Tony Ferguson on sat 9 feb 08
Lee, you might want to check your facts on the Olmpus SLR's.
Tony
Lee wrote: On Feb 10, 2008 1:23 AM, Lili Krakowski wrote:
> Some years ago, during a minor gold rush, I bought a very good camera to
> take slides with. Since then I have submitted diverse slides, all on
> Ektachrome, to magazines and the slides have been ok.
>
> Since then I have bought a regular, run of the mill , digital camera, which
> does not remarkable pixel wise.
Lili,
It depends on what you will do with the images. For
example, CM needs 300dpi or better images of 5mp and up is good. (my
camera is 10mp.) But when I sent my application in to NCC, they only
needed 96dpi, because those images are not printed, but are projected.
A 1mp camera can do that.
> Question: How many pixels are needed to pass as properly submitted "images"
As I said above, it depends upon what you are submitting to. What
is more important, is that you preferably need a camera that can be
set manually: focus, aperture, shutter speed. SLR cameras are best
for this, but if you want a camera that you can see the image in the
screen while you are shooting, only Olympus SLRs will do this.
A camera that is a good value, bang for the buck camera, is the Canon
A640. I did a lot of research and found this camera to be the best
for the money. I paid less than $300.00 a couple years ago.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you make the
tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
--Sen No Rikyu
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
______________________________________________________________________________
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com
Tony Ferguson
315 N. Lake Ave. Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806
...where the sky meets the lake...
Artist, Educator, Photographer, Film Maker, Web Meister
fergyart@yahoo.com
(218) 727-6339
http://www.tonyferguson.net
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Tony Ferguson on sat 9 feb 08
Actually,
The new standard for the web is 96 dpi, not 72.
For print, its 300 in most cases or 200--talk to any print house/mag or newspaper as these are the standards. And this of course matters what the physical print is as well--so its quite possible to be able to use a 3 megapixel image in print because the size of the image will be much less than 8x10 in most cases.
Megapixels is a rough thing. There are cameras that tout higher megapixels but that is not the only factor that designates whether or not its going to be a good image. The glass (the lens) is a huge factor, the algorithms of that particular brand of camera (the mathematics behind the compression they are using) and the CCD or CMOS technology. Don't be herded because of a high megapixels. There are many other factors including knowing how to use your camera, how light works, etc.
And let us not forget knowing how to edit and not degrade the image. Always work in native format and save versions, avoid mass filter effects with "auto" anything as it degrades the image profile.
Tony Ferguson
Lois Ruben Aronow wrote: > >Question: How many pixels are needed to pass as properly submitted
> >"images"?
Depends on what you're submitting.
If you're submitting an image for the web, 72dpi wil do. For print, 355dpi
is what you need.
The number of megapixels your camera has will result in a sharper image, and
will give you more leeway in editting and resizing those digital images.
And not all cameras are alike. I have an excellent point and shoot that has
8.1mpx, but cameras (and photographers) are not created equally. My friend
uses a Nikon D40, which has 6mpx. His lens is better (and so is his
picture-taking ability).
______________________________________________________________________________
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com
Tony Ferguson
315 N. Lake Ave. Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806
...where the sky meets the lake...
Artist, Educator, Photographer, Film Maker, Web Meister
fergyart@yahoo.com
(218) 727-6339
http://www.tonyferguson.net
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Lili Krakowski on sat 9 feb 08
Some years ago, during a minor gold rush, I bought a very good camera to
take slides with. Since then I have submitted diverse slides, all on
Ektachrome, to magazines and the slides have been ok.
Since then I have bought a regular, run of the mill , digital camera, which
does not remarkable pixel wise.
Question: How many pixels are needed to pass as properly submitted "images"
?
Lili Krakowski
Be of good courage
Tony Ferguson on sat 9 feb 08
Lili, I don't know if you read my post but at least 3 mega pixels will produce a very good slide. Of course, the higher, the better but 3 will do just fine. When I give my workshops, I encourage people to bring to their cameras and manuals. You would be surprised at how many people do not know how to set their quality on the highest settings and wonder why their camera's don't produce good effects.
Tony
Lili Krakowski wrote: Some years ago, during a minor gold rush, I bought a very good camera to
take slides with. Since then I have submitted diverse slides, all on
Ektachrome, to magazines and the slides have been ok.
Since then I have bought a regular, run of the mill , digital camera, which
does not remarkable pixel wise.
Question: How many pixels are needed to pass as properly submitted "images"
?
Lili Krakowski
Be of good courage
______________________________________________________________________________
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com
Tony Ferguson
315 N. Lake Ave. Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806
...where the sky meets the lake...
Artist, Educator, Photographer, Film Maker, Web Meister
fergyart@yahoo.com
(218) 727-6339
http://www.tonyferguson.net
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Carl Finch on sat 9 feb 08
At 08:23 AM 2/9/2008, Lili Krakowski wrote:
>Some years ago, during a minor gold rush, I bought a very good camera to
>take slides with. Since then I have submitted diverse slides, all on
>Ektachrome, to magazines and the slides have been ok.
>
>Since then I have bought a regular, run of the mill , digital camera, which
>does not remarkable pixel wise.
