The problem you’re having is that you do not understand the difference between the size the image looks on the monitor and the print size of your image. Did you read the information at the site Fred provided (
http://www.photo.net/learn/resize/ )? Perhaps an even easier to understand article is at this site:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1790570,00.asp This is the information you gave about your image:
Size: 1960 x 3008 Pixels (5.90 MPixels)
Print Size: 69.1 x 106.1 cm; 27.2 x 41.8 inches
Original Colors: 16.7 Millions (24 BitsPerPixel)
File Size: 944.30 KB (966,959 Bytes)
Uncompressed Size 16.9 MB
Compression Ratio: 18.3
You don’t say whether the 1960 is width or height, so I’m going to assume width for this explanation.
The reason the print size comes out as 27.2 x 41.8 inches is because the print resolution is set at 72, which you can see if you open the image in PSP then go to Image>Resize and look at the dialogue. This resolution is information PSP sends to your printer, telling it to print 72 pixels of your image on each inch of printed paper. If you divide 1960 by 72 you’ll get 27.2 inches, and 3008 divided by 72 gives you 41.8 inches.
If 1960 is the width, and if you uncheck the "Resample Using" box, and if you type 8 into the width box under Print Size in the dialogue, you’ll see the resolution changes to 245, because the printer will have to lay down 245 pixels on each inch of printed paper to fit the whole into an 8 inch width. This has *nothing* to do with how the image looks on your screen, and you’ll notice that the Pixel Dimension boxes are greyed out. You’ll also notice that the image will print a little over 12 inches high, so if you want to print 10 inches high you’ll have to crop some of the top and/or bottom.
For printing purposes, you should have a print resolution of at least 200 for 4×6 photo prints, and perhaps even for 8×10.
If, as your post suggests, you have used a compression level of
Your monitor doesn’t care what the print resolution is, and doesn’t care how many inches it prints. It only cares how many pixels the image has horizontally and vertically, because it displays pixels. If you have your monitor resolution set to 1024x 768, then your monitor displaying an image full screen can only display 1028 pixels across and 768 high so, without resizing, you’ll only be able to see 1028ixels of your image width, and the other 932 pixels will be hidden unless you scroll to reveal them. If you want to have your image sized so that it will appear comfortably sized on an average monitor, then you likely should make sure the width is something like 800 pixels wide if landscape format, or no more than 600 high if portrait, or else many people will have to scroll to see it all.
If you now check the Resample Using box and make sure that "Smart Size" is selected in the dropdown box, the pixel dimensions will become available in the dialogue. Again assuming 1960 is width and 3008 the height, type 600 in the Height box (making sure that the units shown is "Pixels", not "Percent"), and you’ll see that the width in pixels changes propotionally. When you click OK PSP will remove pixels to give the image only as many pixels as you’ve requested. But you’ll see that the print size has changed dramatically because, at a resolution of 245, there are only enough pixels to print a 1.5 x 2.5 image.
So to achieve your goal you need 2 images – one with enough pixels to provide a good quality print (which will be too large to be viewed without scrolling on most monitors) and one resized for monitor viewing. That is why others have suggested providing a small image for viewing and a larger one for printing.
When compressing the high quality image for file size, if you are using a compression factor of more than 30 the chances are your image will show jpg artifacts which will show up in the printing process. You should view the image in the jpg optimizer and choose a compression value that gives the lowest file size without showing unacceptable degradation to the image.
If I have not explained things well, please read the articles at the links provided above.
Regards,
JoeB
Susan P wrote in news:96948FDA49AC472A58@
204.153.244.156:
Susan P wrote:
— snip —
What do I need to do? I have access to both PhotoShop or
Paint
Shop Pro.
Susan
On Thu 07 Jul 2005 19:41:16, davinci wrote:
<news:>
Jpeg compression is not a reference to overall size, but rather a quality setting. Keep the compression high, at least 90 or
so.
You don’t wanna send a grainy pic right.
DaVinci, I think I did not write very clearly. Please let me explain what I meant to convey.
Assuming you have read my origial posting in this thread then
the
jpeg I have started with is too large for me to send by email.
A
dialup user might curse me for ever! So When I say "compress"
or
"make smaller" then I mean apply further jpeg compression to the original high-quality 944KB jpeg file in order to make the
actual
file smaller.
In my case I judged that 300 KB was as large as I dare make the file for emailing.
Of course I will lose quality when I apply jpeg compression to
an
existing jpeg. But I have to accept that a dialup user may terminate the download of my email-with-jpeg if it is taking longer to receive than they want to spend on it.
So that is ok, so far.
Quite separately is my finding that the "natural size" of the
jpeg
(if there is actually such a thing) which I imagine is
importnant
when it is viewed or printed seems to me AS A NOVICE to remain very big. It is about 27 by 41 inches! (See my original posting.)
My jpeg viewing software (ACDSee) has an option to shrink any pictures to fit the viewing window so that sort of thing never bother me. On the other hand I am concerned that some email software may not have that ability and automatically show the
jpeg
attachment at its normal size. Which means that only a small portion of the 27" by 41" image can be seen on their screen!
So this is why I ask what do I need to do?
As I said, I have access to both PhotoShop or Paint Shop Pro. I also have some freeware resizng utilities like Irfanview, Format11, Faststone Photo Resizer, JPEG Resizer, Pic2Pic, etc.
The trouble is that I don’t know which tool to use nor what settings might get the final jpeg down to a size which can be printed on 8×10 or seen on a screen.
Sounds like you have two tasks that use the same termonology "compression".
—-
You want your recipients to be able to view that huge pic you got? Don’t resize the pic. But do save it as a Jpeg, and keep the quality high, (by keeping the compression high) (this is a seperate task than zipping, or "compressing" a group of files, to be emailed).
and, also resize it too..this way, you have smaller copies of the same large picture. To resize the image, go Image>Resize>
In resize dialog, since youi know youi want an 8×10, use Inches and type in, 8×10 (inches) (this is top to fields).
(by default, a tick will be in the Lock Aspect Ratio to keep them the same)
meaning, your first number in the above mentioned field (8 inches wide) will take presedence, and the width will auto proportionally.
If you untick Lock Aspect Ratio and if you picture is
disproportionate to an 8×10, it is going to be distorted by height or width, in the outcome.
To make the picture fit an 8×10 profile, just create a new
file,
and make this new file an 8×10, then do a copy/paste as new layer.
—-
To email a pic, it would be more generally accpted, to attatch the pic as a file, rather than insert it into the body.
If mailing a group of pics, highlight them all, and right click on one of them (as they are all highlighted), then go, compress and Mail, or Compress…etc..
Of course you may be using an external zipping utility, XP has one built in. Works just fine!
In the end, check and see just how much data is in this zip file, or single picture file. If mailing to dailup user, you
may
want to only send them 8×10 jpegs
Otherwise, with the data you gave in your post, you could wind up sending a huge zip file (most mail-servers get quirky arouind 5MB of data). Dialup users get discouraged after 15 mins, waiting to open an email.