, not 72 ppi. This in spite of > understanding what it all means! I assume you are a Mac user. In that case, take a look at this - from the description it looks as a batch utility that will do what you want. http://www.ingconti.com/Software/BCI/ConvertImage.html NB: Just found it with Google. I haven't tested it. > It would seem to be a function of the camera's settings, but I don't > know where in the menu to change it, if it's settable at all. I don't know of any camera with such a setting. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ======================================================================== When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to? >>In your essay, you say the number is meaningless. Maybe to you, but >>some of us have our own reasons for wishing JPEGs being brought in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I don't know of any camera with such a setting. Many thanks. It seems that images off my D300 were brought in at 180 dpi, but I haven't the time to confirm that now, as it could be academic. It could be a function of Image Capture, the mac app that'll import all image formats. I will just create the setting as part of a PS action, and will also be looking forward to Apple's next OS, which will include a bunch of very fast converters that'll deal with images. Why'd I care? I simply like to be able to switch to print view in CS, for one, without having to go set Image size first, and for another if I import into file, I'd like all settings to be the same. -- John McWilliams John McWilliams posted: > >>In your essay, you say the number is meaningless. Maybe to you, but > >>some of us have our own reasons for wishing JPEGs being brought in [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > John McWilliams I think I see your problem. IIRC the Adobe page layout programs import bitmaps at a predetermined dpi set by the user. So in a normal workflow, you wouldn't really need to deal with this in PS, and would go about doing your work at 100% or fit to screen, checking only to make sure that your pixels for output are there. As soon as you import the file into InDesign or whatever, you'd automatically have your 300 or 600 dpi. SignaturePetros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.