CS3: image processor..

"maya" wrote in message

when I use image processor to convert PSDs to JPGs it leaves them at 300 dpi resolution (i.e., resolution in orig PSDs), but to post them online I need them to be at 72 dpi…

if I optimize them one by one the JPGs are at 72 dpi, but if I use image processor to optimize all photos in a folder the JPGs are 300 dpi, why is this..

thank you..

Try Irfanview, its free.

"maya" wrote in message

when I use image processor to convert PSDs to JPGs it leaves them at 300 dpi resolution (i.e., resolution in orig PSDs), but to post them online I need them to be at 72 dpi…

if I optimize them one by one the JPGs are at 72 dpi, but if I use image processor to optimize all photos in a folder the JPGs are 300 dpi, why is this..

thank you..

use save for web

sometimes we don’t want PS to change resolution just compress the file I have needed 300 dpi jpg many times

KatWoman wrote:

"maya" wrote in message

when I use image processor to convert PSDs to JPGs it leaves them at 300 dpi resolution (i.e., resolution in orig PSDs), but to post them online I need them to be at 72 dpi…

if I optimize them one by one the JPGs are at 72 dpi, but if I use image processor to optimize all photos in a folder the JPGs are 300 dpi, why is this..

thank you..

use save for web

sometimes we don’t want PS to change resolution just compress the file I have needed 300 dpi jpg many times

oh brother.. "save for web" is for when you’re optimizing photos one-by-one.. so why won’t image processor convert JPGs to 72 dpi? this renders this feature pretty useless..

so I created an action with "save for web"… problem is even though I tell it a specific destination folder it puts JPGs in same folder where orig PSDs are.. I have LOTS of photos to process, I won’t get very far at this pace..

thank you..

KatWoman wrote:

"maya" wrote in message

when I use image processor to convert PSDs to JPGs it leaves them at 300 dpi resolution (i.e., resolution in orig PSDs), but to post them online I need them to be at 72 dpi…

if I optimize them one by one the JPGs are at 72 dpi, but if I use image processor to optimize all photos in a folder the JPGs are 300 dpi, why is this..

thank you..

use save for web

sometimes we don’t want PS to change resolution just compress the file I have needed 300 dpi jpg many times

"just compress the files".. when I’m running image processor?? and how do I do that?????

problem is also that when I’m recording "save for web" action I have to tell it to put photos in a certain folder.. but when run action I need to put photos in a different folder every time I run action.. how do I "pause" when I’m recording action so I can choose destination for optimized JPGs every time I’m running the action? b/c now every time I run action it says file exists already, that’s b/c it’s trying to put optimized JPG in folder I said when I was recording action..

thank you..

Rudy Benner wrote:

"maya" wrote in message

when I use image processor to convert PSDs to JPGs it leaves them at 300 dpi resolution (i.e., resolution in orig PSDs), but to post them online I need them to be at 72 dpi…

if I optimize them one by one the JPGs are at 72 dpi, but if I use image processor to optimize all photos in a folder the JPGs are 300 dpi, why is this..

thank you..

Try Irfanview, its free.

ok, so how DO you do this in Irfanview?????

b/c when I hit "start batch" here…
http://www.mayacove.com/misc/ss_if.gif

nothing happens..

oh brother.. I’ve been trying to do this now for hours…. am getting nowhere…

thank you…

maya wrote:

Rudy Benner wrote:

"maya" wrote in message

when I use image processor to convert PSDs to JPGs it leaves them at 300 dpi resolution (i.e., resolution in orig PSDs), but to post them online I need them to be at 72 dpi…

if I optimize them one by one the JPGs are at 72 dpi, but if I use image processor to optimize all photos in a folder the JPGs are 300 dpi, why is this..

thank you..

Try Irfanview, its free.

ok, so how DO you do this in Irfanview?????

b/c when I hit "start batch" here…
http://www.mayacove.com/misc/ss_if.gif

nothing happens..

oh brother.. I’ve been trying to do this now for hours…. am getting nowhere…

thank you…

ok, I figured it out.. you have to ADD files in addition to telling it what folder.. HOWEVER: resulting JPGs are at 300 dpi… am back in square one..

this is unbelievable…

thank you…

"maya" wrote in message

KatWoman wrote:

"maya" wrote in message

when I use image processor to convert PSDs to JPGs it leaves them at 300 dpi resolution (i.e., resolution in orig PSDs), but to post them online I need them to be at 72 dpi…

if I optimize them one by one the JPGs are at 72 dpi, but if I use image processor to optimize all photos in a folder the JPGs are 300 dpi, why is this..

thank you..

use save for web

sometimes we don’t want PS to change resolution just compress the file

necessariily wish to change the resolution to 72

I have needed 300 dpi jpg many times

"just compress the files".. when I’m running image processor?? and how do I do that?????

jpg by design compresses files
you choose the compression settings 1-12 or low med high max etc I did not mean yo should just …
I meant sometimes when you want to save jpgs you don’t

problem is also that when I’m recording "save for web" action I have to tell it to put photos in a certain folder.. but when run action I need to put photos in a different folder every time I run action.. how do I "pause" when I’m recording action so I can choose destination for optimized JPGs every time I’m running the action? b/c now every time I run action it says file exists already, that’s b/c it’s trying to put optimized JPG in folder I said when I was recording action..
thank you..

If you are making an action to run why not just use image size to change the resolution to 72 as one of the steps??

