Uzi's weak (photographic) link...

Curt A · Aug 2, 2002

Hi all,

Just recently completed a weeks camping trip to California/Nevada's Lake Tahoe, and this year left my Sony 505v tucked away at home where it has pretty much remained since I got my Uzi.

I am incredibly pleased with the vast majority of photos I took with my favorite photographic partner, my Uzi. I have found that in dayligh, subdued, bright light or otherwise, I almost feel that something "must be wrong" as when I open the photos in PSElements, the vast majority need nothing but sharpening to make me happy. This NEVER was the case with the Sony. Autofocus was never fooled or failed during any of the 4- 64mb cards of photos. Each time I use this camera, I am more pleased

The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations, especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge" towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on LANDSCAPE PHOTOS. Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos. I'll just have to "suffer along"

with my Uzi until maybe next year. But I'll bet I won't leave it at home with the Sony for next year's vacation, new camera or not. Curt
Emerald Bay/Lake Tahoe:
http://www.fototime.com/ {B7BB278D-15F9-4C32-9380-53EE8B02633E} picture.JPG

johnd1 · Aug 2, 2002

Curt,

You don't need a DSLR for landscape shooting. The 707 can capture the details nicely for a lot less money.
John

Curt A. said:
Hi all,
Just recently completed a weeks camping trip to California/Nevada's
Lake Tahoe, and this year left my Sony 505v tucked away at home
where it has pretty much remained since I got my Uzi.
I am incredibly pleased with the vast majority of photos I took
with my favorite photographic partner, my Uzi. I have found that in
dayligh, subdued, bright light or otherwise, I almost feel that
something "must be wrong" as when I open the photos in PSElements,
the vast majority need nothing but sharpening to make me happy.
This NEVER was the case with the Sony. Autofocus was never fooled
or failed during any of the 4- 64mb cards of photos. Each time I
use this camera, I am more pleased
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS. Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution
is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos. I'll just
have to "suffer along" with my Uzi until maybe next year. But
I'll bet I won't leave it at home with the Sony for next year's
vacation, new camera or not. Curt
Emerald Bay/Lake Tahoe:
http://www.fototime.com/ {B7BB278D-15F9-4C32-9380-53EE8B02633E} picture.JPG

Inigo Montoya · Aug 2, 2002

Try taking two images side by side with the camera oriented vertically for a "panorama" of sorts. The result is a bit smaller than 2400x1600 (since you need some overlap) but in the 3 to almost 4 MP range. Have you seen Daniella's work done with this technique? Spot meter for your main subject area, or use the multi-metering mode to average several key locations then lock your exposure and you're all set. A little more work, but definitely doable -- especially for landscapes where little moves.

Nice "single" shot you got there too!

Curt A. said:
Hi all,
Just recently completed a weeks camping trip to California/Nevada's
Lake Tahoe, and this year left my Sony 505v tucked away at home
where it has pretty much remained since I got my Uzi.
I am incredibly pleased with the vast majority of photos I took
with my favorite photographic partner, my Uzi. I have found that in
dayligh, subdued, bright light or otherwise, I almost feel that
something "must be wrong" as when I open the photos in PSElements,
the vast majority need nothing but sharpening to make me happy.
This NEVER was the case with the Sony. Autofocus was never fooled
or failed during any of the 4- 64mb cards of photos. Each time I
use this camera, I am more pleased
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS. Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution
is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos. I'll just
have to "suffer along" with my Uzi until maybe next year. But
I'll bet I won't leave it at home with the Sony for next year's
vacation, new camera or not. Curt
Emerald Bay/Lake Tahoe:
http://www.fototime.com/ {B7BB278D-15F9-4C32-9380-53EE8B02633E} picture.JPG

Debbie L · Aug 2, 2002

Can't get much better than that.

Debbie

Curt A said:
http://www.fototime.com/ {B7BB278D-15F9-4C32-9380-53EE8B02633E} picture.JPG

Tom K. · Aug 2, 2002

I was just about to suggest that myself. Use the AEL button in conjunction with the left arrow button (read the manual) to lock exposure for however many photos you would like to stitch together. Some programs will allow you to do a multi-row mosaic for even greater final resolution. Using a tripod, zoom in some and take several overlapping shots instead of just one at wide angle. For stationary subjects it can work pretty well. It wouldn't work well for your shot of moving boats.

Using a simplified example, if you could butt together four 1200x1600 pictures edge to edge (you can't, you need 30-50% overlap) you would get a file that was double the resolution or 2400x3200 - that's the equivalent of a 7.68MP camera! Pretty powerful stuff.

Take advantage of the possibilities of the digital darkroom.

Inigo Montoya said:
Nice "single" shot you got there too!

