Set the DPI for your screen regardless of what folks say here. (PS CC and likely many other software) (Page 4): So now the topic is (or is not?) viewing your images at the 1:1 pixel...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

So now the topic is (or is not?) viewing your images at the 1:1 pixel level? When editing?

For printing, are you saying that for an example 30x40in print, make sure to get a 30x40in monitor? Something else?

What do 30x40in prints have to do with 600px wide thumbnails?

You've got to leave something more than bread crumbs on this wandering forest walk. I can't follow the trail of topics.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Oh, I agree that few images are printed in this day and age.

The issue is always about having a correct setup to start with. It includes the PPI and DPI settings.

As to capturing the initial image? Another can of worms also controversial for all those who do not print.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Rongnongno wrote:

Oh, I agree that few images are printed in this day and age.

The issue is always about having a correct setup to start with. It includes the PPI and DPI settings.

As to capturing the initial image? Another can of worms also controversial for all those who do not print.

So, where would one adjust the ppi settings on their monitor? Call the manufacturer? other?

The attached image has a DPI = 1. (See properties if you download or my screen capture.) How will the file print? As 1 big dot? Other?

I ask because I'm still unsure how many dots fit in a pixel. If this attachment is 2048px wide, how many of those pixels will fit into the image's 1 (one) DPI???

What was the purpose of your earlier side by side thumbnail?

I'm so confused.

(Download)

Rongnongno Loc: FL

CHG_CANON wrote:

So now the topic is (or is not?) viewing your images at the 1:1 pixel level? When editing?

For printing, are you saying that for an example 30x40in print, make sure to get a 30x40in monitor? Something else?

What do 30x40in prints have to do with 600px wide thumbnails?

You've got to leave something more than bread crumbs on this wandering forest walk. I can't follow the trail of topics.

One of you mentioned that a web image cannot be controlled on someone else's display, well, it can be IF one forces the image sizes.

UHH reduces an image in an insane amount of compression when creating a thumbnail so creating your own thumbnail allows you to offer a better image as I illustrated in my sample. Taking control of what is being displayed. There was a color shift as well as softness in the UHH thumbnail. In mine, there is none of that. By the way both can be found here.

Also, you need to check: in no place did I mention the image resolution, size, yes, resolution? No. I mentioned the display and the printer resolution. That is different from the image resolution, Which is what really interest me.

More often than not an image gets an automated 'resolution of 300' which is as useful that the damned 70 ppi default in PS CC display settings.

Now you understand why I am irate?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I have seen 0 resolution in JPG headers. This created some software to crash and not others...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Rongnongno wrote:

One you mentioned that a web image cannot be contr... (show quote)

The resolution of any / all digital images is very simply the pixel resolution. And pixel resolution is very simply the total pixels in the image (or the display device), a total number of pixels that are the product of the length x width of the image file or display device, as measured in pixels. Look it up if you need some independent confirmation. Just because you want to talk about the display and printing of digital images, but not speak about pixel resolution, that doesn't make the fundamentals go away. Ignoring pixel resolution with PPI or made up DPI doesn't change the fundamentals of displaying or printing digital images.

You might as well as have written this in Russian. I can't make any sense of it.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Rongnongno wrote:

Now you understand why I am irate?

No, it escapes me why you are irate/angry. You’re upset because others don’t edit in the same manner you do or disagree with you that your method is the only correct one? Really?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

ok, once again, I am not mentioning anything that supposedly goes away. I mention HOW a pixel is created on a display. I do not care about the PPI at all simply because the formula stays the same.

What you call resolution is the display pixel size, as width and vertical pixel number. The resolution is in PPI. The size of each pixel on a display.

You are confused, and not by me, sorry.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

TriX wrote:

No, it escapes me why you are irate/angry. You’re upset because others don’t edit in the same manner you do or disagree with you that your method is the only correct one? Really?

I am irate because the initial post has not been read and understood. This has led to a crappy exchange.

I state how pixels are created on a device in order for a color shade determined by a mathematical formula to be used since a number has no dimension.

This is a false narrative that has spread for too long.

► A pixel as no size (It is a mathematical formula that determines a color shade).
► A pixel on a monitor is created software that extrapolates or interpolates pixels as needed, giving each pixel a dynamic mathematical value and a physical value as set by the monitor PPI.
► A dot on a print is also subject to the same software calculation to extrapolate/interpolate in order to create a fixed mathematical and a physical value in order to print, according to a printer resolution in DPI.

There is NO MENTION of image resolution.
There is NO MENTION of display size.
There is NO MENTION of print size.

I mention elsewhere the use of PS CC setting for both display and printer in order to create an accurate view under 'Print view' and 'Real view'

Where in my posts do you see 'image resolution'??????????

Just Shoot Me Loc: Ithaca, NY

Rongnongno wrote:

b Any error made while post-processing is glaring... (show quote)

Perhaps Ron should consider another hobby that doesn’t involve such informative info. Maybe Quantum Physics?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Just Shoot Me wrote:

Perhaps Ron should consider another hobby that doesn’t involve such informative info. Maybe Quantum Physics?

I just like to understand how things work in order to optimize my use of them properly.

UHH inner working by example, many things are still missing...

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Just Shoot Me wrote:

Perhaps Ron should consider another hobby that doesn’t involve such informative info. Maybe Quantum Physics?

Just one more thing he can be wrong about.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Rongnongno wrote:

I am irate because the initial post has not been r... (show quote)

Jacque, with all due respect, I think you’re getting worked up over semantics, and not everyone agrees with your definitions.

First, from Wiki: “In digital imaging, a pixel, pel,[1] or picture element[2] is a smallest addressable element in a raster image, or the smallest addressable element in an all points addressable display device; so it is the smallest controllable element of a picture represented on the screen.”. Note the word “element”. The actual CMOs device on the sensor or the LCD device on the display has a finite physical size - it’s not an abstraction - it’s a physical semiconductor device on the monitor (not “created software”), or a CMOs junction on a physical sensor.

As far as what has been “mentioned”, I’m afraid you have lost me here...

srt101fan

Maybe I'm speaking for other UHHers that are as dense as I am when I say the educational value of this topic is....Zero!

But keep at it if you all enjoy it.....

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Rongnongno wrote:

ok, once again, I am not mentioning anything that supposedly goes away. I mention HOW a pixel is created on a display. I do not care about the PPI at all simply because the formula stays the same.

What you call resolution is the display pixel size, as width and vertical pixel number. The resolution is in PPI. The size of each pixel on a display.

You are confused, and not by me, sorry.

If you make up your own definitions, you're going to have a really hard time in Quantum Physics, just like you're struggling in Photography.

Resolution is not PPI. I suggested before you look it up for independent confirmation. But, you've maintained only your own made up definition. No wonder you're so frustrated.

You could have checked wiki. Here's Tutorials Point (tutorials - a method of transferring knowledge and may be used as a part of a learning process):

In pixel resolution, the term resolution refers to the total number or count of pixels in an digital image. For example. If an image has M rows and N columns, then its resolution can be defined as M X N. If we define resolution as the total number of pixels, then pixel resolution can be defined with set of two numbers.