rond-photography wrote:
I have submitted photos to club competitions where the stipulation was "save as Jpeg 7 inches long on long side". Thus you would be submitting, basically, 5X7's. The entries were projected onto a large screen for the judges to view and I could not see any degradation of my or anyone else's photo. I can't explain why a 5X7 projects well, but it does.
I have created Power Point presentations and have used even smaller images successfully, thus keeping the overall presentation a reasonable file size.
I have submitted photos to club competitions where... (
show quote)
"Save as Jpeg 7 inches long on long side" has no meaning! Zero, zip, nada. The only measure that makes any sense is the image dimensions in PIXELS.
Most labs want at least 240 pixels per printed inch of output at a size of 8x10 inches, which would be 1920 by 2400 pixels. For a 5x7, you need about 300 PPI, so 1500 by 2100 pixels. The important things to remember about resolutions:
1) The assumption is that these pixels are real, original, processed sensor data, as created by the camera processor or post-processing software. In other words, not *enlarged* via interpolation (interpolation creates fake pixels to make an image bigger. In doing so, it reduces the actual resolution of the image).
MORE pixels per inch are needed for smaller prints. FEWER pixels per inch are needed for larger prints. I know that seems counter-intuitive, but it's a fact. A 20x16 made at 180 pixels per inch is perfectly acceptable in all but the most ridiculous of pixel peeping situations.
Think about that. A 1920x1080 image meets HDTV specifications. If you display that image on your 55" or larger TV, and view it from six feet away, it seems quite sharp, clear, and detailed. Yet a print from it at standard 240 PPI lab resolution would be around 8x4.5 INCHES. Why? VIEWING DISTANCE.
The normal viewing distance for a print or digital monitor image is between 1.0 and 1.5 times the diagonal dimension of that image. Now, if you're the usual camera club judge, you PIXEL PEEP. You want 300 PPI, even if the print is 40x30 inches! However, for maximum photographic resolution when viewing a 5x7 section of a 40x30 from nine INCHES, that would require a 12,000 by 9,000 pixel overall image. That's 108 megapixels! Very few cameras can come close to recording that many pixels, so we will certainly accept some amount of interpolation, and tell the judge to go sit in a corner and find the pixels on the wall.
DO NOT confuse PPI and dpi. Pixels are numbers. Dots are physical spots of density, either recorded by a sensor, or laid down on paper by some kind of printing process.
Pixels do not have dimensions. They are simply RGB values representing colors of light. We can reproduce a pixel with a dot — or multiple dots — of any size.
Dots DO have dimensions, as in recording 300 dpi on a flatbed scanner, or printing at 600dpi on a mini-lab silver halide printer, or printing 2880x1440 dpi on an Epson inkjet printer.
How does all this relate to file size? Really, it does not. FILE size can be directly related to pixel dimensions, as in an uncompressed TIFF file or a generic bitmap file. But the moment you introduce some sort of compression scheme, as is used for some TIFF files and all JPEG files, it doesn't relate well, or at all! I can make a 2000x3000 pixel image into a 6 MB uncompressed TIFF, or a 1.2 MB high quality JPEG, or a 64 KB low quality JPEG.
So yes, FILE size matters, but it is not usually the most important measure of image quality or enlarge-ability. THAT would be pixel dimensions.
I know this topic confuses the hell out of lots of people. It confused me, 30 years ago. Only by working with actual images, talking to Kodak technical sales reps, making lots of prints in a pro lab, and showing them to focus groups, did I come to understand it.
I hope this helps...