KatWoman wrote:

"maya" wrote in message

KatWoman wrote:

"maya" wrote in message

when I use image processor to convert PSDs to JPGs it leaves them at 300 dpi resolution (i.e., resolution in orig PSDs), but to post them online I need them to be at 72 dpi…

if I optimize them one by one the JPGs are at 72 dpi, but if I use image processor to optimize all photos in a folder the JPGs are 300 dpi, why is this..

thank you..

use save for web

sometimes we don’t want PS to change resolution just compress the file

necessariily wish to change the resolution to 72

I have needed 300 dpi jpg many times

"just compress the files".. when I’m running image processor?? and how do I do that?????

jpg by design compresses files
you choose the compression settings 1-12 or low med high max etc I did not mean yo should just …
I meant sometimes when you want to save jpgs you don’t

problem is also that when I’m recording "save for web" action I have to tell it to put photos in a certain folder.. but when run action I need to put photos in a different folder every time I run action.. how do I "pause" when I’m recording action so I can choose destination for optimized JPGs every time I’m running the action? b/c now every time I run action it says file exists already, that’s b/c it’s trying to put optimized JPG in folder I said when I was recording action..
thank you..

If you are making an action to run why not just use image size to change the resolution to 72 as one of the steps??

I’m a bit confused about this now.. when I look at "image size" for the JPG converted with "save for web" it says it’s 600 x 400 px, 72 dpi, and
8.333 x 5.583 in.. when I look at "image size" for JPG I converted with
image processor it says it’s 600 x 400 px and 300 dpi and 2 x 1.34 in.. YET: they both look same size (I mean same dimensions) at 100% in Photoshop… I don’t understand this.. (orig PSD is 600 x 400 px, 300 dpi, and 2 x 1.34 in..) what I mean:
http://www.mayacove.com/misc/psd.html

so: how do I tell image processor to change resolution to 72 dpi but leave dimensions as they are?????? (which is what "save for web" does, but I can’t batch-process using "save for web" for reasons I have already explained..) image processor has a feature that says "resize to fit" — so, even though it didn’t make much sense, I said "resize" to 600 x 400 px and of course it did that, but it left resolution @ 300 dpi… i.e., can anyone tell me how to tell img-processor to optimize imgs to 72 dpi in img-processor dialog (& leave at same dimensions, just like "save for web" does?) screenshot of img-processor dialog is here: http://www.mayacove.com/misc/ss_img_processor.gif

man… why did they get rid of "droplet" feature in ImageReady? honestly, if I had known about this I would have purchased CS2 instead of CS3.. I would have been done optimizing all my images hours ago… I used to create droplets and then optimize entire folders full of PSDs in minutes..

thank you all very much for your help..

"maya" wrote in message

KatWoman wrote:

"maya" wrote in message

when I use image processor to convert PSDs to JPGs it leaves them at 300 dpi resolution (i.e., resolution in orig PSDs), but to post them online I need them to be at 72 dpi…

if I optimize them one by one the JPGs are at 72 dpi, but if I use image processor to optimize all photos in a folder the JPGs are 300 dpi, why is this..

thank you..

use save for web

sometimes we don’t want PS to change resolution just compress the file I have needed 300 dpi jpg many times

oh brother.. "save for web" is for when you’re optimizing photos one-by-one.. so why won’t image processor convert JPGs to 72 dpi? this renders this feature pretty useless..

so I created an action with "save for web"… problem is even though I tell it a specific destination folder it puts JPGs in same folder where orig PSDs are.. I have LOTS of photos to process, I won’t get very far at this pace..

thank you..

RE: File-Scripts-Image Processor

At the bottom of the dialog box is a section called Step 4 (Preferences). You can have an action run as part of the script. Make an action that resizes your image to 72ppi. Save it the action. When setting up the Image Processor, go to Step 4, check the box, select the action and all will be well.

maya wrote:

oh brother.. "save for web" is for when you’re optimizing photos one-by-one.. so why won’t image processor convert JPGs to 72 dpi? this renders this feature pretty useless..

Because, contrary to what many people think, dpi is irrelevant for the web. Web browsers don’t use it; they display an image at the resolution of the monitor, irrespective of what the ppi (not dpi) number may say. All you need to do to use Image Processor for web images, is specify a low *total number of pixels*, for example 400 x 600 pixels, in the ‘Resize to Fit’ option.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

"Pico" <pico at idrailogid.ten> wrote in message

RE: File-Scripts-Image Processor

At the bottom of the dialog box is a section called Step 4 (Preferences). You can have an action run as part of the script. Make an action that resizes your image to 72ppi. Save it the action. When setting up the Image Processor, go to Step 4, check the box, select the action and all will be well.

Adding to my own post.

As others have noted, using Image – Image Size (all boxes checked) and changing PPI to 72 (for example) from 300ppi will change the overall size of the image. It will be smaller by 72/300 ratio. If that’s ok, then do the above.

If that is not ok, and you want the final 72ppi image to be as big as the 300ppi appears on the screen (in View – Actual Pixels), then uncheck the "Resample Image" box.

If that’s too big (and it probably is), then perhaps it will do to add to the action mentioned first above this: File – Automate – Fit Image. Put in the same value for both dialog boxes and all images, regardless of vertical or horizontal, will be fit into that square, maintaining proper proportions.

If that’s no good, then my fee is $96 an hour. But I’m having coffee right now so this is free. (Big Laugh. If that were true I wouldn’t be here, or drinking coffee at the loss of $96 an hour.)

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:52:25 -0400, maya wrote:

maya wrote:

Rudy Benner wrote:

"maya" wrote in message

when I use image processor to convert PSDs to JPGs it leaves them at 300 dpi resolution (i.e., resolution in orig PSDs), but to post them online I need them to be at 72 dpi…

if I optimize them one by one the JPGs are at 72 dpi, but if I use image processor to optimize all photos in a folder the JPGs are 300 dpi, why is this..

thank you..