>
>Question: How many pixels are needed to pass
>as properly submitted "images"?
Ah, simple question--but not so the answer!
I suggest you google "digital camera pixels compared to film" and
read the first five or so results to see why.
One thing obvious to anyone with digital camera experience (and
particularly important to folks who shoot anything as reflective as
glazed pottery) is this:
"The biggest reason the results [digital vs. film] look different is
the highlights. We're used to the way film looks. It overloads
gracefully when things get too light or wash out. This mimics our eye
far better than digital. Digital's weak point is that highlights
abruptly clip and look horrible as soon as anything hits white.
Unlike film there is no gradual overload to white."
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
Current digital camera technology has more limited dynamic range than
that of film. Though, of course, different films have differing
dynamic ranges, too. There are some recently announced cameras
(Sony, for one) that feature Dynamic Range Optimization. I have no
idea how effective this is.
There are also some software solutions. One is Photoshop CS2 and 3,
(which I haven't seen) and another is Photomatix,
http://www.hdrsoft.com
which requires one to take three separate exposures of of ones
subject (pretty much requiring a tripod): one at normal exposure, one
underexposed, and one overexposed. The program then generates an
image that merges the best of each. They offer a free trial
version. I'd be curious to see if it would make lighting simpler for
pottery photography.
Anyway, those googled articles vary in depth but explain quite well
that there's more to it than simply "pixels." (And in none of them
did I encounter your bugbear, the A-word!)
--Carl
in Medford, Oregon
Warren Chu on sat 9 feb 08
The new Canon XSi has a live preview feature which becomes available this
spring I believe. I'm guessing NIkon will be adding the feature to their
prosumer SLR as well. BTW, not all the Olympus digital SLRs have a live
preview ability.
300dpi is 300 dots per inch which doesn't actually equate megapixels. 5mp is
about equivalent to a 8"x6" 300dpi print. Based on their guidelines 3mp
would fulfill the minimum of 5" at 300dpi.
I highly recommend find a store that carries models that you are interested
that will also let you shoot the camera if you bring in an appropriate
memory card. You can then go home and review the images to see which gives
you the look and feel you like the most.
On Feb 9, 2008 6:59 PM, Lee wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2008 1:23 AM, Lili Krakowski wrote:
> > Some years ago, during a minor gold rush, I bought a very good camera
> to
> > take slides with. Since then I have submitted diverse slides, all on
> > Ektachrome, to magazines and the slides have been ok.
> >
> > Since then I have bought a regular, run of the mill , digital camera,
> which
> > does not remarkable pixel wise.
>
> Lili,
>
> It depends on what you will do with the images. For
> example, CM needs 300dpi or better images of 5mp and up is good. (my
> camera is 10mp.) But when I sent my application in to NCC, they only
> needed 96dpi, because those images are not printed, but are projected.
> A 1mp camera can do that.
>
>
> > Question: How many pixels are needed to pass as properly submitted
> "images"
>
> As I said above, it depends upon what you are submitting to. What
> is more important, is that you preferably need a camera that can be
> set manually: focus, aperture, shutter speed. SLR cameras are best
> for this, but if you want a camera that you can see the image in the
> screen while you are shooting, only Olympus SLRs will do this.
>
> A camera that is a good value, bang for the buck camera, is the Canon
> A640. I did a lot of research and found this camera to be the best
> for the money. I paid less than $300.00 a couple years ago.
>
> --
> Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
> http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
>
> "Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you make the
> tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
> --Sen No Rikyu
> "Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
> subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here:
> http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
>
--
Warren
Lois Ruben Aronow on sat 9 feb 08
> >Question: How many pixels are needed to pass as properly submitted
> >"images"?
Depends on what you're submitting.
If you're submitting an image for the web, 72dpi wil do. For print, 355dpi
is what you need.
The number of megapixels your camera has will result in a sharper image, and
will give you more leeway in editting and resizing those digital images.
And not all cameras are alike. I have an excellent point and shoot that has
8.1mpx, but cameras (and photographers) are not created equally. My friend
uses a Nikon D40, which has 6mpx. His lens is better (and so is his
picture-taking ability).
Ron Wright on sun 10 feb 08
The whole point of having a SLR is to see the image through the lens. If
you want an use the image on a screen, as a view finder then a SLR is a
waste of money. Btw, I love my Nikon D40.
Ron Wright
3 Dogs Pottery
Chicago (Soon to be somewhere in the wilderness of Michigan)
Lee wrote:
>
>
> I did research into this, this summer when I helped a friend buy a
> Nikon D40. I was shocked to see you could not use the LCD as a
> viewfinder. We bought it the day before she left for Conrwall. She
> is a birder, so if I would have know about this, I would have
> recommended my Canon A640 instead. The swivel viewfinder is hand when
> you are trying to shoot birds between the trees.
>
>
>
Tony Ferguson on sun 10 feb 08
Marci,
The higher the megapixels the higher the dpi (dots per inch) which refers to physical print size. Ppi refers to pixels per inch and refers to screen pixels or the resolution of your display. You have plenty for print submissions if you work with your image correctly.