Curt A. said:

Hi all,
Just recently completed a weeks camping trip to California/Nevada's
Lake Tahoe, and this year left my Sony 505v tucked away at home
where it has pretty much remained since I got my Uzi.
I am incredibly pleased with the vast majority of photos I took
with my favorite photographic partner, my Uzi. I have found that in
dayligh, subdued, bright light or otherwise, I almost feel that
something "must be wrong" as when I open the photos in PSElements,
the vast majority need nothing but sharpening to make me happy.
This NEVER was the case with the Sony. Autofocus was never fooled
or failed during any of the 4- 64mb cards of photos. Each time I
use this camera, I am more pleased
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS. Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution
is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos. I'll just
have to "suffer along" with my Uzi until maybe next year. But
I'll bet I won't leave it at home with the Sony for next year's
vacation, new camera or not. Curt
Emerald Bay/Lake Tahoe:

Click to expand...

'UZ'pShoot'ERS' · Aug 3, 2002

I'm so confused when talk of lost detail in wide landscapes is reffered to....

Are the names on the transomes of the boats in that pic supposed to be readable? LOL

That's a beauty of a pic none-the-less, inspite of it's pitiful lost detail, yea, right! LOL

Curt A. said:
Hi all,
Just recently completed a weeks camping trip to California/Nevada's
Lake Tahoe, and this year left my Sony 505v tucked away at home
where it has pretty much remained since I got my Uzi.
I am incredibly pleased with the vast majority of photos I took
with my favorite photographic partner, my Uzi. I have found that in
dayligh, subdued, bright light or otherwise, I almost feel that
something "must be wrong" as when I open the photos in PSElements,
the vast majority need nothing but sharpening to make me happy.
This NEVER was the case with the Sony. Autofocus was never fooled
or failed during any of the 4- 64mb cards of photos. Each time I
use this camera, I am more pleased
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS. Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution
is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos. I'll just
have to "suffer along" with my Uzi until maybe next year. But
I'll bet I won't leave it at home with the Sony for next year's
vacation, new camera or not. Curt
Emerald Bay/Lake Tahoe:
http://www.fototime.com/ {B7BB278D-15F9-4C32-9380-53EE8B02633E} picture.JPG

--
'Happy Shootin' !!!
'UZ'P'Shoot'ERS'
http://www.pbase.com/rrawzz http://www.pbase.com/otfgallery/uzpshooter

Me & My UZI, Strollin Down The Avenue. Me & My UZI, Focusin On Somethin New. To 'UZe' Or Not To 'UZe'? That 'IS' The Question. Ask not what your Uzi can do for you but what you can do for your Uzi c2100uz/e100rs (in that order) & a B-300

Peter Bradley · Aug 3, 2002

If you want to print up to 8x10 or even a little larger 2.1 mp is fine. If you want to go to double that size you are going to notice a drop in quality. That is when you are going to want the zoomed in stiched together shots or a 5 mp camera.

If you are just going to look at images on the screen there are not many screens that will even run to 1600 x 1200 so, quite frankly, unless you are doing large prints or a lot of image croping 1600 x 1200 is all you need.

I only think I would like a bit more for maintaining a good resolution image after croping.

Peter B
Olympus C-2100uz, B300, FL40

Curt A. said:
Hi all,
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS. Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution
is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos.

--

Now where did I put those SLRs?

Ted Luker77549 · Aug 3, 2002

When I am looking for as much detail as possible I will use the TIFF format. No loss of picture quality (compression), or detail get everything the UZI has to offer. The file size is something some people will not like because it will use up a card very quick. I will carry 4 128 MB cards with me, and a few smaller cards, for a one day shoot.

Curt A. said:
Hi all,
Just recently completed a weeks camping trip to California/Nevada's
Lake Tahoe, and this year left my Sony 505v tucked away at home
where it has pretty much remained since I got my Uzi.
I am incredibly pleased with the vast majority of photos I took
with my favorite photographic partner, my Uzi. I have found that in
dayligh, subdued, bright light or otherwise, I almost feel that
something "must be wrong" as when I open the photos in PSElements,
the vast majority need nothing but sharpening to make me happy.
This NEVER was the case with the Sony. Autofocus was never fooled
or failed during any of the 4- 64mb cards of photos. Each time I
use this camera, I am more pleased
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS. Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution
is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos. I'll just
have to "suffer along" with my Uzi until maybe next year. But
I'll bet I won't leave it at home with the Sony for next year's
vacation, new camera or not. Curt
Emerald Bay/Lake Tahoe:
http://www.fototime.com/ {B7BB278D-15F9-4C32-9380-53EE8B02633E} picture.JPG

Ted Luker77549 · Aug 3, 2002

Forgot! The photo is wonderful.

Ted Luker said:
Curt A. said:

Hi all,
Just recently completed a weeks camping trip to California/Nevada's
Lake Tahoe, and this year left my Sony 505v tucked away at home
where it has pretty much remained since I got my Uzi.
I am incredibly pleased with the vast majority of photos I took
with my favorite photographic partner, my Uzi. I have found that in
dayligh, subdued, bright light or otherwise, I almost feel that
something "must be wrong" as when I open the photos in PSElements,
the vast majority need nothing but sharpening to make me happy.
This NEVER was the case with the Sony. Autofocus was never fooled
or failed during any of the 4- 64mb cards of photos. Each time I
use this camera, I am more pleased
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS. Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution
is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos. I'll just
have to "suffer along" with my Uzi until maybe next year. But
I'll bet I won't leave it at home with the Sony for next year's
vacation, new camera or not. Curt
Emerald Bay/Lake Tahoe:
http://www.fototime.com/ {B7BB278D-15F9-4C32-9380-53EE8B02633E} picture.JPG

Click to expand...

