Challenge (picture resolution)

[Guest]

I would like to know what picture resolution I should be using when I am submitting a picture for the challenge? I set the pixel size of the canvas to under 800 pixels to stay within the challenge guidelines but what should the resolution be set to. Thank you for any suggestions, Keith.

[Guest]

I always use 72 ppi and Grant has never complained until now.
But he might have some consideration towards me. ;-)

Leen

[Guest]

I always use 72 ppi and Grant has never complained until now.
But he might have some consideration towards me. ;-)

Leen

[Guest]

I always use 72 ppi and Grant has never complained until now.
But he might have some consideration towards me. ;-)

Leen

[Guest]

I always use 72 ppi and Grant has never complained until now.
But he might have some consideration towards me. ;-)

Leen

[Guest]

I always use 72 ppi and Grant has never complained until now.
But he might have some consideration towards me. ;-)

Leen

[Guest]

I always use 72 ppi and Grant has never complained until now.
But he might have some consideration towards me. ;-)

Leen

[Guest]

If you use 'Save for Web' you get automatically 72 ppi. It also comes in
handy to size the image.

Juergen

[Guest]

If you use 'Save for Web' you get automatically 72 ppi. It also comes in
handy to size the image.

Juergen

[Guest]

If you use 'Save for Web' you get automatically 72 ppi. It also comes in
handy to size the image.

Juergen

[Guest]

If you use 'Save for Web' you get automatically 72 ppi. It also comes in
handy to size the image.

Juergen

[Guest]

If you use 'Save for Web' you get automatically 72 ppi. It also comes in
handy to size the image.

Juergen

[Guest]

If you use 'Save for Web' you get automatically 72 ppi. It also comes in
handy to size the image.

Juergen

[Guest]

It makes no difference what resolution you save them as. The only thing is
to make sure is they do not exceed 800 x 800 pixels.

Grant

[Guest]

It makes no difference what resolution you save them as. The only thing is
to make sure is they do not exceed 800 x 800 pixels.

Grant

[Guest]

It makes no difference what resolution you save them as. The only thing is
to make sure is they do not exceed 800 x 800 pixels.

Grant

[Guest]

It makes no difference what resolution you save them as. The only thing is
to make sure is they do not exceed 800 x 800 pixels.

Grant

[Guest]

It makes no difference what resolution you save them as. The only thing is
to make sure is they do not exceed 800 x 800 pixels.

Grant

[Guest]

It makes no difference what resolution you save them as. The only thing is
to make sure is they do not exceed 800 x 800 pixels.

Grant

[Guest]

Keith,

When I saw the topic of this thread, I supressed a sigh...you probably read that one should size an image for web viewing at a resolution of 72 ppi. A more realistic way to look at sizing for screen viewing is to understand that a monitor is set for a certain resolution by the owner, commonly 1024 x 768. This translates to meaning the maximum number of pixels displayed on screen is 1024 pixels in the horizontal dimension and 768 pixels in the vertical. Allowing for the space occupied by the menu bar, tool bar etc the actual "free" space is much less. To display an image which can be viewed in its entirety, without the viewer having to scroll, one would resize their images to occupy only the free space dimensions. The unit here is pixels. Resize in terms of pixels. Monitors do not understand resolution. Resolution is only important for printing. Because people use different monitor resolutions, a safe size to have your image at is; a maximum of 550 pixels in the vertical and a max of 800 in the horizontal. As an image's aspect ratio can vary, resize to 800 ppi (horizontal) for a landscape, with Image>Resize have Resample/Constrain checked, enter 800 for horizontal and let the vertical value fill itself in. For a portrait, resize to 550 pixels in the vertical and let the horizontal value fill itself in.