Try Irfanview, its free.

ok, so how DO you do this in Irfanview?????

b/c when I hit "start batch" here…
http://www.mayacove.com/misc/ss_if.gif

nothing happens..

oh brother.. I’ve been trying to do this now for hours…. am getting nowhere…

thank you…

ok, I figured it out.. you have to ADD files in addition to telling it what folder.. HOWEVER: resulting JPGs are at 300 dpi… am back in square one..

this is unbelievable…

thank you…

Who told you you need to change the resolution ?
What are you trying to achieve?

dpi setting for display on a screen is completely irrelevant. Forget it. It is meaningless.

Just change the pixel dimensions to what you need – 800 x 600 or whatever.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:43:54 -0400, maya wrote:

KatWoman wrote:

"maya" wrote in message

KatWoman wrote:

"maya" wrote in message

when I use image processor to convert PSDs to JPGs it leaves them at 300 dpi resolution (i.e., resolution in orig PSDs), but to post them online I need them to be at 72 dpi…

if I optimize them one by one the JPGs are at 72 dpi, but if I use image processor to optimize all photos in a folder the JPGs are 300 dpi, why is this..

thank you..

use save for web

sometimes we don’t want PS to change resolution just compress the file

necessariily wish to change the resolution to 72

I have needed 300 dpi jpg many times

"just compress the files".. when I’m running image processor?? and how do I do that?????

jpg by design compresses files
you choose the compression settings 1-12 or low med high max etc I did not mean yo should just …
I meant sometimes when you want to save jpgs you don’t

problem is also that when I’m recording "save for web" action I have to tell it to put photos in a certain folder.. but when run action I need to put photos in a different folder every time I run action.. how do I "pause" when I’m recording action so I can choose destination for optimized JPGs every time I’m running the action? b/c now every time I run action it says file exists already, that’s b/c it’s trying to put optimized JPG in folder I said when I was recording action..
thank you..

If you are making an action to run why not just use image size to change the resolution to 72 as one of the steps??

I’m a bit confused about this now.. when I look at "image size" for the JPG converted with "save for web" it says it’s 600 x 400 px, 72 dpi, and
8.333 x 5.583 in.. when I look at "image size" for JPG I converted with
image processor it says it’s 600 x 400 px and 300 dpi and 2 x 1.34 in.. YET: they both look same size (I mean same dimensions) at 100% in Photoshop… I don’t understand this.. (orig PSD is 600 x 400 px, 300 dpi, and 2 x 1.34 in..) what I mean:
http://www.mayacove.com/misc/psd.html

Because dpi for screen display is totally irrelevant. Only the pixel dimensions matter. The image is
600 x 400 that’s it! If your screen is set to 800 x 600 then the image will fill most of the screen, if your screen is set to 1024 x 768, the image will be smaller.

Only the pixel dimension matter!! Once again, DPI IS IRRELEVANT! Yes I am shouting.

so: how do I tell image processor to change resolution to 72 dpi but leave dimensions as they are?????? (which is what "save for web" does, but I can’t batch-process using "save for web" for reasons I have already explained..) image processor has a feature that says "resize to fit" — so, even though it didn’t make much sense, I said "resize" to 600 x 400 px and of course it did that, but it left resolution @ 300 dpi… i.e., can anyone tell me how to tell img-processor to optimize imgs to 72 dpi in img-processor dialog (& leave at same dimensions, just like "save for web" does?) screenshot of img-processor dialog is here: http://www.mayacove.com/misc/ss_img_processor.gif

See above!

man… why did they get rid of "droplet" feature in ImageReady? honestly, if I had known about this I would have purchased CS2 instead of CS3.. I would have been done optimizing all my images hours ago… I used to create droplets and then optimize entire folders full of PSDs in minutes..

thank you all very much for your help..

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

maya wrote:

oh brother.. "save for web" is for when you’re optimizing photos one-by-one.. so why won’t image processor convert JPGs to 72 dpi? this renders this feature pretty useless..

Because, contrary to what many people think, dpi is irrelevant for the web. Web browsers don’t use it; they display an image at the resolution of the monitor, irrespective of what the ppi (not dpi) number may say. All you need to do to use Image Processor for web images, is specify a low *total number of pixels*, for example 400 x 600 pixels, in the ‘Resize to Fit’ option.

yes I do know all this.. only thing is, an image at 300dpi is much larger than an image if 72 dpi, right??? I know they both look exactly the same in browser; only issue is size of img (i.e., how many kilobites/megabites) and thus how long it takes to load.. this is for my photoblog (www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog); I have lots of photos there already, and have lots more to come..

thank you very much..

Rudy Benner wrote:

"maya" wrote in message

when I use image processor to convert PSDs to JPGs it leaves them at 300 dpi resolution (i.e., resolution in orig PSDs), but to post them online I need them to be at 72 dpi…

if I optimize them one by one the JPGs are at 72 dpi, but if I use image processor to optimize all photos in a folder the JPGs are 300 dpi, why is this..

thank you..

Try Irfanview, its free.

once again thank you very much to everyone for their help and their patience…

I finally got it to work with Irfanview, there’s an option to convert to 72 dpi.. I still refuse to believe it’s impossible to do this in PS CS3… I still need to figure out how to pause when recording "save for web" action so can use in conjunction with image processor.. (so don’t have to record in action in what folder to put images but can choose destination folder when am running image-processor…)

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:30:46 -0400, maya wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

maya wrote:

oh brother.. "save for web" is for when you’re optimizing photos one-by-one.. so why won’t image processor convert JPGs to 72 dpi? this renders this feature pretty useless..