Tony
"marci Boskie's Mama =^..^=" wrote: Hi all,
Re: digital cameras:
Can anybody explain how dpi relates to megapixels? I guess ,
what Im asking is: if I have a 5 megapixel camera and shoot
images at the highest quality setting available will
I get enough dpi for print submission ? Or is there some
other setting I have to be aware of?
Also, a comment about why ....maybe.... people wander off Clayart:
While I LOVE reading the posts here ( and I even try
to plow through the many of them that are way over my head
, hoping Ill absorb some of the knowledge by osmosis),
reading those entire emails ONCE is usually plenty for me..
Having to scroll through them 10 times in a
digest because people replying to those emails dont have
the courtesy to edit the post they are replying to is a bit
much ...For example, I enjoyed Primalmommy's recent 100 line
post a lot the first time... not so much , the 2nd time when Lee
added his 1 line answer... Lee, I know you're busy
, but deleting the majority of the post you replied to would
have taken ..what...10 seconds, tops? I'm not meaning to pick
on Lee , because God knows he is not the only one doing
this...Actually reposting an entire email rather than editing
it seems to be the norm ...(and then we have the reposting of
the reposting of the reposting. ) ...... Its just that having
to slog through 100 line posts more than once has me reaching
for the duct tape to tape my skull back together ..
Crawling back into my hole till spring......
Marci Blattenberger Boskie's Mama =^..^=
http://www.marciblattenberger.com
marci@ppio.com
Porcelain Painters International Online http://www.ppio.com
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date: 2/9/2008 11:54 AM
______________________________________________________________________________
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com
Tony Ferguson
315 N. Lake Ave. Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806
...where the sky meets the lake...
Artist, Educator, Photographer, Film Maker, Web Meister
fergyart@yahoo.com
(218) 727-6339
http://www.tonyferguson.net
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
vpitelka on sun 10 feb 08
Marci -
While researching information to include in my part of the panel discussion
at NCECA on electronic resources, I found these two Techsoup websites. You
might find your answers there.
Techsoup Article - Understanding Images: A Guide to File Formats - learn all
about JPEGs, TIFFs, Bitmap, etc.
http://www.techsoup.org/learningcenter/software/page6041.cfm
Techsoup Article - Understanding Images: A Guide to Resolution and Size -
learn about the difference between dots and pixels, DPI and PPI, etc.
http://www.techsoup.org/learningcenter/software/page6045.cfm
I hope these are helpful -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
marci Boskie's Mama =^..^= on sun 10 feb 08
Hi all,
Re: digital cameras:
Can anybody explain how dpi relates to megapixels? I guess ,
what Im asking is: if I have a 5 megapixel camera and shoot
images at the highest quality setting available will
I get enough dpi for print submission ? Or is there some
other setting I have to be aware of?
Also, a comment about why ....maybe.... people wander off Clayart:
While I LOVE reading the posts here ( and I even try
to plow through the many of them that are way over my head
, hoping Ill absorb some of the knowledge by osmosis),
reading those entire emails ONCE is usually plenty for me..
Having to scroll through them 10 times in a
digest because people replying to those emails dont have
the courtesy to edit the post they are replying to is a bit
much ...For example, I enjoyed Primalmommy's recent 100 line
post a lot the first time... not so much , the 2nd time when Lee
added his 1 line answer... Lee, I know you're busy
, but deleting the majority of the post you replied to would
have taken ..what...10 seconds, tops? I'm not meaning to pick
on Lee , because God knows he is not the only one doing
this...Actually reposting an entire email rather than editing
it seems to be the norm ...(and then we have the reposting of
the reposting of the reposting. ) ...... Its just that having
to slog through 100 line posts more than once has me reaching
for the duct tape to tape my skull back together ..
Crawling back into my hole till spring......
Marci Blattenberger Boskie's Mama =^..^=
http://www.marciblattenberger.com
marci@ppio.com
Porcelain Painters International Online http://www.ppio.com
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date: 2/9/2008 11:54 AM
mark Cortright on sun 10 feb 08
I make my living with juried art show past 30 years- alot of shows have gone the way of Zapp
apps (dig images) or cds sent in- but about 1/3 I do still take (prefer slides) and a couple want
prints. I shoot it all ways at the get go. Use a few tripods load up slide film in a camera body and
shoot digital on another tripod. This is the cheapest way to get slides. I should say I have 7
cameras so another body is no problem but a film camera and a digital should be easy
enough.The set up is the time suck the shooting one tripod then switch to another is quick
enough.
Mark Cortright
www.liscomhillpottery.com
Lee on sun 10 feb 08
On Feb 10, 2008 1:15 PM, Tony Ferguson wrote:
> Lee, you might want to check your facts on the Olmpus SLR's.
Oh yeah? Gonna kick my a** or somethun? ;^)
Better be careful. 'cause I have a 3rd degree black belt in Haiku! jk!
You need to bone up Tony! See below:
The EVOLT E-330 is the world's first digital SLR to offer "Live"
viewing through the Color LCD, making it easier to compose and capture
the perfect shot. This big 2.5" LCD also features HyperCrystal?
technology and is designed with advanced swivel capability so you can
capture one dramatic result after another from up top, down low, and
everywhere in-between. With innovations like these - combined with
world-class optics and our patented Dust Reduction System - the E-330
lets you shoot like no other digital interchangeable lens SLR before.