A great site explaining this and A LOT more, is

<http://scantips.com>

Nancy

[Guest]

Keith,

When I saw the topic of this thread, I supressed a sigh...you probably read that one should size an image for web viewing at a resolution of 72 ppi. A more realistic way to look at sizing for screen viewing is to understand that a monitor is set for a certain resolution by the owner, commonly 1024 x 768. This translates to meaning the maximum number of pixels displayed on screen is 1024 pixels in the horizontal dimension and 768 pixels in the vertical. Allowing for the space occupied by the menu bar, tool bar etc the actual "free" space is much less. To display an image which can be viewed in its entirety, without the viewer having to scroll, one would resize their images to occupy only the free space dimensions. The unit here is pixels. Resize in terms of pixels. Monitors do not understand resolution. Resolution is only important for printing. Because people use different monitor resolutions, a safe size to have your image at is; a maximum of 550 pixels in the vertical and a max of 800 in the horizontal. As an image's aspect ratio can vary, resize to 800 ppi (horizontal) for a landscape, with Image>Resize have Resample/Constrain checked, enter 800 for horizontal and let the vertical value fill itself in. For a portrait, resize to 550 pixels in the vertical and let the horizontal value fill itself in.

A great site explaining this and A LOT more, is

<http://scantips.com>

Nancy

[Guest]

Keith,

When I saw the topic of this thread, I supressed a sigh...you probably read that one should size an image for web viewing at a resolution of 72 ppi. A more realistic way to look at sizing for screen viewing is to understand that a monitor is set for a certain resolution by the owner, commonly 1024 x 768. This translates to meaning the maximum number of pixels displayed on screen is 1024 pixels in the horizontal dimension and 768 pixels in the vertical. Allowing for the space occupied by the menu bar, tool bar etc the actual "free" space is much less. To display an image which can be viewed in its entirety, without the viewer having to scroll, one would resize their images to occupy only the free space dimensions. The unit here is pixels. Resize in terms of pixels. Monitors do not understand resolution. Resolution is only important for printing. Because people use different monitor resolutions, a safe size to have your image at is; a maximum of 550 pixels in the vertical and a max of 800 in the horizontal. As an image's aspect ratio can vary, resize to 800 ppi (horizontal) for a landscape, with Image>Resize have Resample/Constrain checked, enter 800 for horizontal and let the vertical value fill itself in. For a portrait, resize to 550 pixels in the vertical and let the horizontal value fill itself in.

A great site explaining this and A LOT more, is

<http://scantips.com>

Nancy

[Guest]

Keith,

When I saw the topic of this thread, I supressed a sigh...you probably read that one should size an image for web viewing at a resolution of 72 ppi. A more realistic way to look at sizing for screen viewing is to understand that a monitor is set for a certain resolution by the owner, commonly 1024 x 768. This translates to meaning the maximum number of pixels displayed on screen is 1024 pixels in the horizontal dimension and 768 pixels in the vertical. Allowing for the space occupied by the menu bar, tool bar etc the actual "free" space is much less. To display an image which can be viewed in its entirety, without the viewer having to scroll, one would resize their images to occupy only the free space dimensions. The unit here is pixels. Resize in terms of pixels. Monitors do not understand resolution. Resolution is only important for printing. Because people use different monitor resolutions, a safe size to have your image at is; a maximum of 550 pixels in the vertical and a max of 800 in the horizontal. As an image's aspect ratio can vary, resize to 800 ppi (horizontal) for a landscape, with Image>Resize have Resample/Constrain checked, enter 800 for horizontal and let the vertical value fill itself in. For a portrait, resize to 550 pixels in the vertical and let the horizontal value fill itself in.

A great site explaining this and A LOT more, is

<http://scantips.com>

Nancy

[Guest]

