khen lim wrote:
> Apparently, Chuck, she DID not post high-res photos. She was adamant about
> this on her forum site (
> http://rebekkagudleifs.com/blog/2007/05/15/freedom-of-expression-telling-the-truth/
> )
>
> It's here:
>
> 1. rebekka Says:
> May 17th, 2007 at 4:40
> am<http://rebekkagudleifs.com/blog/2007/05/15/freedom-of-expression-telling-the-truth/#comment-4508>
>
> for the millionth time, i have *NEVER UPLOADED ANY HIGH-RESOLUTION
> IMAGES TO FLICKR *
>
> 72dpi , always.
>
> just wish people would get this one detail straight.
>
Piers Hemy wrote:
> I don't know what "high resolution" means. I don't know what "72dpi" adds
> to the argument. The resolution of the photos in question is 1800 x 1200
> pixels.
Unfortunately, Rekekka, whatever her other talents, does not understand
what resolution is. Like others here before (one hopes) Chuck's
clarifications, she thinks dpi means something about resolution by itself.
1800 x 1200 is 2.16 megapixels, the size of images from many early
digital cameras and certainly high rez for the purpose at hand. The
Nikon D1 images size was 2000x1312, for 2.6 mp, for example, and the
Canon D30 2160x1440 for 3.1 mp. These were very expensive, professional
cameras only a few years ago.
1800 x 1200 is sufficient for an excellent 8x10 without any tricky
uprezzing at all. With quality uprezzing software or RIP, and printing
on canvas, it should give good results up to 16x20 or so.
Whatever she may think, and I do feel for her upset, she did indeed
upload high resolution images.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|