How do I make jpegs to this spec ??

"Stephen Hammond" wrote:

How do I make jpegs to this spec ??

Here is the requirement pics with these specs: 170dpi with the longest length of the pic at 30cm; saved as a no. 5 jpeg (the compressed file size should be between
500 and 800k).

I have photoshop :confused:

Why do you have to give some specific requirement to confuse yourself? Yes, I believe Photoshop has the option but I ain’t gonna give it to you until I know exactly what you are trying to do, or I don’t want to give you a rope to hang yourself.

Or I think I smell something may have to do with printing, but the whole message doesn’t make any sense.

Joel found these unused words:

"Stephen Hammond" wrote:

How do I make jpegs to this spec ??

Here is the requirement pics with these specs: 170dpi with the longest length of the pic at 30cm; saved as a no. 5 jpeg (the compressed file size should be between
500 and 800k).

I have photoshop :confused:

Why do you have to give some specific requirement to confuse yourself?

…. or some one else made the spec and he’s trying to fit?

Yes, I believe Photoshop has the option but I ain’t gonna give it to you until I know exactly what you are trying to do, or I don’t want to give you a rope to hang yourself.

To the OP, Knot to worry …

Image size, set dpi first, then set longest dimenstion then OK, then SAVE AS: to jpg with ‘5’ as quality. In the future, you should acquaint yourself with F1 and the topic of the manipulation.

Or I think I smell something may have to do with printing, but the whole message doesn’t make any sense.

"Stephen Hammond" wrote in message

How do I make jpegs to this spec ??

Here is the requirement pics with these specs: 170dpi with the longest length of the pic at 30cm; saved as a no. 5 jpeg (the compressed file size should be between
500 and 800k).

I have photoshop :confused:

—

Share a lift www.liftshare.org

Hi.

It is a weird specification. Resolution required is in Dots per Inch, yet physical size is in Centimetres.

It would have been more sensible to have specified the image size in Inches.

It would have been really sensible to have required a specific number of pixels on the long side, with the image at 170Ppi.

Roy G

"Roy G" wrote:

"Stephen Hammond" wrote in message

How do I make jpegs to this spec ??

Here is the requirement pics with these specs: 170dpi with the longest length of the pic at 30cm; saved as a no. 5 jpeg (the compressed file size should be between
500 and 800k).

I have photoshop :confused:

Share a lift www.liftshare.org

Hi.

It is a weird specification. Resolution required is in Dots per Inch, yet physical size is in Centimetres.

It would have been more sensible to have specified the image size in Inches.
It would have been really sensible to have required a specific number of pixels on the long side, with the image at 170Ppi.

Roy G

I know, the requirement is so weird and incomplete. It just don’t make any sense.

Joel found these unused words:

"Roy G" wrote:

"Stephen Hammond" wrote in message

How do I make jpegs to this spec ??

Here is the requirement pics with these specs: 170dpi with the longest length of the pic at 30cm; saved as a no. 5 jpeg (the compressed file size should be between
500 and 800k).

I have photoshop :confused:

Share a lift www.liftshare.org

Hi.

It is a weird specification. Resolution required is in Dots per Inch, yet physical size is in Centimetres.

It would have been more sensible to have specified the image size in Inches.
It would have been really sensible to have required a specific number of pixels on the long side, with the image at 170Ppi.

Roy G

I know, the requirement is so weird and incomplete. It just don’t make any sense.

Dunno … I could make on that fit!

What difference is there between specifying pixels, inches or cm to a specific dpi/ppi.? Seems their print process likes a certain dpi/ppi, and they want a certain physical resultant size.

xx CM = yy IN = zzz pixels when dpi/ppi is specified. Simple math, eh?

NB’er to me!

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

<snip>

I know, the requirement is so weird and incomplete. It just don’t make any sense.

Dunno … I could make on that fit!

What difference is there between specifying pixels, inches or cm to a specific dpi/ppi.? Seems their print process likes a certain dpi/ppi, and they want a certain physical resultant size.

xx CM = yy IN = zzz pixels when dpi/ppi is specified. Simple math, eh?
NB’er to me!

It fits your emptied skull alright <bg>

Roy G wrote:

It is a weird specification. Resolution required is in Dots per Inch, yet physical size is in Centimetres.

That’s not weird at all. In the metric world, it is normal to specify length in centimeters. However, ‘pixels per centimeter’ or ‘dots per centimeter’ are hardly ever used, not even in the metric world. So to give the size in centimeters and the resolution in ppi (or dpi) is done every day in my part of the world.

It would have been more sensible to have specified the image size in Inches.
It would have been really sensible to have required a specific number of pixels on the long side, with the image at 170Ppi.

Now *that* would be weird. If you give the length in pixels, the resolution is no longer relevant.

To answer the question: It’s pretty simple. Go to ‘Image Size’ and check the ‘Resample Image’ checkbox. Then first enter 170 ppi as resolution, and then 30 as length in centimeters. Hit ‘OK’ and save as JPEG with quality 5. That’s all there is to it.