Keith,

When I saw the topic of this thread, I supressed a sigh...you probably read that one should size an image for web viewing at a resolution of 72 ppi. A more realistic way to look at sizing for screen viewing is to understand that a monitor is set for a certain resolution by the owner, commonly 1024 x 768. This translates to meaning the maximum number of pixels displayed on screen is 1024 pixels in the horizontal dimension and 768 pixels in the vertical. Allowing for the space occupied by the menu bar, tool bar etc the actual "free" space is much less. To display an image which can be viewed in its entirety, without the viewer having to scroll, one would resize their images to occupy only the free space dimensions. The unit here is pixels. Resize in terms of pixels. Monitors do not understand resolution. Resolution is only important for printing. Because people use different monitor resolutions, a safe size to have your image at is; a maximum of 550 pixels in the vertical and a max of 800 in the horizontal. As an image's aspect ratio can vary, resize to 800 ppi (horizontal) for a landscape, with Image>Resize have Resample/Constrain checked, enter 800 for horizontal and let the vertical value fill itself in. For a portrait, resize to 550 pixels in the vertical and let the horizontal value fill itself in.

A great site explaining this and A LOT more, is

<http://scantips.com>

Nancy

[Guest]

Keith,

When I saw the topic of this thread, I supressed a sigh...you probably read that one should size an image for web viewing at a resolution of 72 ppi. A more realistic way to look at sizing for screen viewing is to understand that a monitor is set for a certain resolution by the owner, commonly 1024 x 768. This translates to meaning the maximum number of pixels displayed on screen is 1024 pixels in the horizontal dimension and 768 pixels in the vertical. Allowing for the space occupied by the menu bar, tool bar etc the actual "free" space is much less. To display an image which can be viewed in its entirety, without the viewer having to scroll, one would resize their images to occupy only the free space dimensions. The unit here is pixels. Resize in terms of pixels. Monitors do not understand resolution. Resolution is only important for printing. Because people use different monitor resolutions, a safe size to have your image at is; a maximum of 550 pixels in the vertical and a max of 800 in the horizontal. As an image's aspect ratio can vary, resize to 800 ppi (horizontal) for a landscape, with Image>Resize have Resample/Constrain checked, enter 800 for horizontal and let the vertical value fill itself in. For a portrait, resize to 550 pixels in the vertical and let the horizontal value fill itself in.

A great site explaining this and A LOT more, is

<http://scantips.com>

Nancy

[Guest]

Nancy,
I discovered something new last week. I use Windows-XP and Outlook Express 6. I have loaded several digital picture files from my new camera to a file on my desktop. I open this file, RIGHT click on one of the picture files (e.g. P1230051.JPG), and then click on send to>mail recipient. Now a box opens allowing me to select from among the following:
1. fits 640x480 window
2. fits 800x600 window
3. fits 1024x768 window
Your explanation addresses the rationale for these options ever so nicely.
Ken

[Guest]

Nancy,
I discovered something new last week. I use Windows-XP and Outlook Express 6. I have loaded several digital picture files from my new camera to a file on my desktop. I open this file, RIGHT click on one of the picture files (e.g. P1230051.JPG), and then click on send to>mail recipient. Now a box opens allowing me to select from among the following:
1. fits 640x480 window
2. fits 800x600 window
3. fits 1024x768 window
Your explanation addresses the rationale for these options ever so nicely.
Ken

[Guest]

Nancy,
I discovered something new last week. I use Windows-XP and Outlook Express 6. I have loaded several digital picture files from my new camera to a file on my desktop. I open this file, RIGHT click on one of the picture files (e.g. P1230051.JPG), and then click on send to>mail recipient. Now a box opens allowing me to select from among the following:
1. fits 640x480 window
2. fits 800x600 window
3. fits 1024x768 window
Your explanation addresses the rationale for these options ever so nicely.
Ken

[Guest]

Nancy,
I discovered something new last week. I use Windows-XP and Outlook Express 6. I have loaded several digital picture files from my new camera to a file on my desktop. I open this file, RIGHT click on one of the picture files (e.g. P1230051.JPG), and then click on send to>mail recipient. Now a box opens allowing me to select from among the following:
1. fits 640x480 window
2. fits 800x600 window
3. fits 1024x768 window
Your explanation addresses the rationale for these options ever so nicely.
Ken

[Guest]

