Help with Canon 20-D

In article tPtqd.169568$R05.46927@attbi_s53,
John McWilliams wrote:
Roland Karlsson wrote:

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

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

That doesn't sound like it's using the PPI settings, then.

If you've got a 600-pixel wide image, with no explicit PPI setting,
then PhotoShop will display it assuming a default value of 72ppi,
and will tell you the image is around 8.5" wide.

If you copy-and-paste that image into a 300ppi document you'll
end up with an image that's only 2" across. But that doesn't
mean that PhotoShop has rescaled the image - quite the reverse.
If PhotoShop was using PPI settings copying and pasting an 8.5"
wide image would always result in a final image 8.5" across.

John Francis wrote:
In article tPtqd.169568$R05.46927@attbi_s53,
John McWilliams wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:


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

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


That doesn't sound like it's using the PPI settings, then.

If you've got a 600-pixel wide image, with no explicit PPI setting,
then PhotoShop will display it assuming a default value of 72ppi,
and will tell you the image is around 8.5" wide.

If you copy-and-paste that image into a 300ppi document you'll
end up with an image that's only 2" across. But that doesn't
mean that PhotoShop has rescaled the image - quite the reverse.
If PhotoShop was using PPI settings copying and pasting an 8.5"
wide image would always result in a final image 8.5" across.

Well, all right, I shouldn't have used the word scaled down, as it
implies an action that doesn't take place. I should have said it would
appear out of scale due to how it's displayed.

--
John McWilliams

In article Lmzqd.413036$wV.190716@attbi_s54,
John McWilliams wrote:
John Francis wrote:
In article tPtqd.169568$R05.46927@attbi_s53,
John McWilliams wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:


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

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


That doesn't sound like it's using the PPI settings, then.

If you've got a 600-pixel wide image, with no explicit PPI setting,
then PhotoShop will display it assuming a default value of 72ppi,
and will tell you the image is around 8.5" wide.

If you copy-and-paste that image into a 300ppi document you'll
end up with an image that's only 2" across. But that doesn't
mean that PhotoShop has rescaled the image - quite the reverse.
If PhotoShop was using PPI settings copying and pasting an 8.5"
wide image would always result in a final image 8.5" across.

Well, all right, I shouldn't have used the word scaled down, as it
implies an action that doesn't take place. I should have said it would
appear out of scale due to how it's displayed.

So, if I understand correctly, you:

1) are upset that when PhotoShop copies and pastes a 600-pixel
source image it inserts a 600-pixel wide destination image

2) feel that somehow setting the ppi value in the source image
will change this behaviour

I've always felt it was a mistake to associate a PPI with an image
at any time prior to the final print stage - it just confuses people.
Forget about ppi - just think about image dimensions in pixels.

"John Francis" wrote in message
...

So, if I understand correctly, you:

1) are upset that when PhotoShop copies and pastes a 600-pixel
source image it inserts a 600-pixel wide destination image

2) feel that somehow setting the ppi value in the source image
will change this behaviour

I've always felt it was a mistake to associate a PPI with an image
at any time prior to the final print stage - it just confuses people.
Forget about ppi - just think about image dimensions in pixels.
-----------------------
Don't tell him to forget ppi, that's where all this crap started!

Ryadia wrote:
"John Francis" wrote in message
...

So, if I understand correctly, you:

1) are upset that when PhotoShop copies and pastes a 600-pixel
source image it inserts a 600-pixel wide destination image

2) feel that somehow setting the ppi value in the source image
will change this behaviour

I've always felt it was a mistake to associate a PPI with an image
at any time prior to the final print stage - it just confuses people.
Forget about ppi - just think about image dimensions in pixels.

-----------------------
Don't tell him to forget ppi, that's where all this crap started!


You don't understand me correctly, and I am not confused. But, thanks a
lot anyway.

--
John McWilliams

John McWilliams wrote in news:tPtqd.169568$R05.46927
@attbi_s53:

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.

Aha! Now I understand.

You are viewing the pictures at "print size". And when you copy
and paste you want the copy to be the same apperent size as
the original.

OK - as I said before - your preferences are your preferences.
You do whatever you like. Is it OK that I give you some advices
though? OK?

I assume you have answered yes

The "print size" is only correct if you have callibrated your
monitor to the correct pixel pitch - default 72 PPI. You have to change
that value in the "Preferences" dialog if use have another pixel pitch
on your monitor.

Personally I recommend you to use "print size" only as a fast
preview for the print size and never use it when editing. Why?

(1) It is best to edit at 25, 50, 100 or 200%. This will give you
the best idea about the effect of your manipulations. To edit
using print size will probably not get you one of those. Moreover,
it is a good idea to switch between those scalings for different
kind of manipulations. Sometimes you want to see the entire image
and sometimes you want just details. I know of no way to get
double or half the print size in Photoshop.

(2) As you have already seen - you got problems with your camera. And
you will probably get problems with all cameras you buy and all
pictures you are going to scan or get from friends. Your method to
use "print size" is not the standard way - so you will always be
forced to do it the hard way. You are begging for problems.

(3) You will probably print at a given size sometimes, e.g. using
the print with preview. Then, the view as "print size" is not
correct any more.

(4) Your method confuses more than it helps. It gives you the (faulty)
view that your images have a physical a size. They have not. It is
just pixels. If you have had that in mind you should have understood
why the picture got larger while copying. It does not get larger,
it only looks that way.


/Roland