Re: sizing .jpg for printing photos

Louis,

First, the terms for the two orientations for images are PORTRAIT and
LANDSCAPE. Portrait is tall and narrow, Landscape is wide and low. In the
4x6 analogy, if the 4" side is on top/bottom, that's Portrait; if it's on
the sides, it's Landscape.

Regarding image resolution, your descriptions make it sound like you might
not get what you want. For a home photo-quality printer (like my HP, for
instance), I need AT LEAST 300dpi resolution for a clean image. That's 300px
per inch. For a 4x6 image, that would be 1200px x 1800px MINIMUM. Based on
your descriptions, what you'd get is tiny... the 320x240 would come out to
about a postage stamp in size (1" x 3/4"), and 640x480 would be about 2" x
1�"...

Enlarging the image can generally be done, but anything larger than a 200%
increase usually results in noticeable artifacts around any edges in the
image. Better-quality image editors like Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop can
smooth this roughness down, but you get a fuzzy image that way, one that
looks terribly out of focus.

Regarding image output, you really should discuss that with the photo
finisher. They may require a specialized format for their equipment. Most
places can GENERALLY use TIF, BMP, or PSD (Photoshop's default format).
Unfortunately, not many places support PSP (Paint Shop Pro's default
format). Some places may even support PNG. TIF will provide some space
savings over BMP, as BMP is 100% UNCOMPRESSED. TIF uses lossless
compression, so while the space savings are not generally all that great for
photo-realistic images, there is some. JPG should NEVER EVER EVER be used
except on the web due to its LOSSY compression method. Once an image is
converted to JPG, it's forever ruined, and successive saves of the image
only further degrade it. That's just the nature of JPG; it was a trade-off
format for high-resoluton images that are small and fast to download.

Now finally, you say you're taking a photodisc to a one hour image
developer. That's probably not best, as they are generally set up for
developing FILM and reprinting from NEGATIVES, not floppies. If you do not
have a printer capable of high-resolution photographic output, your best bet
would be a copy center (maybe) or a quick-stop printing place; not a
photoshop. Places that actually do PRINTING are more likely to be able to do
something with digital images than a photoshop would, unless the photoshop
SPECIFICALLY advertises that capability.

Your best bet, depending on what you want printed, how many copies, etc is
to probably invest in a photo-quality printer. I'm sold on HPs, having used
the others. They can be pricey, but I swear I've never had a problem with an
HP printer, where with others, I have. Check your local Staples, OfficeMax
or OfficeDepot (or similar) for HP printers, and ask for a demonstration.
You should be able to find a very capable printer for around $100-$150. Be
sure to compare the HP with Epsons, Cannons, Lexmarks and others, too, so
you can make an informed decision about the type of printer best suited for
your needs. You may find an excellent printer made by one of the other
companies better fits your budget or desires than HP. Regardless of the
printer brand, if you do go this route, be sure to pick up Inkjet Photo
Paper... It has an odd-feeling print side, similar to that of undeveloped
photo paper. The back side usually is imprinted with stuff just like a real
photo -- I have Kodak photo paper here, and the back looks JUST LIKE Kodak
prints I get from the photoshop (with some wording differences, of course).
When I've used this paper to print images to, unless there's a glaring
mistake in the image I'm printing, or I'm low on one color or another, it's
VERY hard to distinguish the printed photo from the developed one.

Good luck in your endeavors!
Kehvan M. Zydhek

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: NORTON ANTI-VIRUS 2002 scanned this email prior to sending. It is free
:: of any known embedded or attached viruses, trojans, or internet worms.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis M. Hall" <lhall1(at)midsouth.rr.com>
To: "hwg-graphics" <hwg-graphics(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 09:06
Subject: sizing .jpg for printing photos


> My apologies if this is off topic. My local one hour photo developer
> tells me that they can print photos from a floppy containing files in the
> .jpg
> format. I would want to have the output of this in 4 X 6 inch prints.
>
> I have a dated version of MGI VideoWave 1.02 with miroVIDEO DRX
> on my computer that I use for pulling images from my camcorder, or TV for
> use with
> my dated Pentium II occupied by Windows 95 along with PSP 7.03
>
> Can anyone give me a few hints that will help me for cropping, sizing,
> compressing,
> etc. the files so that I might end up with 4 X 6 in prints in portrait
mode,
> and what
> ever they call it where a subject might be standing with his/her feet on
the
> 4 inch side of the print?
>
> The images taken from the camcorder 8mm tape are either 320X240 and
> can be 640X480, but the former is my preference as the latter takes lots
of
> file space. What pixel size should I try to end up with to have a good 4X6
> inch
> print?
>
> Then, when I convert from .bmp to .jpg, should I use the high end
> compression
> allowed by PSP  to get a better quality print?
>
> Thank You,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

HWG: hwg-graphics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA