I’d guess it’s showing up big because you’re sending it out at a farily high resolution, which impacts how big it looks at the receiver’s end. Unless you need a particularly high resolution copy to send someone, the easiest thing to do is prepare the image for e-mailing under the "Save for Web" portion of Elements. That does a good job of taking the guesswork out of converting and makes for tidy e-mails.
An alternative to Beth’s suggestion is to downsample the image to a reasonable size for Emailing. This is done using the Image>Size>Resize function. I would suggest an image size of 800×600 pixels for Emailing and monitor viewing. If the recipient intends to print it larger than 4×5, you will need a larger image, though, to get decent quality.
If you don’t know how to resample the image, ask and thou shall receive detailed instructions, preferably from Beth. She does a much better job on detailed procedures than I do.
Bert
I did save it to web, but when it was sent, you still had to scroll to get the whole picture. I even reduced the pixels like someone suggested. I want the whole card to show up without having to scroll it. Any more suggestions.
Patti,
Test the resulting file by opening in your browser to doublecheck (though again, it depends on what res. you have your monitor set at)
Thanks for the help, I went all the way down to the horizontal being 500 and still it makes you scroll, even though the picture is not the whole screen. Even by making the picture the whole screen by maximizing it, you still have to scroll. I cold probably go down to 100 and it would be tiny but you would still have to scroll – do You understand what I am saying. I feel so dumb.
Thanks
Patti,
Are you using AOL?
I’m thinking that the available ‘open space’ on your screen might be small if so, because AOL takes up so much of it with all their ‘stuff’.
I am having a hard time understanding why you have to scroll after resizing it downwards so far….
let us know on the AOL…
Nancy
Patti,
Is the shape of your project very skinny and very long??
Nancy
Patti,
What resolution are you scanning at?
What is/are the recipients needs? What is the PPI and typical file size of the image after scanning ? When you say a "decent size", do you understand how that could be the size in pixels, the size of a printed image, or the file size, or combination?
If a 100 kb image of 800 pixels maximum dimension is satisfactory, then that can be done along the lines discussed. If the recipients needs are for a large file size and maximum pixels, you probably will need to pursue other choices if for no other reason you may exceed the size of file you can transfer over your mail server. More specific information on what you need and what exactly you are doing would be helpful. Do you understand why we are curious and do not understand why you would have to scroll on a pixel size you have? Do you understand why the resolution of the recipients monitor is important?
You may need to spend time with www.scantips.com . The relationship between pixel size, monitor, printed page, and file size is something I think all of us on this forum have to study at one time or the other.
I was more confused than any about this not that many months ago.
Carl
I’m scanning at 150 resolution. The person receiving this has the same computer I do – if not better and has received pics before
Don’t know if you are running Windows but if you are here is a free small program that has made emailing pictures a breeze for me. The website needs to add Windows XP (at least XP home) since it works perfectly.
<
http://www.picturetray.com/>
(I usually email a test to myself first just to make sure I have selected the best downsizing of full, half or quarter.)
Hope this is of some use.
Bob
Patti,
I am no expert and hope the others will correct any errors I may make.
Having said that, if you are scanning at 150 PPI and then at some point the resolution gets changed to the 72 PPI (or thereabouts) without resampling, your image will be about twice as long along both axis-height and width. This could explain why your image is so much larger than the 4×6 original.
I am puzzled like others if the image is small, why do you have to scroll to see it. Could you describe that better?
If you would describe the steps you go through, we might make some progress. Alternatively, if we knew the use for the image we could suggest. It makes a lot of difference whether the final use is on a monitor or printed on a page.
Why have you chosen 150 PPI to scan at? If you want to print color, you need 250+ for a good print. On the other hand, if you are going to only be viewing on a monitor, about 72 PPI is sufficient.
I write this in hopes you may get an idea that may help you. Also, it is a good chance for me to test my knowledge and be corrected if I am in error.
Carl
Thank you Nancy. Its obvious it has not sunk in with me yet. Of course you are right. The monitor only counts pixels. I guess what I had in mind was that the image might be larger on the monitor than expected as the size is double what it would be if scanned at 72 PPI. I think that makes sense, but I thought the above made sense also.
In any case Patti, please give us more information. Your problem is very interesting>
Carl
Carl,
I hope I didn’t offend you in any way with my post, or come off as a know it all, and if I did I truly apologize…I was just rehashing an old subject. You and I are on the same page 🙂
Nancy
Carl,
What I don’t understand about this is…after she resized with Resampling checked and dictated dimensions of something less than 600 pixels for one dimension, why is she still having to scroll to view the image? She says maybe if it were 100 pixels scrolling would not be necessary…there is something terribly wrong here…
Nancy
Patti
Adding to what the others have said.
If you send the picture quite small, for example 400*300 at 72 dpi, most people will be able to see it on the screen in one go.
If, after that, they want a copy to print, e-mail a large version, eg 4*6 at 300 dpi, so they can save it and print at their leisure. It wont fit on thier screen, as it woud appear to be 4 times as large, accross and down (equaling 16 times bigger)
Hope that helps a bit.
Paul