Because, contrary to what many people think, dpi is irrelevant for the web. Web browsers don’t use it; they display an image at the resolution of the monitor, irrespective of what the ppi (not dpi) number may say. All you need to do to use Image Processor for web images, is specify a low *total number of pixels*, for example 400 x 600 pixels, in the ‘Resize to Fit’ option.

yes I do know all this.. only thing is, an image at 300dpi is much larger than an image if 72 dpi, right??? I know they both look exactly the same in browser; only issue is size of img (i.e., how many kilobites/megabites) and thus how long it takes to load.. this is for my photoblog (www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog); I have lots of photos there already, and have lots more to come..

thank you very much..

No, the dpi makes no difference to the file size. A 600 x 400 pixel image has 240,000 pixels. That’s
it . Finished, It does not matter how you distribute them, it will always have 240,000 pixels. The actual file size will vary depending on the amount of JPEG compression that you choose when you save
the file. Different images will vary in size because of the amount of detail in the image. A single
solid color will be a smaller file than a detailed photograph. Their may be other parameters that affect file size – such as colour and contrast.

BUT DPI makes no difference.

The ONLY difference dpi makes is to the size of a PRINTED image.

maya wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

maya wrote:

oh brother.. "save for web" is for when you’re optimizing photos one-by-one.. so why won’t image processor convert JPGs to 72 dpi? this renders this feature pretty useless..

Because, contrary to what many people think, dpi is irrelevant for the web. Web browsers don’t use it; they display an image at the resolution of the monitor, irrespective of what the ppi (not dpi) number may say. All you need to do to use Image Processor for web images, is specify a low *total number of pixels*, for example 400 x 600 pixels, in the ‘Resize to Fit’ option.

yes I do know all this.. only thing is, an image at 300dpi is much larger than an image if 72 dpi, right???

Wrong. The image size is the same. Resolution is just an instruction for the printer, which tells the printer how many pixels should be fitted into one inch of paper. Nothing more, nothing less. If you increase the resolution, the printer will print smaller pixels, so it can fit more pixels into one inch of paper. Consequently, the *printed image* will be smaller, but that has nothing to do with the file size. If you decrease the resolution, the opposite happens. But that is all it is: an instruction.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

maya wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

maya wrote:

oh brother.. "save for web" is for when you’re optimizing photos one-by-one.. so why won’t image processor convert JPGs to 72 dpi? this renders this feature pretty useless..

Because, contrary to what many people think, dpi is irrelevant for the web. Web browsers don’t use it; they display an image at the resolution of the monitor, irrespective of what the ppi (not dpi) number may say. All you need to do to use Image Processor for web images, is specify a low *total number of pixels*, for example 400 x 600 pixels, in the ‘Resize to Fit’ option.

yes I do know all this.. only thing is, an image at 300dpi is much larger than an image if 72 dpi, right??? I know they both look exactly the same in browser; only issue is size of img (i.e., how many kilobites/megabites) and thus how long it takes to load.. this is for my photoblog (www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog); I have lots of photos there already, and have lots more to come..

thank you very much..

YES and NO, the 300-ppi could be 300 times larger than 1-ppi or it could be same or even smaller than 1-ppi

Example, your *100* pennies has the exact same value of *1* Dollar Bill, but less value than *5* Quaters.

Or because you forgot to read the information that the Whole Value is based on at least 3 values "Width x Heigh x Resolution". And I say at least three because "compression" can be the 4th value. Or "72-ppi" or "300-ppi"
or even "3000-ppi" is just one of three values.

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

maya wrote:

yes I do know all this.. only thing is, an image at 300dpi is much larger than an image if 72 dpi, right???

Wrong. The image size is the same. Resolution is just an instruction for the printer, which tells the printer how many pixels should be fitted into one inch of paper. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sometimes the printer (if you are talking about the machine) discards whatever rez you specify and reprocesses for itself. See, the dialog goes, "Hello stupid! What size paper are you using? (A smart printer knows that already.) Do you want the picture to fill the page? Oops. It’s a little (too long, too wide). Can I trim it? Yeah? OK! We are good to go!" and it spits out crap. And people are happy. I dig the tiny pictures interpolated to 8×10. Just so "arty"!

Sometimes the vernacular should be followed even if it is just plain misguided and wrong.

I do a lot of image prep of photos of sculpture and paintings for show and grant submissions. Some of the clients are new at this whole digital submission thing and specify specifically what "dpi" they want, but they also specify the dimensional box in which an image must fit (good old Fit Image!). As we all know, it’s really about pixels but sometimes they have the temerity to actually look at the image’s ppi/dpi/whatever in their favorite or default and stupid image browser and NOT the dimension in pixels, then throw the images out for not being to spec although they are in spec! I swear some of them hire day help who get a cartoon for directions.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:41:21 -0500, Joe wrote:

maya wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

maya wrote:

oh brother.. "save for web" is for when you’re optimizing photos one-by-one.. so why won’t image processor convert JPGs to 72 dpi? this renders this feature pretty useless..

Because, contrary to what many people think, dpi is irrelevant for the web. Web browsers don’t use it; they display an image at the resolution of the monitor, irrespective of what the ppi (not dpi) number may say. All you need to do to use Image Processor for web images, is specify a low *total number of pixels*, for example 400 x 600 pixels, in the ‘Resize to Fit’ option.

yes I do know all this.. only thing is, an image at 300dpi is much larger than an image if 72 dpi, right??? I know they both look exactly the same in browser; only issue is size of img (i.e., how many kilobites/megabites) and thus how long it takes to load.. this is for my photoblog (www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog); I have lots of photos there already, and have lots more to come..

thank you very much..