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1226
It is true of the other cameras in the Evolt line.
I did research into this, this summer when I helped a friend buy a
Nikon D40. I was shocked to see you could not use the LCD as a
viewfinder. We bought it the day before she left for Conrwall. She
is a birder, so if I would have know about this, I would have
recommended my Canon A640 instead. The swivel viewfinder is hand when
you are trying to shoot birds between the trees.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you make the
tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
--Sen No Rikyu
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Lee on sun 10 feb 08
On Feb 10, 2008 1:21 PM, Tony Ferguson wrote:
>
> And let us not forget knowing how to edit and not degrade the image. Always work in native format
>and save versions, avoid mass filter effects with "auto" anything as
it degrades the image profile.
If you need the dpi, then extra mps are helpful when/if you crop an image.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you make the
tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
--Sen No Rikyu
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Lee on sun 10 feb 08
On Feb 10, 2008 1:23 AM, Lili Krakowski wrote:
> Some years ago, during a minor gold rush, I bought a very good camera to
> take slides with. Since then I have submitted diverse slides, all on
> Ektachrome, to magazines and the slides have been ok.
>
> Since then I have bought a regular, run of the mill , digital camera, which
> does not remarkable pixel wise.
Lili,
It depends on what you will do with the images. For
example, CM needs 300dpi or better images of 5mp and up is good. (my
camera is 10mp.) But when I sent my application in to NCC, they only
needed 96dpi, because those images are not printed, but are projected.
A 1mp camera can do that.
> Question: How many pixels are needed to pass as properly submitted "images"
As I said above, it depends upon what you are submitting to. What
is more important, is that you preferably need a camera that can be
set manually: focus, aperture, shutter speed. SLR cameras are best
for this, but if you want a camera that you can see the image in the
screen while you are shooting, only Olympus SLRs will do this.
A camera that is a good value, bang for the buck camera, is the Canon
A640. I did a lot of research and found this camera to be the best
for the money. I paid less than $300.00 a couple years ago.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you make the
tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
--Sen No Rikyu
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Lois Ruben Aronow on mon 11 feb 08
Not really. If you plan on cropping that photo, you still need to have
workable dpi to print it. The same is true if you want to resize that
cropped image and put in on your web site.
Then you have to ask yourself if a 5"x7" is really large enough. Do you
want to print out a photo and use it in a portfolio in your booth? If a
local newspaper calls, they will need a 300dpi picture, regardless of what
size they are going to print.
Like any of the changing technologies, the rule of thumb remains: buy as
much as your budget allows. if it's on the shelf, it's already obsolete.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of
> David Berg
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 4:49 PM
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Subject: Re: Slides, digital cameras and pixels
>
> I don't really understand all this talk about "dpi" for
> digital photography files. It is my understanding "dpi" (dots
> per inch) is a desktop printing term that refers to the the
> resolution of a photo that is either printed out on paper or
> scanned to paper and has nothing to do with the the digital
> resolution of an image file from the digital camera.
>
> So the real issue of whether a digital photo is high enough
> quality is based only on the the number of pixels that it
> comprises and nothing to do with the 72 dpi to which most
> digital cameras shoot. So, for example, if a camera took a
> digital image with a resolution of 2048 x 1536 pixels @ 72
> dpi and the publisher was to make a 5 X 7 inch print, then it
> would look beautiful with a printed out resolution of 293 dpi
> ... regardless of the fact that the camera took the picture at 72 dpi.
> David
>
> On Feb 9, 2008, at 7:59 PM, Lee wrote:
>
> > On Feb 10, 2008 1:23 AM, Lili Krakowski
> > wrote:
> >> Some years ago, during a minor gold rush, I bought a very good
> >> camera to take slides with. Since then I have submitted diverse
> >> slides, all on Ektachrome, to magazines and the slides
> have been ok.
> >>
> >> Since then I have bought a regular, run of the mill ,
> digital camera,
> >> which does not remarkable pixel wise.
> >
> > Lili,
> >
> > It depends on what you will do with the images. For
> > example, CM needs 300dpi or better images of 5mp and up is
> good. (my
> > camera is 10mp.) But when I sent my application in to NCC,
> they only
> > needed 96dpi, because those images are not printed, but are
> projected.
> > A 1mp camera can do that.
> >
> >
> >> Question: How many pixels are needed to pass as properly
> submitted
> >> "images"
> >
> > As I said above, it depends upon what you are submitting to. What
> > is more important, is that you preferably need a camera that can be
> > set manually: focus, aperture, shutter speed. SLR
> cameras are best
> > for this, but if you want a camera that you can see the
> image in the
> > screen while you are shooting, only Olympus SLRs will do this.
> >
> > A camera that is a good value, bang for the buck camera, is
> the Canon
> > A640. I did a lot of research and found this camera to
> be the best
> > for the money. I paid less than $300.00 a couple years ago.
