Help with Canon 20-D

"Petros" wrote in message
...
John McWilliams posted:
The fact is I'd like to be able to quickly see what size an image will
print at or export to another file with no interpolation. Other than
going to image-Size, I don't know how else I can achieve a graphical
representation of the image's 'native' "print size".

--
John McWilliams

I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure. Do you mean
that it would be better if you could program the camera to define a
print dpi into the image file? If so, then I guess I see your point. I
still don't think it would help you much, since the ppi of monitors
vary at different resolutions, so it would be nearly impossible to see
the exact print size on screen at the click of a mouse. The best that
you can (usually) do is to use a DTP program that imports images and at
the same time resets the print dpi to a standard (usually 300). Then,
at least, you can see the image in scale in relation to a given page
size. But even if you have to reset the dpi manually, is it all that
much work? You could always use IrfanView to batch the jobs for you.

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos

Adding to that...
Photoshop has a lot of facilities to allow you to do just what you want.
You can define the print resolution, for example and then click a menu item
"print size" or another one "Pixels" and see the size of the image
represented on the screen. Of course the cost of Photoshop might slow you
down a tad!

Ryadia wrote:

"Petros" wrote in message
...

John McWilliams posted:

The fact is I'd like to be able to quickly see what size an image will
print at or export to another file with no interpolation. Other than
going to image-Size, I don't know how else I can achieve a graphical
representation of the image's 'native' "print size".

--
John McWilliams

I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure. Do you mean
that it would be better if you could program the camera to define a
print dpi into the image file? If so, then I guess I see your point. I
still don't think it would help you much, since the ppi of monitors
vary at different resolutions, so it would be nearly impossible to see
the exact print size on screen at the click of a mouse. The best that
you can (usually) do is to use a DTP program that imports images and at
the same time resets the print dpi to a standard (usually 300). Then,
at least, you can see the image in scale in relation to a given page
size. But even if you have to reset the dpi manually, is it all that
much work? You could always use IrfanView to batch the jobs for you.

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos


Adding to that...
Photoshop has a lot of facilities to allow you to do just what you want.
You can define the print resolution, for example and then click a menu item
"print size" or another one "Pixels" and see the size of the image
represented on the screen. Of course the cost of Photoshop might slow you
down a tad!

I got the entire suite at a nice student price a few months ago, even
though my 'real' (full time) student days are a distant memory.
Community colleges are great; I are a student at Vista, located next to
the UC Berkeley campus.

You've sort of hit the nail again: it's the above I want to do *without*
the step of going into image size and set to 240 or 300 whichever I am
using for that batch.

--
John McWilliams

I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
--
John McWilliams

John McWilliams wrote:

I appreciate the patience with which you explain the above, but you seem
to fall into the same trap as Roland, i.e., telling me it's irrelevant,
when (I believe) I understand the ins and outs of resolution and pixel
counts and size of image based on ppi chosen at time of printing.

The fact is I'd like to be able to quickly see what size an image will
print at or export to another file with no interpolation. Other than
going to image-Size, I don't know how else I can achieve a graphical
representation of the image's 'native' "print size".

You would do well to read Gisle's webpage as a starter.

By all means use resize as you see fit, but make sure you're working on a 'work'
copy, not the original, lest ye boo-boo the works.

I don't even look very much at the print dpi number in the file until I'm ready
to print. I make seperate files for each print size, and for each print size
the next to last step is to USM at that size. This is critical. The very last
step is to set the print dpi to the optimum for my printer (300) and then save
that edition. Prior to that I work on the simple assumption that if I want a
print to be 10 inches x 7.5 inches, then the image has to be 300 x 10 X 300 x
7.5 pixels in size.

So take all the freedoms you want, but print dpi only matters at the time you
commit the image to the printer.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- [SI] rulz: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

John McWilliams wrote in news:wTupd.669079$8_6.386282
@attbi_s04:

I am always amused at those who decide for others what's useful and
what's not. Please note I am not telling you what should be important
for you.

If it i simportant to you - it is of course important to you.

All I is saying that I don't understand why.

I can see no advantages of setting any PPI value in the file.

What is your plan for this number?



/Roland

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
John McWilliams writes:

In your essay, you say the number is meaningless. Maybe to you, but
some of us have our own reasons for wishing JPEGs being brought in
at the resolution of choice, not 72 ppi. This in spite of
understanding what it all means!


I assume you are a Mac user.
In that case, take a look at this - from the description it looks
as a batch utility that will do what you want.

http://www.ingconti.com/Software/BCI/ConvertImage.html

NB: Just found it with Google. I haven't tested it.


It would seem to be a function of the camera's settings, but I don't
know where in the menu to change it, if it's settable at all.


I don't know of any camera with such a setting.