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

Joel found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

<snip>

I know, the requirement is so weird and incomplete. It just don’t make any sense.

Dunno … I could make on that fit!

What difference is there between specifying pixels, inches or cm to a specific dpi/ppi.? Seems their print process likes a certain dpi/ppi, and they want a certain physical resultant size.

xx CM = yy IN = zzz pixels when dpi/ppi is specified. Simple math, eh?
NB’er to me!

It fits your emptied skull alright <bg>

Oh goodie, can’t comprehend any variation outside personal thinking, then has to turn personal.

BTW, "it just doesn’t" … !

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Joel found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

<snip>

I know, the requirement is so weird and incomplete. It just don’t make any sense.

Dunno … I could make on that fit!

What difference is there between specifying pixels, inches or cm to a specific dpi/ppi.? Seems their print process likes a certain dpi/ppi, and they want a certain physical resultant size.

xx CM = yy IN = zzz pixels when dpi/ppi is specified. Simple math, eh?
NB’er to me!

It fits your emptied skull alright <bg>

Oh goodie, can’t comprehend any variation outside personal thinking, then has to turn personal.

BTW, "it just doesn’t" … !

Of course it doesn’t, can you get it? Because just like the printing style

– Something has value

– Emptied skull has no value

Combining them together it says "you can’t fit something into nothing". That’s why I don’t have any interest in chatting with you <bg>

Joel found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Joel found these unused words:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

<snip>

I know, the requirement is so weird and incomplete. It just don’t make any sense.

Dunno … I could make on that fit!

What difference is there between specifying pixels, inches or cm to a specific dpi/ppi.? Seems their print process likes a certain dpi/ppi, and they want a certain physical resultant size.

xx CM = yy IN = zzz pixels when dpi/ppi is specified. Simple math, eh?
NB’er to me!

It fits your emptied skull alright <bg>

Oh goodie, can’t comprehend any variation outside personal thinking, then has to turn personal.

BTW, "it just doesn’t" … !

Of course it doesn’t, can you get it? Because just like the printing style

– Something has value

– Emptied skull has no value

Combining them together it says "you can’t fit something into nothing". That’s why I don’t have any interest in chatting with you <bg>

Then why do you reply, and repeat your lack of comprehension?

FWIW, the above comment of mine was in reference to YOUR poor grammar!

TAFFLOASP.

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

<snip>

Oh goodie, can’t comprehend any variation outside personal thinking, then has to turn personal.

BTW, "it just doesn’t" … !

Of course it doesn’t, can you get it? Because just like the printing style

– Something has value

– Emptied skull has no value

Combining them together it says "you can’t fit something into nothing". That’s why I don’t have any interest in chatting with you <bg>

Then why do you reply, and repeat your lack of comprehension?

I’m smashing your emptied skull hoping to make some hole to fill it with water <bg>

FWIW, the above comment of mine was in reference to YOUR poor grammar!

Thanks, but that’s my problem, you need to get some brain to work on yours first then start chewing my donkey <bg>

TAFFLOASP.

It’s plain stupid!

On Mon, 14 May 2007 03:04:44 -0500, Joel wrote:

Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

<snip>

Oh goodie, can’t comprehend any variation outside personal thinking, then has to turn personal.

BTW, "it just doesn’t" … !

Of course it doesn’t, can you get it? Because just like the printing style

– Something has value

– Emptied skull has no value

Combining them together it says "you can’t fit something into nothing". That’s why I don’t have any interest in chatting with you <bg>

Then why do you reply, and repeat your lack of comprehension?

I’m smashing your emptied skull hoping to make some hole to fill it with water <bg>

FWIW, the above comment of mine was in reference to YOUR poor grammar!

Thanks, but that’s my problem, you need to get some brain to work on yours first then start chewing my donkey <bg>

TAFFLOASP.

It’s plain stupid!

it is plain stupid making yourself unpopular in a newsgroup filled with treasures of information. We can do without your kind of language. And it is easy to make use of USENET’s anonymity, but your problems will start when the people with the knowledge simply ignore your questions. Then you will know why.

Dave

"Joel" wrote in message
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

<snip>

Oh goodie, can’t comprehend any variation outside personal thinking, then
has to turn personal.

BTW, "it just doesn’t" … !

Of course it doesn’t, can you get it? Because just like the printing style

– Something has value

– Emptied skull has no value

Combining them together it says "you can’t fit something into nothing". That’s why I don’t have any interest in chatting with you <bg>

Then why do you reply, and repeat your lack of comprehension?

I’m smashing your emptied skull hoping to make some hole to fill it with water <bg>

FWIW, the above comment of mine was in reference to YOUR poor grammar!

Thanks, but that’s my problem, you need to get some brain to work on yours first then start chewing my donkey <bg>

TAFFLOASP.

It’s plain stupid!

Is Joel the same guy as Joe??