Nancy,
I discovered something new last week. I use Windows-XP and Outlook Express 6. I have loaded several digital picture files from my new camera to a file on my desktop. I open this file, RIGHT click on one of the picture files (e.g. P1230051.JPG), and then click on send to>mail recipient. Now a box opens allowing me to select from among the following:
1. fits 640x480 window
2. fits 800x600 window
3. fits 1024x768 window
Your explanation addresses the rationale for these options ever so nicely.
Ken

[Guest]

Nancy,
I discovered something new last week. I use Windows-XP and Outlook Express 6. I have loaded several digital picture files from my new camera to a file on my desktop. I open this file, RIGHT click on one of the picture files (e.g. P1230051.JPG), and then click on send to>mail recipient. Now a box opens allowing me to select from among the following:
1. fits 640x480 window
2. fits 800x600 window
3. fits 1024x768 window
Your explanation addresses the rationale for these options ever so nicely.
Ken

[Guest]

Great explanation of this! I've always been confused with this, but you have made it so I understand
it much better.
Thanks all,
Jane

[Guest]

Great explanation of this! I've always been confused with this, but you have made it so I understand
it much better.
Thanks all,
Jane

[Guest]

Great explanation of this! I've always been confused with this, but you have made it so I understand
it much better.
Thanks all,
Jane

[Guest]

Great explanation of this! I've always been confused with this, but you have made it so I understand
it much better.
Thanks all,
Jane

[Guest]

Great explanation of this! I've always been confused with this, but you have made it so I understand
it much better.
Thanks all,
Jane

[Guest]

Great explanation of this! I've always been confused with this, but you have made it so I understand
it much better.
Thanks all,
Jane

[Guest]

Ken,

Good observation! I suppose it would only work for jpgs????

[Guest]

Ken,

Good observation! I suppose it would only work for jpgs????

[Guest]

Ken,

Good observation! I suppose it would only work for jpgs????

[Guest]

Ken,

Good observation! I suppose it would only work for jpgs????

[Guest]

Ken,

Good observation! I suppose it would only work for jpgs????

[Guest]

Ken,

Good observation! I suppose it would only work for jpgs????

[Guest]

Like Juergen I use Save For Web and resize the longest dimension to be 800 pixels. I then adjust the quality to get my kb's down to around 100. I've never even thought about what resolution it ends up being.

Joe

[Guest]

Like Juergen I use Save For Web and resize the longest dimension to be 800 pixels. I then adjust the quality to get my kb's down to around 100. I've never even thought about what resolution it ends up being.

Joe

[Guest]

Like Juergen I use Save For Web and resize the longest dimension to be 800 pixels. I then adjust the quality to get my kb's down to around 100. I've never even thought about what resolution it ends up being.

Joe

[Guest]

Like Juergen I use Save For Web and resize the longest dimension to be 800 pixels. I then adjust the quality to get my kb's down to around 100. I've never even thought about what resolution it ends up being.

Joe

[Guest]

Like Juergen I use Save For Web and resize the longest dimension to be 800 pixels. I then adjust the quality to get my kb's down to around 100. I've never even thought about what resolution it ends up being.

Joe

[Guest]

Like Juergen I use Save For Web and resize the longest dimension to be 800 pixels. I then adjust the quality to get my kb's down to around 100. I've never even thought about what resolution it ends up being.

Joe

[Guest]

JH,

You never thought about it because you knew it didn't matter...;)

EDIT: My version 1 has no ability to set the pixel dimensions.

[Guest]

JH,

You never thought about it because you knew it didn't matter...;)

EDIT: My version 1 has no ability to set the pixel dimensions.

[Guest]

JH,

You never thought about it because you knew it didn't matter...;)

EDIT: My version 1 has no ability to set the pixel dimensions.

[Guest]

JH,

You never thought about it because you knew it didn't matter...;)

EDIT: My version 1 has no ability to set the pixel dimensions.

[Guest]

JH,

You never thought about it because you knew it didn't matter...;)

EDIT: My version 1 has no ability to set the pixel dimensions.

[Guest]

JH,

You never thought about it because you knew it didn't matter...;)

EDIT: My version 1 has no ability to set the pixel dimensions.