> >
> > --
> > Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
> > http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
> >
> > "Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you
> make the
> > tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
> > --Sen No Rikyu "Let the beauty
> we love be
> > what we do." - Rumi
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> ________________
> > Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >
> > You may look at the archives for the list, post messages,
> change your
> > subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here:
> > http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
> >
> > Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> > melpots2@visi.com
>
> David Berg
> dberg2@comcast.net
> http://bergstoneware.com/
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ________________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages,
> change your subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the
> list here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots2@visi.com
Lee on mon 11 feb 08
On Feb 11, 2008 3:25 AM, marci Boskie's Mama =^..^= wrote:
> Hi all,
> Re: digital cameras:
> Can anybody explain how dpi relates to megapixels?
I posted this before and you can find it in the archives. But to
save you work:
http://www.unlikelymoose.com/more/cameras/megapixel_converter.html
megapixel dimensions raw size 300 dpi
(pixel x pixel) (MB) (inches x inches)
0.3 640 x 480 0.9 2.1 x 1.6
0.4 768 x 576 1.27MB 2.6 x 1.9
0.8 1024 x 768 2.25 3.4 x 2.6
1 1152 x 864 2.85 3.8 x 2.9
1.1 1216 x 912 3.17 4 x 3
1.2 1280 x 960 3.52 4.3 x 3.2
1.3 1280 x 1024 3.75 4.3 x 3.4
1.4 1344 x 1024 3.94 4.5 x 3.4
1.4 1280 x 1084 3.97 4.3 x 3.6
1.5 1520 x 1008 4.38 5 x 3.4
1.6 1536 x 1024 4.5 5.1 x 3.4
1.6 1472 x 1104 4.65 4.9 x 4.7
1.7 1360 x 1234 4.8 4.5 x 4.1
1.9 1600 x 1200 5.49 5.3 x 4 Nikon 950
2 1728 x 1152 5.7 5.8 x 3.8
2 1632 x 1232 5.75 5.4 x 4.1
2 1760 x 1168 5.88 5.9 x 3.9
2.1 1792 x 1200 6.15 6 x 4
2.1 1800 x 1200 6.18 6 x 4
2.3 1901 x 1212 6.59 6.3 x 4
2.3 1712 x 1368 6.7 5.7 x 4.6
2.6 1856 x 1392 7.39 6.2 x 4.6
2.6 2000 x 1312 7.51 6.7 x 4.4
2.7 1984 x 1360 7.72 6.6 x 4.5
3 1984 x 1488 8.45 6.6 x 5
3 2016 x 1512 8.72 6.7 x 5 Nikon SQ
3.1 2032 x 1524 8.86 6.8 x 5
3.1 2048 x 1536 9 6.8 x 5.1 Sony DSC-P5 Nikon 990
3.1 2160 x 1440 8.9 7.2 x 4.8
3.4 2268 x 1512 9.8 7.6 x 5
3.8 2240 x 1680 10.8 7.5 x 5.6
3.8 2272 x 1680 10.9 7.6 x 5.6
3.8 2400 x 1600 11 8 x 5.3
3.9 2272 x 1704 11.1 7.6 x 5.7
3.9 2288 x 1712 11.2 7.6 x 5.7
3.9 2304 x 1704 11.2 7.7 x 5.7
3.9 2304 x 1712 11.3 7.7 x 5.7
4 2304 x 1728 11.4 7.7 x 5.8
4 2448 x 1632 11.4 8.2 x 5.4
4 2464 x 1648 11.6 8.2 x 5.5
4.3 2400 x 1800 12.4 8 x 6
4.9 2560 x 1920 14.1 8.5 x 6.4
4.9 2540 x 1932 14 8.5 x 6.4
5 2592 x 1944 14.4 8.6 x 6.5
5.1 2608 x 1952 14.6 8.7 x 6.5
5.9 3008 x 1960 16.9 10 x 6.5
6 3008 x 2000 17.2 10 x 6.7 Nikon D100
5.9 2816 x 2112 17 9.4 x 7
6 2832 x 2128 17.2 9.4 x 7
6 3032 x 2008 17.4 10.1 x 6.7
6.1 2856 x 2142 17.5 9.5 x 7.1
6.2 2872 x 2160 17.7 9.6 x 7.2
6.3 3072 x 2048 18 10.2 x 6.8
7 3072 x 2304 20.3 10.2 x 7.7
7.1 3264 x 2176 20.3 10.9 x 7.3
8 3264 x 2448 22.9 10.9 x 8.2 Nikon 8800
8.2 3504 x 2336 23.4 11.7 x 7.8
8.3 3350 x 2482 23.8 11.2 x 8.3
11 4064 x 2704 31.4 13.6 x 9 Lee's camera is 10 megapixels.
12.1 4256 x 2848 34.7 14.2 x 9.5
12.3 4048 x 3040 35.2 13.5 x 10.1
13.5 4500 x 3000 38.6 15 x 10
16.6 4072 x 4072 47.4 13.6 x 13.6
16.6 4992 x 3328 47.5 16.6 x 11
--
Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you make the
tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
--Sen No Rikyu
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
David Berg on mon 11 feb 08
I don't really understand all this talk about "dpi" for digital
photography
files. It is my understanding "dpi" (dots per inch) is a desktop
printing
term that refers to the the resolution of a photo that is either
printed out
on paper or scanned to paper and has nothing to do with the the digital
resolution of an image file from the digital camera.
