Image size , A technical puzzle.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:55:01 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

A problem is that what may be obvious ton person need not be obvious
to another.

can't have it both ways.

Soetimes you have to.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 7/12/2015 6:25 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 16:34:14 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/10/2015 6:49 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 08:05:40 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/9/2015 11:09 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I recently submitted two images to a competition. Bothe were 100 ppi and
measured, in pixels, 1020 x 768, both were saved at the same JPEG
compression level. Both files were saved as 8 bit JPEG.

there is no ppi in a jpeg file.

there is a tag that *suggests* an initial size, such as for a page
layout app (and that tag may not necessarily be used, depending on the
app), but other than that, the tag is meaningless.

ppi only matters when printing.

Yes. They intend to print certain images.

But the 72ppi they require fit no printer but that was the common ppi
of CRT screens.

This one is at least 100 ppi

CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) or LED (Light Emitting Diode)?

I'm only talking about the image requirements for the competition I
entered. Try not to let the sideliner with a desperate need for
attention, divert your thoughts.







anyone who requests a jpeg file at a specific ppi has no clue.

See above.


the pixel dimensions are what matters, and clearly they're stuck in the
1990s if they want it at 1024x768.

See rule 22.



--
PeterN

On 7/12/2015 6:55 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


So! What makes you think the images will be larger?

--
PeterN

On 7/12/2015 6:55 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


Sorry. I lost my head.

--
PeterN

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:02:49 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/12/2015 6:25 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 16:34:14 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/10/2015 6:49 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 08:05:40 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/9/2015 11:09 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I recently submitted two images to a competition. Bothe were 100 ppi and
measured, in pixels, 1020 x 768, both were saved at the same JPEG
compression level. Both files were saved as 8 bit JPEG.

there is no ppi in a jpeg file.

there is a tag that *suggests* an initial size, such as for a page
layout app (and that tag may not necessarily be used, depending on the
app), but other than that, the tag is meaningless.

ppi only matters when printing.

Yes. They intend to print certain images.

But the 72ppi they require fit no printer but that was the common ppi
of CRT screens.

This one is at least 100 ppi

CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) or LED (Light Emitting Diode)?

I'm only talking about the image requirements for the competition I
entered. Try not to let the sideliner with a desperate need for
attention, divert your thoughts.

I thought I was addressing the original image requirements. I remember
in previous circumstances having people ask for 72ppi in the belief
that was essential to them being able to display them on their
monitor. I never could understand why.







anyone who requests a jpeg file at a specific ppi has no clue.

See above.


the pixel dimensions are what matters, and clearly they're stuck in the
1990s if they want it at 1024x768.

See rule 22.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 7/12/2015 6:55 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

I do KNOW that little, if any of the borrowed lenses can be used for the
outdoor model shoots. surprise! For the six times I have attended, the
lenses had to be returned by aobut 4:00PM. The outdoor model shoots have
started about that tinme on Fridays and Saturdays. IIRC there were no
loaners available on Sunday.



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

I am showing that you have no idea what you are talking about, and are
just bull****ting.


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

that applies to you too.



--
PeterN

On 7/12/2015 6:55 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

The please explain, in detail the source of your information.


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.



--
PeterN

On 7/12/2015 6:55 PM, nospam wrote:
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?

Yes! But your question has nothing to do the absurdity of your above
stated comment.


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


Seems to me that the readers can judge for themselves/

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

Rarely does not mean never. Obviously use of any equipment would be
dependant upon outdoor conditions.


that makes you the ignorant one.

Again, I'll let the readeers be the judges.

--
PeterN

On 7/12/2015 6:55 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


Are you going this year?

--
PeterN

On 7/12/2015 9:13 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:02:49 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/12/2015 6:25 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 16:34:14 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/10/2015 6:49 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 08:05:40 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/9/2015 11:09 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I recently submitted two images to a competition. Bothe were 100 ppi and
measured, in pixels, 1020 x 768, both were saved at the same JPEG
compression level. Both files were saved as 8 bit JPEG.

there is no ppi in a jpeg file.

there is a tag that *suggests* an initial size, such as for a page
layout app (and that tag may not necessarily be used, depending on the
app), but other than that, the tag is meaningless.

ppi only matters when printing.

Yes. They intend to print certain images.

But the 72ppi they require fit no printer but that was the common ppi
of CRT screens.

This one is at least 100 ppi

CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) or LED (Light Emitting Diode)?

I'm only talking about the image requirements for the competition I
entered. Try not to let the sideliner with a desperate need for
attention, divert your thoughts.

I thought I was addressing the original image requirements. I remember
in previous circumstances having people ask for 72ppi in the belief
that was essential to them being able to display them on their
monitor. I never could understand why.

In this case the images must be at least 100 ppi because some will be
printed in some type of publication.






--
PeterN