[Guest]

You never thought about it because you knew it didn't matter...




Good one Nancy! ;-) After a couple years using PSE, scanning, printing digital images, etc., I still don't get most of this stuff. Resolution, dpi, ppi, etc., are still a mystery to me. I just do what I'm told (in the various discussions that go on here) and try not to think too hard on such things. Hurts my mellon.:-)

Joe

[Guest]

You never thought about it because you knew it didn't matter...




Good one Nancy! ;-) After a couple years using PSE, scanning, printing digital images, etc., I still don't get most of this stuff. Resolution, dpi, ppi, etc., are still a mystery to me. I just do what I'm told (in the various discussions that go on here) and try not to think too hard on such things. Hurts my mellon.:-)

Joe

[Guest]

You never thought about it because you knew it didn't matter...




Good one Nancy! ;-) After a couple years using PSE, scanning, printing digital images, etc., I still don't get most of this stuff. Resolution, dpi, ppi, etc., are still a mystery to me. I just do what I'm told (in the various discussions that go on here) and try not to think too hard on such things. Hurts my mellon.:-)

Joe

[Guest]

You never thought about it because you knew it didn't matter...




Good one Nancy! ;-) After a couple years using PSE, scanning, printing digital images, etc., I still don't get most of this stuff. Resolution, dpi, ppi, etc., are still a mystery to me. I just do what I'm told (in the various discussions that go on here) and try not to think too hard on such things. Hurts my mellon.:-)

Joe

[Guest]

You never thought about it because you knew it didn't matter...




Good one Nancy! ;-) After a couple years using PSE, scanning, printing digital images, etc., I still don't get most of this stuff. Resolution, dpi, ppi, etc., are still a mystery to me. I just do what I'm told (in the various discussions that go on here) and try not to think too hard on such things. Hurts my mellon.:-)

Joe

[Guest]

You never thought about it because you knew it didn't matter...




Good one Nancy! ;-) After a couple years using PSE, scanning, printing digital images, etc., I still don't get most of this stuff. Resolution, dpi, ppi, etc., are still a mystery to me. I just do what I'm told (in the various discussions that go on here) and try not to think too hard on such things. Hurts my mellon.:-)

Joe

[Guest]

JH,

Me thinks you jest.... but if not, the clearest explanation I ever saw on this topic is at Wayne's scantips site.

[Guest]

JH,

Me thinks you jest.... but if not, the clearest explanation I ever saw on this topic is at Wayne's scantips site.

[Guest]

JH,

Me thinks you jest.... but if not, the clearest explanation I ever saw on this topic is at Wayne's scantips site.

[Guest]

JH,

Me thinks you jest.... but if not, the clearest explanation I ever saw on this topic is at Wayne's scantips site.

[Guest]

JH,

Me thinks you jest.... but if not, the clearest explanation I ever saw on this topic is at Wayne's scantips site.

[Guest]

JH,

Me thinks you jest.... but if not, the clearest explanation I ever saw on this topic is at Wayne's scantips site.

[Guest]

Nancy,

No jesting on my part, that's for sure. Yeah Wayne's site is good and I've read through it more than once. Pretty much anything having to do with numbers or math goes right over (through) my head though. Oh well, I usually figure out eventually what needs to be done by trial and error and with the help of the good folks (like yourself) who hang out here.

Joe

[Guest]

Nancy,

No jesting on my part, that's for sure. Yeah Wayne's site is good and I've read through it more than once. Pretty much anything having to do with numbers or math goes right over (through) my head though. Oh well, I usually figure out eventually what needs to be done by trial and error and with the help of the good folks (like yourself) who hang out here.

Joe

[Guest]

Nancy,

No jesting on my part, that's for sure. Yeah Wayne's site is good and I've read through it more than once. Pretty much anything having to do with numbers or math goes right over (through) my head though. Oh well, I usually figure out eventually what needs to be done by trial and error and with the help of the good folks (like yourself) who hang out here.

Joe

[Guest]

Nancy,

No jesting on my part, that's for sure. Yeah Wayne's site is good and I've read through it more than once. Pretty much anything having to do with numbers or math goes right over (through) my head though. Oh well, I usually figure out eventually what needs to be done by trial and error and with the help of the good folks (like yourself) who hang out here.

Joe

[Guest]

Nancy,

No jesting on my part, that's for sure. Yeah Wayne's site is good and I've read through it more than once. Pretty much anything having to do with numbers or math goes right over (through) my head though. Oh well, I usually figure out eventually what needs to be done by trial and error and with the help of the good folks (like yourself) who hang out here.

Joe

[Guest]

Nancy,

No jesting on my part, that's for sure. Yeah Wayne's site is good and I've read through it more than once. Pretty much anything having to do with numbers or math goes right over (through) my head though. Oh well, I usually figure out eventually what needs to be done by trial and error and with the help of the good folks (like yourself) who hang out here.

Joe

[Guest]

JH,

Oh...well, I've heard it said, short on math skills is long on creativity.

[Guest]

JH,

Oh...well, I've heard it said, short on math skills is long on creativity.

[Guest]

JH,

Oh...well, I've heard it said, short on math skills is long on creativity.

[Guest]

JH,

Oh...well, I've heard it said, short on math skills is long on creativity.

[Guest]

JH,

Oh...well, I've heard it said, short on math skills is long on creativity.

[Guest]

JH,

Oh...well, I've heard it said, short on math skills is long on creativity.

[Guest]

Maybe it's already been said in one fashion or another, but if you're talking about an image in pixel dimensions, resolution is totally irrelevant. Only when you're discussing an image in inch dimensions does resolution come into play, and then its purpose is to translate back and forth between pixels and inches. There are an infinite number of combinations of inches and resolutions that give you the same pixel dimensions....and all are the same as far as an e-mailed, monitor-displayed image. Now if you start talking about printing, then resolution becomes relevant.

And don't forget: an irrelevant never forgets....

[Guest]

Maybe it's already been said in one fashion or another, but if you're talking about an image in pixel dimensions, resolution is totally irrelevant. Only when you're discussing an image in inch dimensions does resolution come into play, and then its purpose is to translate back and forth between pixels and inches. There are an infinite number of combinations of inches and resolutions that give you the same pixel dimensions....and all are the same as far as an e-mailed, monitor-displayed image. Now if you start talking about printing, then resolution becomes relevant.

And don't forget: an irrelevant never forgets....

[Guest]

Maybe it's already been said in one fashion or another, but if you're talking about an image in pixel dimensions, resolution is totally irrelevant. Only when you're discussing an image in inch dimensions does resolution come into play, and then its purpose is to translate back and forth between pixels and inches. There are an infinite number of combinations of inches and resolutions that give you the same pixel dimensions....and all are the same as far as an e-mailed, monitor-displayed image. Now if you start talking about printing, then resolution becomes relevant.

And don't forget: an irrelevant never forgets....

[Guest]

Maybe it's already been said in one fashion or another, but if you're talking about an image in pixel dimensions, resolution is totally irrelevant. Only when you're discussing an image in inch dimensions does resolution come into play, and then its purpose is to translate back and forth between pixels and inches. There are an infinite number of combinations of inches and resolutions that give you the same pixel dimensions....and all are the same as far as an e-mailed, monitor-displayed image. Now if you start talking about printing, then resolution becomes relevant.

And don't forget: an irrelevant never forgets....

[Guest]

Maybe it's already been said in one fashion or another, but if you're talking about an image in pixel dimensions, resolution is totally irrelevant. Only when you're discussing an image in inch dimensions does resolution come into play, and then its purpose is to translate back and forth between pixels and inches. There are an infinite number of combinations of inches and resolutions that give you the same pixel dimensions....and all are the same as far as an e-mailed, monitor-displayed image. Now if you start talking about printing, then resolution becomes relevant.

And don't forget: an irrelevant never forgets....