So the real issue of whether a digital photo is high enough quality is
based only on the the number of pixels that it comprises and nothing
to do with the 72 dpi to which most digital cameras shoot. So, for
example,
if a camera took a digital image with a resolution of 2048 x 1536 pixels
@ 72 dpi and the publisher was to make a 5 X 7 inch print, then it would
look beautiful with a printed out resolution of 293 dpi ... regardless
of the
fact that the camera took the picture at 72 dpi.
David
On Feb 9, 2008, at 7:59 PM, Lee wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2008 1:23 AM, Lili Krakowski
> wrote:
>> Some years ago, during a minor gold rush, I bought a very good
>> camera to
>> take slides with. Since then I have submitted diverse slides, all on
>> Ektachrome, to magazines and the slides have been ok.
>>
>> Since then I have bought a regular, run of the mill , digital
>> camera, which
>> does not remarkable pixel wise.
>
> Lili,
>
> It depends on what you will do with the images. For
> example, CM needs 300dpi or better images of 5mp and up is good. (my
> camera is 10mp.) But when I sent my application in to NCC, they only
> needed 96dpi, because those images are not printed, but are projected.
> A 1mp camera can do that.
>
>
>> Question: How many pixels are needed to pass as properly submitted
>> "images"
>
> As I said above, it depends upon what you are submitting to. What
> is more important, is that you preferably need a camera that can be
> set manually: focus, aperture, shutter speed. SLR cameras are best
> for this, but if you want a camera that you can see the image in the
> screen while you are shooting, only Olympus SLRs will do this.
>
> A camera that is a good value, bang for the buck camera, is the Canon
> A640. I did a lot of research and found this camera to be the best
> for the money. I paid less than $300.00 a couple years ago.
>
> --
> Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
> http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
>
> "Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you make the
> tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
> --Sen No Rikyu
> "Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
> subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com
David Berg
dberg2@comcast.net
http://bergstoneware.com/
Tony Ferguson on mon 11 feb 08
Ron,
That is part of the point. The other part of the point is very increased depth of field--most non slr's go to 8 if you are lucky--a most slrs goe to 25+. My g1 had a flip out screen that I really liked because I didn't have to crane my neck to look through the camera. My rebel did not and it hurt to shoot as I was always craning. I am so glad my 40d has a live preview as it saves my neck injury from really hurting (even though I hurt for a few days after) compared to if I had to change my posture for the 600 pictures I take on average when I do a shoot. Live preview also serves to allow you to make adjustments and f-stop preview--see exactly what the camera is seeing (with the exception of the lack of full frame). So, now if they only added a flip up adjustable screen so it was like looking down on a medium format camera and I would be set. Take it easy.
Tony
Ron Wright wrote: The whole point of having a SLR is to see the image through the lens. If
you want an use the image on a screen, as a view finder then a SLR is a
waste of money. Btw, I love my Nikon D40.
Ron Wright
3 Dogs Pottery
Chicago (Soon to be somewhere in the wilderness of Michigan)
Lee wrote:
>
>
> I did research into this, this summer when I helped a friend buy a
> Nikon D40. I was shocked to see you could not use the LCD as a
> viewfinder. We bought it the day before she left for Conrwall. She
> is a birder, so if I would have know about this, I would have
> recommended my Canon A640 instead. The swivel viewfinder is hand when
> you are trying to shoot birds between the trees.
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________________
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com
Tony Ferguson
315 N. Lake Ave. Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806
...where the sky meets the lake...
Artist, Educator, Photographer, Film Maker, Web Meister
fergyart@yahoo.com
(218) 727-6339
http://www.tonyferguson.net
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
David Hendley on mon 11 feb 08
Regarding digital cameras, everyone has megapixels on the brain.
Rating the quality of an image based solely on the megapixels
of the camera would be like comparing cars only on horsepower
or amplifiers only on output amps.
There is more involved in producing a quality image. The lens
is particularly important.
In fact, in conversations with CM editors several years ago, they
said they would not accept digital images because they were
inferior. They were getting a rash of digital photographs from
consumer-level point-and-shoot cameras and the quality was not
there. Of course that has now changed, especially with the
proliferation of quality digital SLR cameras.
For publication, digital images need to be 300 dpi, at the size
they will be printed. This roughly translates to a 3MP camera
required for a 4 X 6 inch image, to a 10 MP camera required
for a 9 X 12" image. It's always better to have some extra
pixels, in case the image needs to be cropped.
I have exceeded these limitations and had things printed at
lower resolutions, and they still look OK to me, but 300 dpi
is the standard for first quality printing.
David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
david(at)farmpots(dot)com
http://www.farmpots.com
----- Original Message -----
> Some years ago, during a minor gold rush, I bought a very good camera to
> take slides with. Since then I have submitted diverse slides, all on
> Ektachrome, to magazines and the slides have been ok.
>
> Since then I have bought a regular, run of the mill , digital camera,
> which
> does not remarkable pixel wise.