YES and NO, the 300-ppi could be 300 times larger than 1-ppi or it could be same or even smaller than 1-ppi

NO! the only thing that matters is the total number of pixels. ppi is irrelevant

Example, your *100* pennies has the exact same value of *1* Dollar Bill, but less value than *5* Quaters.

What?

Or because you forgot to read the information that the Whole Value is based on at least 3 values "Width x Heigh x Resolution". And I say at least three because "compression" can be the 4th value. Or "72-ppi" or "300-ppi"
or even "3000-ppi" is just one of three values.

Width x height x resolution ONLY works when width and resolution are expressed in linear measurement
eg, inches. eg. 6 x 4 x resolution.

The image detail and colors also have an effect on file size.

If the image dimensions are expressed in pixels eg. 600 x 400, the resolution is not included and is
irrelevant

For screen display, the ppi of the image file is irrelevant. The viewing size of the image is based
on the SCREEN RESOLUTION, eg. 1024 x 768 and of course, the viewing software.

Avery wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:41:21 -0500, Joe wrote:

maya wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

maya wrote:

oh brother.. "save for web" is for when you’re optimizing photos one-by-one.. so why won’t image processor convert JPGs to 72 dpi? this renders this feature pretty useless..

Because, contrary to what many people think, dpi is irrelevant for the web. Web browsers don’t use it; they display an image at the resolution of the monitor, irrespective of what the ppi (not dpi) number may say. All you need to do to use Image Processor for web images, is specify a low *total number of pixels*, for example 400 x 600 pixels, in the ‘Resize to Fit’ option.

yes I do know all this.. only thing is, an image at 300dpi is much larger than an image if 72 dpi, right??? I know they both look exactly the same in browser; only issue is size of img (i.e., how many kilobites/megabites) and thus how long it takes to load.. this is for my photoblog (www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog); I have lots of photos there already, and have lots more to come..

thank you very much..

YES and NO, the 300-ppi could be 300 times larger than 1-ppi or it could be same or even smaller than 1-ppi

NO! the only thing that matters is the total number of pixels. ppi is irrelevant

And that is why I said "NO" and why don’t you just agree with me NO?

Example, your *100* pennies has the exact same value of *1* Dollar Bill, but less value than *5* Quaters.

What?

That’s why you can’t agree or disagree with what you don’t know. When you figure out $1 has 100 pennies then we can continue the conversation <bg>

Or because you forgot to read the information that the Whole Value is based on at least 3 values "Width x Heigh x Resolution". And I say at least three because "compression" can be the 4th value. Or "72-ppi" or "300-ppi"
or even "3000-ppi" is just one of three values.

Width x height x resolution ONLY works when width and resolution are expressed in linear measurement
eg, inches. eg. 6 x 4 x resolution.

The image detail and colors also have an effect on file size.

Hahaha and the whole image is based on the VALUE and the image value is based on 3 individual values. B&W image has the exact same WxHxR values

If the image dimensions are expressed in pixels eg. 600 x 400, the resolution is not included and is
irrelevant

For screen display, the ppi of the image file is irrelevant. The viewing size of the image is based
on the SCREEN RESOLUTION, eg. 1024 x 768 and of course, the viewing software.

Yes, for screen displaying it can be called Resolution, but *if* you know Photoshop well enough (we are talking about Photoshop here), then you may want to check to see what Photoshop calls the "PPI". Yes, I do agree using "PPI" as resolution isn’t the right or perfect word but that’s what Photoshop uses and I use it in Photoshop newsgroup (not outside which I may have to give more detail).

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:26:16 -0500, Joe wrote:

Avery wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:41:21 -0500, Joe wrote:

maya wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

maya wrote:

oh brother.. "save for web" is for when you’re optimizing photos one-by-one.. so why won’t image processor convert JPGs to 72 dpi? this renders this feature pretty useless..

Because, contrary to what many people think, dpi is irrelevant for the web. Web browsers don’t use it; they display an image at the resolution of the monitor, irrespective of what the ppi (not dpi) number may say. All you need to do to use Image Processor for web images, is specify a low *total number of pixels*, for example 400 x 600 pixels, in the ‘Resize to Fit’ option.

yes I do know all this.. only thing is, an image at 300dpi is much larger than an image if 72 dpi, right??? I know they both look exactly the same in browser; only issue is size of img (i.e., how many kilobites/megabites) and thus how long it takes to load.. this is for my photoblog (www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog); I have lots of photos there already, and have lots more to come..

thank you very much..

YES and NO, the 300-ppi could be 300 times larger than 1-ppi or it could be same or even smaller than 1-ppi

NO! the only thing that matters is the total number of pixels. ppi is irrelevant

And that is why I said "NO" and why don’t you just agree with me NO?

You said YES and NO – that is wrong.

Example, your *100* pennies has the exact same value of *1* Dollar Bill, but less value than *5* Quaters.

What?

That’s why you can’t agree or disagree with what you don’t know. When you figure out $1 has 100 pennies then we can continue the conversation <bg>

I still do not see the relevance of your example. I do agree that 100 is less than 125.

Or because you forgot to read the information that the Whole Value is based on at least 3 values "Width x Heigh x Resolution". And I say at least three because "compression" can be the 4th value. Or "72-ppi" or "300-ppi"
or even "3000-ppi" is just one of three values.

Width x height x resolution ONLY works when width and resolution are expressed in linear measurement
eg, inches. eg. 6 x 4 x resolution.

The image detail and colors also have an effect on file size.

Hahaha and the whole image is based on the VALUE and the image value is based on 3 individual values. B&W image has the exact same WxHxR values.

File size is the topic. Take any color image into Photoshop, desaturate it and resave with no other changes. Check the file properties of the two images. The desaurated image will have a significantly
smaller file size.

