I dont know where you are getting 240ppi number from but on a typical 19" monitor even a 1200 pixel wide image is only about 100ppi which is NOT overkill, I can easily see the improvement over 800 or even 1024 pixels wide. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:02 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Personally I always use 1024x768 as my assumed baseline resolution for preparing web images, even though my system runs at 1280x1024. If I think a particular shot suffers because of this, then I add a link to a higher resolution file. And BTW John, 240 ppi for a web image is massive overkill, that's print resolution. 72 is more than enough & it also results in smaller files which is a bonus for those on slower connections. Dave On 4/2/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you see ANY photo at 1500 pixels wide which > is how I view them usually for full image, going smaller > like to 800 pixels wide really hurts the details a LOT. Apparently you > dont care or think it matters, but then why buy a 6/10Mp camera and > not care whether your photos are reduced in details way down to only 1 > Mp or less? jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