Many thanks. It seems that images off my D300 were brought in at 180
dpi, but I haven't the time to confirm that now, as it could be
academic. It could be a function of Image Capture, the mac app that'll
import all image formats.

I will just create the setting as part of a PS action, and will also be
looking forward to Apple's next OS, which will include a bunch of very
fast converters that'll deal with images.

Why'd I care? I simply like to be able to switch to print view in CS,
for one, without having to go set Image size first, and for another if I
import into file, I'd like all settings to be the same.

--

John McWilliams

John McWilliams posted:
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
John McWilliams writes:

In your essay, you say the number is meaningless. Maybe to you, but
some of us have our own reasons for wishing JPEGs being brought in
at the resolution of choice, not 72 ppi. This in spite of
understanding what it all means!


I assume you are a Mac user.
In that case, take a look at this - from the description it looks
as a batch utility that will do what you want.

http://www.ingconti.com/Software/BCI/ConvertImage.html

NB: Just found it with Google. I haven't tested it.


It would seem to be a function of the camera's settings, but I don't
know where in the menu to change it, if it's settable at all.


I don't know of any camera with such a setting.

Many thanks. It seems that images off my D300 were brought in at 180
dpi, but I haven't the time to confirm that now, as it could be
academic. It could be a function of Image Capture, the mac app that'll
import all image formats.

I will just create the setting as part of a PS action, and will also be
looking forward to Apple's next OS, which will include a bunch of very
fast converters that'll deal with images.

Why'd I care? I simply like to be able to switch to print view in CS,
for one, without having to go set Image size first, and for another if I
import into file, I'd like all settings to be the same.

--

John McWilliams

I think I see your problem. IIRC the Adobe page layout programs import
bitmaps at a predetermined dpi set by the user. So in a normal
workflow, you wouldn't really need to deal with this in PS, and would
go about doing your work at 100% or fit to screen, checking only to
make sure that your pixels for output are there. As soon as you import
the file into InDesign or whatever, you'd automatically have your 300
or 600 dpi.
--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos

In message deApd.566823$mD.149850@attbi_s02,
John McWilliams wrote:

I appreciate the patience with which you explain the above, but you seem
to fall into the same trap as Roland, i.e., telling me it's irrelevant,
when (I believe) I understand the ins and outs of resolution and pixel
counts and size of image based on ppi chosen at time of printing.

The fact is I'd like to be able to quickly see what size an image will
print at or export to another file with no interpolation.

You never need any interpolation to print at any size.

Other than
going to image-Size, I don't know how else I can achieve a graphical
representation of the image's 'native' "print size".

An image has no native print size. It may or may not have a *default*
print size, but that is only a tag placed in a file and has no direct
relationship to any real property of the image itself.
--


John P Sheehy

Roland Karlsson wrote:

John McWilliams wrote in news:wTupd.669079$8_6.386282
@attbi_s04:


I am always amused at those who decide for others what's useful and
what's not. Please note I am not telling you what should be important
for you.


If it i simportant to you - it is of course important to you.

All I is saying that I don't understand why.

I can see no advantages of setting any PPI value in the file.

What is your plan for this number?


For one, I like to see at a click what size the image will print at with
no resizing. For another, when I bring an image into an existing one, I
prefer they match up without scaling. If everything is 240 ppi then I am
all set.

--

John McWilliams

John McWilliams wrote in news:PTnqd.478134$D%.230319
@attbi_s51:

For one, I like to see at a click what size the image will print at with
no resizing.

OK - fair enough.

Personally I want to print at a certain size - and then I get whatever
PPI that is available. Always printing at e.g. 240 PPI and then accepting
whatever size that is, is an unusual request IMHO.

For another, when I bring an image into an existing one, I
prefer they match up without scaling.

Hmmm .. I am not really sure what you mean here.

Do you say that e.g Photoshop scales copy and paste according to PPI?

I did not think so - and I just tested. Photoshop does not
care at all with regard to PPI settings when copying.

If everything is 240 ppi then I am all set.

Roland Karlsson wrote:

John McWilliams wrote in news:PTnqd.478134$D%.230319
@attbi_s51:


For one, I like to see at a click what size the image will print at with
no resizing.


OK - fair enough.

Personally I want to print at a certain size - and then I get whatever
PPI that is available. Always printing at e.g. 240 PPI and then accepting
whatever size that is, is an unusual request IMHO.

However, that's not what I do with printing, fwiw.


For another, when I bring an image into an existing one, I
prefer they match up without scaling.


Hmmm .. I am not really sure what you mean here.

Do you say that e.g Photoshop scales copy and paste according to PPI?

I did not think so - and I just tested. Photoshop does not
care at all with regard to PPI settings when copying.

It does with my version of CS. If I copy in a 72 ppi image into a 300
ppi image, the former will be scaled down tremendously.

--
John McWilliams