[Guest]

Maybe it's already been said in one fashion or another, but if you're talking about an image in pixel dimensions, resolution is totally irrelevant. Only when you're discussing an image in inch dimensions does resolution come into play, and then its purpose is to translate back and forth between pixels and inches. There are an infinite number of combinations of inches and resolutions that give you the same pixel dimensions....and all are the same as far as an e-mailed, monitor-displayed image. Now if you start talking about printing, then resolution becomes relevant.

And don't forget: an irrelevant never forgets....

[Guest]

I still don't get most of this stuff. Resolution, dpi, ppi, etc., are
still a mystery to me. I just do what I'm told ...




I think you're speaking for more than yourself, Joe. One thing that helped me a little was to play around with the settings in Image Resize. It gave me a little better understanding of the relationships between the parameters.

[Guest]

I still don't get most of this stuff. Resolution, dpi, ppi, etc., are
still a mystery to me. I just do what I'm told ...




I think you're speaking for more than yourself, Joe. One thing that helped me a little was to play around with the settings in Image Resize. It gave me a little better understanding of the relationships between the parameters.

[Guest]

I still don't get most of this stuff. Resolution, dpi, ppi, etc., are
still a mystery to me. I just do what I'm told ...




I think you're speaking for more than yourself, Joe. One thing that helped me a little was to play around with the settings in Image Resize. It gave me a little better understanding of the relationships between the parameters.

[Guest]

I still don't get most of this stuff. Resolution, dpi, ppi, etc., are
still a mystery to me. I just do what I'm told ...




I think you're speaking for more than yourself, Joe. One thing that helped me a little was to play around with the settings in Image Resize. It gave me a little better understanding of the relationships between the parameters.

[Guest]

I still don't get most of this stuff. Resolution, dpi, ppi, etc., are
still a mystery to me. I just do what I'm told ...




I think you're speaking for more than yourself, Joe. One thing that helped me a little was to play around with the settings in Image Resize. It gave me a little better understanding of the relationships between the parameters.

[Guest]

I still don't get most of this stuff. Resolution, dpi, ppi, etc., are
still a mystery to me. I just do what I'm told ...




I think you're speaking for more than yourself, Joe. One thing that helped me a little was to play around with the settings in Image Resize. It gave me a little better understanding of the relationships between the parameters.

[Guest]

Chuck, how's the motel ?

[Guest]

Chuck, how's the motel ?

[Guest]

Chuck, how's the motel ?

[Guest]

Chuck, how's the motel ?

[Guest]

Chuck, how's the motel ?

[Guest]

Chuck, how's the motel ?

[Guest]

Jodi, it's nice - great view of New Orleans and the Mississippi although I'm
only on the 11th floor...

[Guest]

Jodi, it's nice - great view of New Orleans and the Mississippi although I'm
only on the 11th floor...

[Guest]

Jodi, it's nice - great view of New Orleans and the Mississippi although I'm
only on the 11th floor...

[Guest]

Jodi, it's nice - great view of New Orleans and the Mississippi although I'm
only on the 11th floor...

[Guest]

Jodi, it's nice - great view of New Orleans and the Mississippi although I'm
only on the 11th floor...

[Guest]

Jodi, it's nice - great view of New Orleans and the Mississippi although I'm
only on the 11th floor...

[Guest]

OK, views...only on the 11th floor eh ? Sounds great to me. One of these days i may actually get away from this place !

[Guest]

OK, views...only on the 11th floor eh ? Sounds great to me. One of these days i may actually get away from this place !

[Guest]

OK, views...only on the 11th floor eh ? Sounds great to me. One of these days i may actually get away from this place !

[Guest]

OK, views...only on the 11th floor eh ? Sounds great to me. One of these days i may actually get away from this place !

[Guest]

OK, views...only on the 11th floor eh ? Sounds great to me. One of these days i may actually get away from this place !

[Guest]

OK, views...only on the 11th floor eh ? Sounds great to me. One of these days i may actually get away from this place !