The number of colors, color depth, detail, contrast and a number of other things have a large effect
on file size. Otherwise all images of the same pixel dimensions would have the same file size -they don’t

If the image dimensions are expressed in pixels eg. 600 x 400, the resolution is not included and is
irrelevant

For screen display, the ppi of the image file is irrelevant. The viewing size of the image is based
on the SCREEN RESOLUTION, eg. 1024 x 768 and of course, the viewing software.

Yes, for screen displaying it can be called Resolution, but *if* you know Photoshop well enough (we are talking about Photoshop here), then you may want to check to see what Photoshop calls the "PPI". Yes, I do agree using "PPI" as resolution isn’t the right or perfect word but that’s what Photoshop uses and I use it in Photoshop newsgroup (not outside which I may have to give more detail).

No, we are talking aout file size and the relevance of ppi.

ppi has NO relevance to file size.

"Joe" wrote in message

YES and NO, the 300-ppi could be 300 times larger than 1-ppi or it could be same or even smaller than 1-ppi

WTF?

[re ppi]

Example, your *100* pennies has the exact same value of *1* Dollar Bill, but less value than *5* Quaters.

Gotcha – so ppi is "pennies per inch". That must mean dpi is "dollars per inch".

Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

Joe wrote:

Or because you forgot to read the information that the Whole Value is based on at least 3 values "Width x Heigh x Resolution".

Not if you express the width and height as pixels, which we are doing in this thread, which takes the resolution out of the equation.

Andrew

jjs <jjs.jjs.net> wrote:

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

maya wrote:

yes I do know all this.. only thing is, an image at 300dpi is much larger than an image if 72 dpi, right???

Wrong. The image size is the same. Resolution is just an instruction for the printer, which tells the printer how many pixels should be fitted into one inch of paper. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sometimes the printer (if you are talking about the machine) discards whatever rez you specify and reprocesses for itself. See, the dialog goes, "Hello stupid! What size paper are you using? (A smart printer knows that already.) Do you want the picture to fill the page? Oops. It’s a little (too long, too wide). Can I trim it? Yeah? OK! We are good to go!" and it spits out crap. And people are happy. I dig the tiny pictures interpolated to 8×10. Just so "arty"!

Sometimes the vernacular should be followed even if it is just plain misguided and wrong.

I do a lot of image prep of photos of sculpture and paintings for show and grant submissions. Some of the clients are new at this whole digital submission thing and specify specifically what "dpi" they want, but they also specify the dimensional box in which an image must fit (good old Fit Image!). As we all know, it’s really about pixels but sometimes they have the temerity to actually look at the image’s ppi/dpi/whatever in their favorite or default and stupid image browser and NOT the dimension in pixels, then throw the images out for not being to spec although they are in spec! I swear some of them hire day help who get a cartoon for directions.

So what’s your point? That doesn’t change the fact that resolution does not determine file size in any way.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:19:25 -0500, "jjs" <jjs.jjs.net> wrote:

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

maya wrote:

yes I do know all this.. only thing is, an image at 300dpi is much larger than an image if 72 dpi, right???

Wrong. The image size is the same. Resolution is just an instruction for the printer, which tells the printer how many pixels should be fitted into one inch of paper. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sometimes the printer (if you are talking about the machine) discards whatever rez you specify and reprocesses for itself. See, the dialog goes, "Hello stupid! What size paper are you using? (A smart printer knows that already.) Do you want the picture to fill the page? Oops. It’s a little (too long, too wide). Can I trim it? Yeah? OK! We are good to go!" and it spits out crap. And people are happy. I dig the tiny pictures interpolated to 8×10. Just so "arty"!

If you look up "arty" in my dictionary you will probably see "crap". I think we use the same
dictionary.

Sometimes the vernacular should be followed even if it is just plain misguided and wrong.

I guess it depends on who is paying – OK I’m corruptable.

I do a lot of image prep of photos of sculpture and paintings for show and grant submissions. Some of the clients are new at this whole digital submission thing and specify specifically what "dpi" they want, but they also specify the dimensional box in which an image must fit (good old Fit Image!). As we all know, it’s really about pixels but sometimes they have the temerity to actually look at the image’s ppi/dpi/whatever in their favorite or default and stupid image browser and NOT the dimension in pixels, then throw the images out for not being to spec although they are in spec! I swear some of them hire day help who get a cartoon for directions.

These are the ones that are unforgivable. The ones that claim expertise and feed their clients BS.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:44:15 +0200, (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

jjs <jjs.jjs.net> wrote:

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

maya wrote:

yes I do know all this.. only thing is, an image at 300dpi is much larger than an image if 72 dpi, right???

Wrong. The image size is the same. Resolution is just an instruction for the printer, which tells the printer how many pixels should be fitted into one inch of paper. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sometimes the printer (if you are talking about the machine) discards whatever rez you specify and reprocesses for itself. See, the dialog goes, "Hello stupid! What size paper are you using? (A smart printer knows that already.) Do you want the picture to fill the page? Oops. It’s a little (too long, too wide). Can I trim it? Yeah? OK! We are good to go!" and it spits out crap. And people are happy. I dig the tiny pictures interpolated to 8×10. Just so "arty"!

Sometimes the vernacular should be followed even if it is just plain misguided and wrong.

I do a lot of image prep of photos of sculpture and paintings for show and grant submissions. Some of the clients are new at this whole digital submission thing and specify specifically what "dpi" they want, but they also specify the dimensional box in which an image must fit (good old Fit Image!). As we all know, it’s really about pixels but sometimes they have the temerity to actually look at the image’s ppi/dpi/whatever in their favorite or default and stupid image browser and NOT the dimension in pixels, then throw the images out for not being to spec although they are in spec! I swear some of them hire day help who get a cartoon for directions.

