Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/02/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'll bet you a nickel Steve that it is around 300 - give or take. As to the 72 dpi photos - That's just plain stupid on their part. But have you thought of simply telling them what your minimum file size is, rather than banning digital? ;-) B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Steve LeHuray Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:13 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Digital - Rumor Mongering apologies to Mark R. B.D Colen writes: > Tina - The need for large file sizes is NOT exaggerated if you want to > produce decent size prints at good resolution. First off, while > newspapers can and do use small files because they print at low > resolution, I know that when I wrote and shot a story for Newsday last > summer, they wanted files of 11 meg, which while not huge, are hardly > small. > > And while we all think chromes and high-res when we think of > magazines, I'd be surprised to learn than Newsweek is printing at 300 > dpi - and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the res. on their > cover is lower than that. > B.D. I would be very surprised if Newsweek or any other print magazine is less than 300 dpi. It is a simple fact of life that printing at less than 300 dpi is, lo-rez. And, my biggest monthly problem is many of the pictures sent to me every month for publication are 72 dpi, sent by people who should know better. So after being yelled at by my printer hundreds of time, I have banned all digi cam pictures. sl - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html