>
> Question: How many pixels are needed to pass as properly submitted
> "images"
> ?
Lee on mon 11 feb 08
On Feb 11, 2008 1:59 PM, Ron Wright wrote:
> The whole point of having a SLR is to see the image through the lens. If
> you want an use the image on a screen, as a view finder then a SLR is a
> waste of money. Btw, I love my Nikon D40.
Actually, you do view through the lense in the LCD view finder. It
gets rid of the parallax effect on rangefinder cameras. The
advantage of having both is that you can choose which is the best tool
for the job.
The LCD, especially like the one on the Canon A640, is very
versatile, and can swivel in all directions. These are handy when
you have the camera on the tripod shooting pots. It is also good for
candid shots, like the old top view film cameras (you can hold the
camera at waist height, so folks don't know you are pointing at them),
and for close up shooting, when you cannot get your face in the
optical viewfinder because you are close to the ground, etc.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you make the
tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
--Sen No Rikyu
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Lee on tue 12 feb 08
On Feb 12, 2008 6:49 AM, David Berg wrote:
> I don't really understand all this talk about "dpi" for digital
> photography
> files. It is my understanding "dpi" (dots per inch) is a desktop
> printing
You got it. It is how the file will print.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you make the
tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
--Sen No Rikyu
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Bruce Girrell on tue 12 feb 08
"David Berg wrote:
> So the real issue of whether a digital photo is high enough quality is
> based only on the the number of pixels that it comprises and nothing
> to do with the 72 dpi to which most digital cameras shoot.
Digital cameras do not shoot at 72 dpi.
For example, our Nikon D70s has an image size of 6.1 megapixels in a 3008 x
2000 pixel array. Its image sensor size is 23.7 mm x 15.7 mm (0.933" x
0.618"), so the camera is shooting at 3230 dpi (I averaged 3008/0.933 and
2000/0.618), not 72 dpi.
A printed image looks pretty good at 300 dpi. That means that the D70s can
produce in image of 10" x 6.7" at 300 dpi (3008/300 x 2000/300). Anything
smaller print size could have better resolution or else you could afford to
decrease the pixel count to produce a smaller file size. But anything larger
will start to suffer degradation of the image because the pixels will have
to be interpolated (and they have already undergone quite a bit of
interpolation just in the conversion from raw data to a viewable image*).
Yes, you can sharpen the image up a bit with processing, but there is only
so much that you can do. The stuff you see in movies about extracting a
license plate number from a blurry low resolution security camera image is
just Hollywood make believe. It doesn't happen.
Bruce Girrell
* The raw image in the camera is actually composed of red, blue and green
pixels arranged in a pattern like:
R G R G R G R G
G B G B G B G B
R G R G R G R G
G B G B G B G B
Note that there are twice as many G pixels as either R or B. That means that
for any image, 50% of the pixels that are recorded contain green
information, 25% contain blue, and 25% contain red. The other 50% of the
green and the other 75% (75%!!!!) of the red and blue information has to be
interpolated
Wayne Kilburn on wed 13 feb 08
My day job is in the graphic arts industry, so I deal with issues like this day in and day out.
DPI and PPI are used interchangebly in the printing industry, but they refer to very different things. DPI applies to traditional printing press work, and refers to the number of printed dots it takes to create a line 1 inch long. In the old days before we used computers for everything, photos and color tints were printed in various DPI increments and this affected the quality of your final product. For example, a photo printed using a 60 DPI screen uses bigger dots than a photo printed with a 150 DPI screen. The 60 DPI photo will appear coarser, and contain less detail.
Today, with the advent of digital photography, user education is critical to successful print production. In order to create usable art files for printing press production, at it's final reproduction size the PPI of a digital photo must be twice the DPI that it will be printed at. For example, if a 4 x 5 inch photo will be printed in a magazine at 150 DPI, your digital photo must be at least 300 PPI when it is sized to 4 x 5. If the same 4 x 5 photo will be printed in your local newspaper at 80 DPI, it must be at least 160 PPI at final size.
Complicating all of this is the fact that once a photo has been captured by your camera, or scanner, the amount of digital information it contains is fixed. It contains a finite number of pixels, or "dots". If you reduce the physical size of an image, the pixels "get closer". If you enlarge the photo they "get farther apart". Thus, you can make the image smaller and maintain quality, but enlarging it will cause the production quality to deteriorate.
Software such as PhotoShop will interpolate the digital information as you enlarge an image. That is, as the image is enlarged, and the pixels "move apart" it will "guess" as to what pixels should be added to maintain the image. That's fine and good to a point. After about 120% the software's "guessing" gets pretty bad, and your image quality begins to decline.
That is why, if you intend to reproduce your photos on a traditional printing press you should capture them at the highest PPI and physical size possible. You can always reduce both PPI and size while maintaining quality, but you can't maintain quality while enlarging the image beyond it's original creation size.
Feel free to contact me if you'd like further clarification.
Wayne Kilburn
Stone Leaf Studio
Everett, WA
On Feb 12, 2008 6:49 AM, David Berg wrote:
> I don't really understand all this talk about "dpi" for digital
> photography
> files. It is my understanding "dpi" (dots per inch) is a desktop
> printing
You got it. It is how the file will print.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Lee on wed 13 feb 08
On 2/13/08, Bruce Girrell wrote:
>
> Digital cameras do not shoot at 72 dpi.
