how to put the border around a headshot?

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 00:34:18 -0700, Marc 182
wrote:

Quite the contrary, I read everything he wrote with interest. Idiot
would seem to be the last thing to describe him. Just because I don't
mag print doesn't mean I'm not interested in the details. He was on-
charter, on-topic, and maybe just a little off-point, ...but no, he was
on point too.

You shouldn't seek to speak for everyone else, just for yourself.

Marc


Thanks for the vote of confidence Marc.

People get really tied up in their personal explanations for the
rationale behind digital image resolutions and often don't see the
bigger picture that lead to the recommendations in the first place.

No problem. The guy just annoyed me because he called everyone on the
thread an "idiot" or "moron", except for me! The nerve! I can be as much
of an idiotic moron as anyone.

Marc

"J C" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 00:34:18 -0700, Marc 182
wrote:

Quite the contrary, I read everything he wrote with interest. Idiot
would seem to be the last thing to describe him. Just because I don't
mag print doesn't mean I'm not interested in the details. He was on-
charter, on-topic, and maybe just a little off-point, ...but no, he was
on point too.

You shouldn't seek to speak for everyone else, just for yourself.

Marc


Thanks for the vote of confidence Marc.

People get really tied up in their personal explanations for the
rationale behind digital image resolutions and often don't see the
bigger picture that lead to the recommendations in the first place.


yeah, this is coming from a guy using the term 'dpi' to describe digital
images? uh, ok. what exactly is 'dpi'?

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:28:28 -0800, "M77" wrote:


yeah, this is coming from a guy using the term 'dpi' to describe digital
images? uh, ok. what exactly is 'dpi'?


I guess you don't actually work with digital images in a professional
capacity then.

I'll tell you what, why don't you call someone in an electronic
pre-press department at a printing company and ask them whether using
the term "dpi" when talking about a TIF file is appropriate.

In simple terms, whether you call it "dpi" or "ppi" really does not
make much of a difference (do you really see that much of a difference
between the word "dot" and "pixel"?). The terms are used as synonyms
in the printing industry and everyone understands exactly what it
means when dpi is used when refering to a digital image. [However,
"lpi" actually is different.]

Since you insist that "dpi" is wrong, I can only conclude that you are
young and don't really have much experience handling digital images
for a living. And I say young, because only in the last few years have
people really started using PPI when describing digital images. So you
must have just become "aware" around that time.

I'm guessing you read your camera manual and some specs about video
cards and you think you know exactly what's what.

Come talk to me after you've spent 30 years working in publishing and
printing.


-- JC

"J C" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:28:28 -0800, "M77" wrote:

In simple terms, whether you call it "dpi" or "ppi" really does not
make much of a difference (do you really see that much of a difference
between the word "dot" and "pixel"?).

you obviously don't do this for a living. i don't see any dots on my
computer screen, therefore, how can a digital image be measured in DOTS per
inch? photoshop does not mention dpi either.

Since you insist that "dpi" is wrong, I can only conclude that you are
young and don't really have much experience handling digital images
for a living.

wrong. i do this crap for al iving. dpi, when describing a digital image
is WRONG. aren't you tired of being wrong?

And I say young, because only in the last few years have
people really started using PPI when describing digital images.

uh, no. it's always been ppi. maybe YOU just recently discovered dpi was
wrong.

So you
must have just become "aware" around that time.

your lack of knowledge is funny. holy crap you are one big dummy. you
need to read up on digital imaging and then get back to us.

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:44:16 -0800, "M77" wrote:



uh, no. it's always been ppi. maybe YOU just recently discovered dpi was
wrong.


Uh NO, it is not. Check this out. Scanner manufacturers list the specs
of their equipment in terms of DPI.

Here's just one example:
http://www.umax.com/scanners/index.j...ssional+models

Get a clue. Only twits in newsgroups think it is worth arguing the
distinction between dpi and ppi.

What? You don't see dots on your computer screen? Then you're not
using a magnifying glass or must have it turned off, cause they are
there.

By the way, I reviewed your comments. Do you realize that you've
actually added absolutely no technical knowledge to this thread. I can
only conclude that you must be lying about working with images
professionally. But then again I've encountered professional photogs
that don't even know what a CMYK image is... so if you are a pro you
can take comfort in knowing that you're not alone in your stupidity.


-- JC

"J C" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:44:16 -0800, "M77" wrote:



uh, no. it's always been ppi. maybe YOU just recently discovered dpi
was
wrong.


Uh NO, it is not. Check this out. Scanner manufacturers list the specs
of their equipment in terms of DPI.

Here's just one example:
http://www.umax.com/scanners/index.j...ssional+models

didn't look at the link, but some manufacturers have decided to use the term
'dpi' incorrectly, only because retards like you don't know the difference.

Get a clue. Only twits in newsgroups think it is worth arguing the
distinction between dpi and ppi.

because there is a big difference. you can argue all you want, but you'll
still be wrong.

What? You don't see dots on your computer screen? Then you're not
using a magnifying glass or must have it turned off, cause they are
there.

WRONG MORON!!! your monitor is made of pixels, not dots.

By the way, I reviewed your comments. Do you realize that you've
actually added absolutely no technical knowledge to this thread. I can
only conclude that you must be lying about working with images
professionally. But then again I've encountered professional photogs
that don't even know what a CMYK image is... so if you are a pro you
can take comfort in knowing that you're not alone in your stupidity.

and i suppose you want your lab to output a cmyk file on their frontier?
you are the poster-child for retardation. congrats.

The best thing I have found for sloppy bodrders is Nitorix BorderIT.
(www.nitorix.com)

It does true full frame sloppy borders on any size image. It will also
batch process an entire folder of images.

I found these scripts through the www.opensourcephoto.net forum. Which
by the way is a great community of photographers.

The best thing I have found for sloppy bodrders is Nitorix BorderIT.
(www.nitorix.com)

It does true full frame sloppy borders on any size image. It will also
batch process an entire folder of images.

I found these scripts through the www.opensourcephoto.net forum. Which
by the way is a great community of photographers.

There are a number of frame styles available within Elements already, which you'd find under Layer Styles. There are a lot of useful sites about photo and photo editing, my favorite blog
http://weedit.photos/ for many years