So what’s your point? That doesn’t change the fact that resolution does not determine file size in any way.

I think jjs was in agreement with that.

Avery wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:26:16 -0500, Joe wrote:

Avery wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:41:21 -0500, Joe wrote:

maya wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

maya wrote:

oh brother.. "save for web" is for when you’re optimizing photos one-by-one.. so why won’t image processor convert JPGs to 72 dpi? this renders this feature pretty useless..

Because, contrary to what many people think, dpi is irrelevant for the web. Web browsers don’t use it; they display an image at the resolution of the monitor, irrespective of what the ppi (not dpi) number may say. All you need to do to use Image Processor for web images, is specify a low *total number of pixels*, for example 400 x 600 pixels, in the ‘Resize to Fit’ option.

yes I do know all this.. only thing is, an image at 300dpi is much larger than an image if 72 dpi, right??? I know they both look exactly the same in browser; only issue is size of img (i.e., how many kilobites/megabites) and thus how long it takes to load.. this is for my photoblog (www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog); I have lots of photos there already, and have lots more to come..

thank you very much..

YES and NO, the 300-ppi could be 300 times larger than 1-ppi or it could be same or even smaller than 1-ppi

NO! the only thing that matters is the total number of pixels. ppi is irrelevant

And that is why I said "NO" and why don’t you just agree with me NO?

You said YES and NO – that is wrong.

It can’t be wrong when it’s right! or if I can prove it can be either way when you can’t be able to see beyond what you think you know, then you can’t agree or disagree with what I say. Or you will need to know more than what you now know to be able to compare two different things I am trying to show show.

Example, your *100* pennies has the exact same value of *1* Dollar Bill, but less value than *5* Quaters.

What?

That’s why you can’t agree or disagree with what you don’t know. When you figure out $1 has 100 pennies then we can continue the conversation <bg>

I still do not see the relevance of your example. I do agree that 100 is less than 125.

It may not make much or any difference until you figure out what to agree or disagree. And you do not have to agree that 100 is less than 125 because that isn’t what I say, and you won’t hear me saying that either. Or until you figure out "100" or "125" doesn’t really mean anything *until* you go for the specific of "100" or "125"

Or because you forgot to read the information that the Whole Value is based on at least 3 values "Width x Heigh x Resolution". And I say at least three because "compression" can be the 4th value. Or "72-ppi" or "300-ppi"
or even "3000-ppi" is just one of three values.

Width x height x resolution ONLY works when width and resolution are expressed in linear measurement
eg, inches. eg. 6 x 4 x resolution.

The image detail and colors also have an effect on file size.

Hahaha and the whole image is based on the VALUE and the image value is based on 3 individual values. B&W image has the exact same WxHxR values.

File size is the topic. Take any color image into Photoshop, desaturate it and resave with no other changes. Check the file properties of the two images. The desaurated image will have a significantly
smaller file size.

The number of colors, color depth, detail, contrast and a number of other things have a large effect
on file size. Otherwise all images of the same pixel dimensions would have the same file size -they don’t

Please don’t tell me about "number of color" and "size" cuz you won’t be able to sell me that story. Here is a hint for you about Color vs Size

– Try to convert 16 mils of color JPG to 256 color of GIF then come back to sell me the "color" vs "size" story.

If the image dimensions are expressed in pixels eg. 600 x 400, the resolution is not included and is
irrelevant

For screen display, the ppi of the image file is irrelevant. The viewing size of the image is based
on the SCREEN RESOLUTION, eg. 1024 x 768 and of course, the viewing software.

Yes, for screen displaying it can be called Resolution, but *if* you know Photoshop well enough (we are talking about Photoshop here), then you may want to check to see what Photoshop calls the "PPI". Yes, I do agree using "PPI" as resolution isn’t the right or perfect word but that’s what Photoshop uses and I use it in Photoshop newsgroup (not outside which I may have to give more detail).

No, we are talking aout file size and the relevance of ppi.
ppi has NO relevance to file size.

Have you rechecked what you disagree with me about YES and NO? Have I said anything about "PPI" specific?

Have you read I said (about the VALUE not number just incase you have the wrong thought about 100 is less than 125).

– 300-ppi could be 300 times larger than 1-ppi

– *but* 300-ppi can be *smaller* than 1-ppi

"Pico" <pico at idrailogid.ten> wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message

YES and NO, the 300-ppi could be 300 times larger than 1-ppi or it could be same or even smaller than 1-ppi

WTF?

Put the penis into your mouth then you will figure out WTF is <bg>

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 06:59:30 -0500, Joe wrote:

Avery wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:26:16 -0500, Joe wrote:

Avery wrote:

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:41:21 -0500, Joe wrote:

maya wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

maya wrote:

oh brother.. "save for web" is for when you’re optimizing photos one-by-one.. so why won’t image processor convert JPGs to 72 dpi? this renders this feature pretty useless..

Because, contrary to what many people think, dpi is irrelevant for the web. Web browsers don’t use it; they display an image at the resolution of the monitor, irrespective of what the ppi (not dpi) number may say. All you need to do to use Image Processor for web images, is specify a low *total number of pixels*, for example 400 x 600 pixels, in the ‘Resize to Fit’ option.

yes I do know all this.. only thing is, an image at 300dpi is much larger than an image if 72 dpi, right??? I know they both look exactly the same in browser; only issue is size of img (i.e., how many kilobites/megabites) and thus how long it takes to load.. this is for my photoblog (www.francesdelrio.com/photoblog); I have lots of photos there already, and have lots more to come..

thank you very much..