> For example, our Nikon D70s has an image size of 6.1 megapixels in a 3008 x
> 2000 pixel array. Its image sensor size is 23.7 mm x 15.7 mm (0.933" x
> 0.618"), so the camera is shooting at 3230 dpi (I averaged 3008/0.933 and
> 2000/0.618), not 72 dpi.
As Dave said, DPI has nothing to do with the camera.
The D70 unaltered image will make a 72dpi image, but printed out at
72dip will be very large: 41.78 x 27.78 inches
Go here and calculate for yourself:
http://www.classical-webdesigns.co.uk/resources/pixelinchconvert.html
Remember, pixels are the measurements of the camera image. DPI dots
per inch is simply the printing density.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you make the
tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
--Sen No Rikyu
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Tony Ferguson on wed 13 feb 08
It might be huge in terms of its physical size, Lee, but as you know, the quality at 72 dpi will be crappy.
Tony
Lee wrote: On 2/13/08, Bruce Girrell wrote:
>
> Digital cameras do not shoot at 72 dpi.
> For example, our Nikon D70s has an image size of 6.1 megapixels in a 3008 x
> 2000 pixel array. Its image sensor size is 23.7 mm x 15.7 mm (0.933" x
> 0.618"), so the camera is shooting at 3230 dpi (I averaged 3008/0.933 and
> 2000/0.618), not 72 dpi.
As Dave said, DPI has nothing to do with the camera.
The D70 unaltered image will make a 72dpi image, but printed out at
72dip will be very large: 41.78 x 27.78 inches
Go here and calculate for yourself:
http://www.classical-webdesigns.co.uk/resources/pixelinchconvert.html
Remember, pixels are the measurements of the camera image. DPI dots
per inch is simply the printing density.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you make the
tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
--Sen No Rikyu
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
______________________________________________________________________________
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com
Tony Ferguson
315 N. Lake Ave. Apt 312
Duluth, MN 55806
...where the sky meets the lake...
Artist, Educator, Photographer, Film Maker, Web Meister
fergyart@yahoo.com
(218) 727-6339
http://www.tonyferguson.net
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Lee on thu 14 feb 08
Here are a couple articles that help explain why you need less dpi the
farther away the image is viewed from. It is a fundimental optical
phenomenon:
http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/dcorner/texto5.html
Of course, if you began with a higher resolution, say, 1536 by 1024
pixels, you would get excellent 7.6 by 5.1 inch photos at 200 ppi. And
you could even get good 10.6 by 7.1 inch photos at 144 ppi provided
that you weren't going to hold them right up to your nose to examine
them, since viewing distance has a lot to do with what an image looks
like. Outdoor billboard images are printed at only 18 dpi but they
look great...from the right distance. If all of this sounds a bit
confusing, just make a few test prints at various resolutions and see
how they look. You'll quickly know what works and what doesn't.
http://www.signindustry.com/outdoor/articles/2001-03-19-viewingDistance.php3
While driving down the road a billboard with a picture of Michael
Jordan catches your eye. It looks life-like right? Now make an
educated guess at the distance in which you are viewing the billboard.
The distance will probably range between 500 to 2500 feet. Did you
know that the average size of a billboard is 14 feet in height by 48
feet in length and that the resolutions of a billboard print ranges
between 2 to 20 dots per inch (DPI)? Consider drawing a one-inch by
one inch square on a piece of paper. Now draw two circles side by side
in that one-inch square and fill them in so that they are solid black.
What you are looking at is a resolution of 2 dots per inch. If you
were to fill a piece of paper with however many one inch squares
(including the filled circles) that will fit and place it on a wall,
then stand back 20 feet. Suddenly the paper starts to turn darker and
the further you move back the darker the paper becomes until it
appears solid black. This is the same effect that you see on a
billboard.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you make the
tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
--Sen No Rikyu
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Lee on thu 14 feb 08
On Feb 14, 2008 5:01 AM, Tony Ferguson wrote:
> It might be huge in terms of its physical size, Lee, but as you know, the quality at 72 dpi will be crappy.
It is relative. At arm's length, 72 dpi is crappy But If
put on a huge LCD screen and viewed from a distance, it would work.
Or, if it was on a billboard and you viewed it from 3 stories down.
At a distance higher resolution is lost to the naked eye.
Here in Japan most Pachinko parlors have LED billboards
that show movie type ads at night. The LEDs are eraser sized or
larger. They create very nice images.
So, it is the tool and the qualties that fit the use that is important.
A friend of mine here used to make show posters with one of
the frist consumer Nikon's available. The resolution was not so
good, but he used the pixalation in an interesting way, incorporating
it into the feel of the poster. I was really surprized that he could
get poster sized images out of his camera.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Tochigi Japan
http://mashikopots.blogspot.com/
"Tea is nought but this: first you heat the water, then you make the
tea. Then you drink it properly. That is all you need to know."
--Sen No Rikyu
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
| |
|
