burkphoto wrote:
I think we're all bozos on this bus...
I'll put on my anti-flying-pixel-bozo-hat and go along for the ride...
burkphoto wrote:
May the debate about whether it is duct tape or DuckĀ® Tape begin...
I prefer gaffer's tape. No gooey residue.
larryepage wrote:
I prefer gaffer's tape. No gooey residue.
So do I. But at $22/roll for 2" by 60 yards... it is pricey.
Cheaper than lawsuits, though.
If you need 1000 words to explain your image, you're doing it wrong.
CHG_CANON wrote:
If you need 1000 words to explain your image, you're doing it wrong.
But I think you are being generous.
---
CHG_CANON wrote:
If you need 1000 words to explain your image, you're doing it wrong.
I'm a man of few words, I don't explain them at all.
They will either be liked or not.
I just realized I don't keep track of how many megapixels I have. I know my point and shoot from the 2000s is about 3, or maybe 6. My everyday shooter is between 20 and 40, I'm almost positive. But I don't really get that much into MPs. I suppose I should know at least that much. But it doesn't help. I can remember top ISO rating, flash guide number, minimum focus distance, but not MPs.
and what if 98% of the images you print are 4x6?
RodeoMan wrote:
and what if 98% of the images you print are 4x6?
Then you need smaller pixels so you can fit more in the image!
--
I prefer definitive answers.
If you print a 4x6 from a bazillion pixels, how much does the printer driver discard?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.