YES and NO, the 300-ppi could be 300 times larger than 1-ppi or it could be same or even smaller than 1-ppi

NO! the only thing that matters is the total number of pixels. ppi is irrelevant

And that is why I said "NO" and why don’t you just agree with me NO?

You said YES and NO – that is wrong.

It can’t be wrong when it’s right! or if I can prove it can be either way when you can’t be able to see beyond what you think you know, then you can’t agree or disagree with what I say. Or you will need to know more than what you now know to be able to compare two different things I am trying to show show.

Example, your *100* pennies has the exact same value of *1* Dollar Bill, but less value than *5* Quaters.

What?

That’s why you can’t agree or disagree with what you don’t know. When you figure out $1 has 100 pennies then we can continue the conversation <bg>

I still do not see the relevance of your example. I do agree that 100 is less than 125.

It may not make much or any difference until you figure out what to agree or disagree. And you do not have to agree that 100 is less than 125 because that isn’t what I say, and you won’t hear me saying that either. Or until you figure out "100" or "125" doesn’t really mean anything *until* you go for the specific of "100" or "125"

Or because you forgot to read the information that the Whole Value is based on at least 3 values "Width x Heigh x Resolution". And I say at least three because "compression" can be the 4th value. Or "72-ppi" or "300-ppi"
or even "3000-ppi" is just one of three values.

Width x height x resolution ONLY works when width and resolution are expressed in linear measurement
eg, inches. eg. 6 x 4 x resolution.

The image detail and colors also have an effect on file size.

Hahaha and the whole image is based on the VALUE and the image value is based on 3 individual values. B&W image has the exact same WxHxR values.

File size is the topic. Take any color image into Photoshop, desaturate it and resave with no other changes. Check the file properties of the two images. The desaurated image will have a significantly
smaller file size.

The number of colors, color depth, detail, contrast and a number of other things have a large effect
on file size. Otherwise all images of the same pixel dimensions would have the same file size -they don’t

Please don’t tell me about "number of color" and "size" cuz you won’t be able to sell me that story. Here is a hint for you about Color vs Size
– Try to convert 16 mils of color JPG to 256 color of GIF then come back to sell me the "color" vs "size" story.

If the image dimensions are expressed in pixels eg. 600 x 400, the resolution is not included and is
irrelevant

For screen display, the ppi of the image file is irrelevant. The viewing size of the image is based
on the SCREEN RESOLUTION, eg. 1024 x 768 and of course, the viewing software.

Yes, for screen displaying it can be called Resolution, but *if* you know Photoshop well enough (we are talking about Photoshop here), then you may want to check to see what Photoshop calls the "PPI". Yes, I do agree using "PPI" as resolution isn’t the right or perfect word but that’s what Photoshop uses and I use it in Photoshop newsgroup (not outside which I may have to give more detail).

No, we are talking aout file size and the relevance of ppi.
ppi has NO relevance to file size.

Have you rechecked what you disagree with me about YES and NO? Have I said anything about "PPI" specific?

Have you read I said (about the VALUE not number just incase you have the wrong thought about 100 is less than 125).

– 300-ppi could be 300 times larger than 1-ppi

– *but* 300-ppi can be *smaller* than 1-ppi

You surprise me greatly. You are actually able to type out replies to usenet posts, but are quite obviously incapable of intelligent thought. Your handlers have done some magnificent work to get you
to this stage. I have great appreciation of your trainers and keepers. When and where can I visit your enclosure?

"Joe" wrote in message

Please don’t tell me about "number of color" and "size" cuz you won’t be able to sell me that story. Here is a hint for you about Color vs Size
– Try to convert 16 mils of color JPG to 256 color of GIF then come back to
sell me the "color" vs "size" story.

There’s a confusion there. We are not discussing size in qualitative terms, nor RAM or disc space, printer, monitor, or camera sensor real estate. Or anything else. Just pixels.

Alsol, pixels vary in size depending upon the presentation medium, but that is not our concern. IOW, you can have an image measured in pixels, apples, oranges, basketballs, or blimps-per-side. Feel free.

"Joe" wrote in message

Put the penis into your mouth then you will figure out WTF is <bg>

Conversation terminated.

"Pico" <pico at idrailogid.ten> wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message

Please don’t tell me about "number of color" and "size" cuz you won’t be able to sell me that story. Here is a hint for you about Color vs Size
– Try to convert 16 mils of color JPG to 256 color of GIF then come back to
sell me the "color" vs "size" story.

There’s a confusion there. We are not discussing size in qualitative terms, nor RAM or disc space, printer, monitor, or camera sensor real estate. Or anything else. Just pixels.

Alsol, pixels vary in size depending upon the presentation medium, but that is not our concern. IOW, you can have an image measured in pixels, apples, oranges, basketballs, or blimps-per-side. Feel free.

I don’t know what may confuse you, and don’t forget to QUOTE the original part of what I responsed to what you said (below).
_______________________________

File size is the topic. Take any color image into Photoshop, desaturate it and resave with no other changes. Check the file properties of the two images. The desaurated image will have a significantly
smaller file size.

The number of colors, color depth, detail, contrast and a number of other things have a large effect
on file size. Otherwise all images of the same pixel dimensions would have the same file size -they don’t

——————————————————-

"Pico" <pico at idrailogid.ten> wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message

Put the penis into your mouth then you will figure out WTF is <bg>

Conversation terminated.

I think it’s better that way because I have never liked kid who fucks with his/her mouth.

And again, don’t forget to quote the original part of what you said (below)

_____________

YES and NO, the 300-ppi could be 300 times larger than 1-ppi or it could be same or even smaller than 1-ppi

WTF?

Put the penis into your mouth then you will figure out WTF is <bg> =======================================