I'm not interested in increasing the file size, rather, reducing it. Interpolation upwards is not what I want to do. I'm quite familiar with USM, and have read the referenced tutorial a couple of times. It doesn't quite address my question. I'm trying to get the best results when reducing a file for viewing on the web. Am I misunderstanding you? Or you me?
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 11/13/2004 12:43:19 AM > Subject: RE: Reducing File Size with Photoshop > > That's right Shel. Provided you have chosen "New Image Data" in PS, which > makes the computer calculate new pixels to put in between the original > pixels - that's called interpolating, meaning that each time you increase > dpi, you'll get more pixels in the image. The computer will put in a gray > pixel between a white and black on, so to speak. > > This is best done in steps, otherwithe the computer has to invent a lot of > pixels without much to start from. I usual go like this: 72 - 150 - 300 dpi > or ppi. > > Some people says that this on not at all necassary for printing - because > the PRINTER will do the interpolation while resizing the image up to the > print size that you have ordered. > I don't agree, 'cause you then will NOT have the option to sharpen or > improving the image using USM, shadow/highligt etc. > > You can resize - without choosing New Image Date - and get NO real changes > to the file. Sharpening works better, I believe, if you have a lot of pixels > to work with: Take a look at: > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understandi > ng-usm.shtml > > Remember that dpi (or ppi) in fact has nothing to do with the image > dimensions. Dpi (= ppi = Pixel Per Inch) is about how you SEE it - on a > screen, on a print etc. What matters is the amount of pixels that the image > is made of.
