Image size , A technical puzzle.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

This one is at least 100 ppi

it doesn't have any ppi unless it's printed, at which point the ppi is
determined by the size of the print, not the tag in the file.

100 ppi is very low quality. typically a print is 300 ppi (or higher),
although 250 ppi is sometimes acceptable, such as for a large print
that won't be viewed from up close.

put another way, an image that's restricted to 1024x768 pixels can only
be used for roughly a 3x4" print or smaller without looking like crap.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

i never said i know any nefccc staff.

prior to this thread, i never heard of nefccc, which is the northeast
florida cancer control collaborative, something else entirely.

Are you the same nospam who complains about playing with words? The typo
is obvious.

yet when i say something obvious, you and everyone else get on my case
for not being explicit.

can't have it both ways.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Model shoots are no big deal. They are popular with the vendors
because they are a good way for a vendor to expose club members to
lighting and background products. They lead to sales.

wrong.

model shoots are very popular with attendees, and in fact, one of the
most popular.

vendors don't give a **** nor is there any pimping of lighting or
background products.

nikon/canon offer cameras and lenses for loan (which is actually a
recent thing),

I guess you call over ten years "recent."

for a conference that's been going on for 70 years, absolutely, and
it's actually been less than ten years for loaners.

but not specifically for models. it's whatever the
person borrowing it wants to do with it.

If you knew anything about the NECCC conference, you would realize that
there is a reality that few of the loaners are used for shooting models.

tell that to tony, who claims that the only reason that the vendors are
there are because of the model shoots.

unless you audit everyone who borrows equipment as well as those who
are at the model shoots, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether
they own the equipment they're using or what people do with what they
borrow.

unlike you or tony, i don't claim to know what people do with borrowed
equipment, nor do i care.

in other words, you're talking out your ass again.

that applies to you too.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Not relevant. I simply looking for an answer, which despite much
discussion, has not been approached.

the answer regarding why there are different image sizes was given on
my very first post.

It was, but buried in a lot of irrelevancies attacking the competition
rules. Nor did your original answer go into any detail explaining why.

how detailed of an explanation did you want? you asked why and i said
the file size depends on compression level and detail.

i guess i overestimated your ability to think.

since you set the compression level the same, there's only one thing
left, that being detail.

if you wanted additional information, your followup question could have
been "could you elaborate on that? how does detail affect the size?"
but you didn't do that, at least not right away.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

The more detail (colour, patterns etc) there is in an image, the larger
the file size at a standard compression "quality" setting.

Thanks. I didn't realize that complexity of content was relevant to
image size. My thinking was that a pixel was a pixel regardless of
color. I will have to plahy further with that concept.

when it's *not* compressed, all pixels are equal.

when it *is* compressed, the content matters.

for example, compressing an image that's a solid colour (e.g., all
pixels the same) will result in something a whole lot smaller than a
photo of intricate details in a flower.


Thank you,
I understand now. Just wish you had said that earlier.

ok

In article , PeterN
wrote:

suffice it to say that i know *much* more about neccc than you do.

And I think you're lying through your teeth.

think whatever you want, but i guarantee that what i said is correct.

You can claim to know things, but never offer any proof.

it should be obvious from what i've written so far that i'm quite
familiar with neccc.

The only obvious thing is that you read what's on their website.

wrong.

the *only* thing i got from the website was the competition rules.

I have
been going to that conference for several non=consecutive years, in each
of which I have had an enjoyable educational experience. Candidly, that
is all I care about in making my decision in going.

according to tony, they're not teaching proper model shooting
techniques.

tony also said that those who attend are wasting their time and money.

you have until the end of the week to get a refund.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

vendors don't give a **** nor is there any pimping of lighting or
background products.

This is yet another thing where you know what other people think? You
know for sure that the vendors don't give a **** that the exposure of
their product leads to sales?

They don't have to "pimp" a product. Just stand back and let the
attendee work with it and see it in use.

again, you're talking out your ass.

attendees do not get to work with the lighting setups or backdrops used
in the indoor model shoot setups and unless someone looks for
specifics, they might not even know who makes any of it. it's not like
there are big signs advertising the setup.

for outdoors, there's nothing to work with. the lighting is courtesy of
mother nature and the backdrops are the buildings and landscape of the
campus. occasionally a classic car might be used as a prop, but that's
about it. are you now going to claim that ford is sponsoring the show
because someone shows up with a 60's mustang?

You aer demonstrating your ignorance of outdoor shooting. Bunny you
don't mention use of reflectiors, difusers, green screens, and other
outdoor light control techniques.

you've seen all of that stuff in use at outdoor neccc model shoots?

or would you be bull****ting again?

also, a green screen is rarely used outdoors since the light needs to
be controlled.

that makes you the ignorant one.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

people aren't at the indoor sets to learn about which particular studio
lights to get. they're there to practice their skills in taking photos
in situations they might not otherwise be able to.

You must be talking about the skill it takes to release a shutter.

nope.

If the lighting is placed by someone else,

it is.

and the shooting angle
determined by a third party,

it is not.

whatever gave you that ridiculous idea?

taking the image requires no skill on the
part of the person who operates the shutter release. Such an image was
not the product of the shooter.

since your assumptions are wrong, your conclusion is also wrong.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I haven't been to any event where Canon or Nikon loaned lenses or
bodies to users. I have been to an event where a company that rents
lenses and bodies provided lenses and bodies at no charge at one
station.

just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it's never done.

the loaners are offered for no cost.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Well, I didn't say NECCC is offering a full course on model
photography.

then why did you compare it to one?

There was no comparison made, but it was provided to show you what a
real model shoot involves since you obviously don't know.

another incorrect assumption and your complaint should be directed to
neccc, not me.

once again, i'm telling you what goes on there.

And you were ther, when?

i was wondering when someone would actually ask that.

so far, everyone has been *assuming* i've been making up stuff or
pulling it from a website without ever asking if i've attended or how
it is i know what goes on there.

the answer is yes, and more than once.