Shrinking Violet · Aug 3, 2002

'Fine' is such a relative word. IMO, a 2.1 mp image printed at 8x10 shows noticeable degradation in quality vs a 4 mp print. For 'personal' shots it's probably fine, but I would be embarrassed to try and pass off any of them as fine art.

Ideally you want to try to maintain 300 dpi or better on prints, and for a 2.1 mp image, that works out to a 4x6 print, An 8x10 would be only 150 dpi.

Peter Bradley said:
If you are just going to look at images on the screen there are not
many screens that will even run to 1600 x 1200 so, quite frankly,
unless you are doing large prints or a lot of image croping 1600 x
1200 is all you need.

I only think I would like a bit more for maintaining a good
resolution image after croping.

Peter B
Olympus C-2100uz, B300, FL40

Curt A. said:

Hi all,
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS. Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution
is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos.

Click to expand...

--

Now where did I put those SLRs?

Juli Valley · Aug 3, 2002

Lovely shot. Saving pennies, eh? You had better start saving $20 bills.

BillyBoy02 · Aug 3, 2002

Curt A. said:
Hi all,
Just recently completed a weeks camping trip to California/Nevada's
Lake Tahoe, and this year left my Sony 505v tucked away at home
where it has pretty much remained since I got my Uzi.
I am incredibly pleased with the vast majority of photos I took
with my favorite photographic partner, my Uzi. I have found that in
dayligh, subdued, bright light or otherwise, I almost feel that
something "must be wrong" as when I open the photos in PSElements,
the vast majority need nothing but sharpening to make me happy.
This NEVER was the case with the Sony. Autofocus was never fooled
or failed during any of the 4- 64mb cards of photos. Each time I
use this camera, I am more pleased
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS.

I certainly agree,I was looking at the e-10,e 20 although your photo here looks very sharp and nice !

Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution

Curt A said:
is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos. I'll just
have to "suffer along" with my Uzi until maybe next year. But
I'll bet I won't leave it at home with the Sony for next year's
vacation, new camera or not. Curt
Emerald Bay/Lake Tahoe:
http://www.fototime.com/ {B7BB278D-15F9-4C32-9380-53EE8B02633E} picture.JPG

--
Bill C
http://www.photosig.com/myphotosig.php
c-2100,C-700

Peter Bradley · Aug 3, 2002

Mike

I have 8x10 prints from a Canon S900 printer that are as good as anything you will ever get from a 35mm film camera. I am sure that a 5 mp camera would be better when examining the print under a magnifying glass, but, hey, who looks at a print that way in the real world. I think the key is in the printer quality and the printer software. I also printed some test images on the latest Epson and the Canon was better under very close examination.

The day someone produces an affordable 5 mp uzi I will be there in the line to buy one but in the mean time I will be very happy with the 2 mp uzi

Peter

Mike Klemmer said:
Ideally you want to try to maintain 300 dpi or better on prints,
and for a 2.1 mp image, that works out to a 4x6 print, An 8x10
would be only 150 dpi.

Peter Bradley said:

If you are just going to look at images on the screen there are not
many screens that will even run to 1600 x 1200 so, quite frankly,
unless you are doing large prints or a lot of image croping 1600 x
1200 is all you need.

I only think I would like a bit more for maintaining a good
resolution image after croping.

Peter B
Olympus C-2100uz, B300, FL40

Curt A. said:

Hi all,
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS. Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution
is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos.

Click to expand...

--

Now where did I put those SLRs?

Click to expand...

--
Peter B
Olympus C-2100uz, B300, FL40

Now where did I put those SLRs?

LuckyDon · Aug 3, 2002

Your pic is just great. I'll stick with my UZI - it does very well by my standards.

Don

BillyBoy02 said:
Curt A. said:

Hi all,
Just recently completed a weeks camping trip to California/Nevada's
Lake Tahoe, and this year left my Sony 505v tucked away at home
where it has pretty much remained since I got my Uzi.
I am incredibly pleased with the vast majority of photos I took
with my favorite photographic partner, my Uzi. I have found that in
dayligh, subdued, bright light or otherwise, I almost feel that
something "must be wrong" as when I open the photos in PSElements,
the vast majority need nothing but sharpening to make me happy.
This NEVER was the case with the Sony. Autofocus was never fooled
or failed during any of the 4- 64mb cards of photos. Each time I
use this camera, I am more pleased
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree,I was looking at the e-10,e 20 although your
photo here looks very sharp and nice !

Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution

BillyBoy02 said:

is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos. I'll just
have to "suffer along" with my Uzi until maybe next year. But
I'll bet I won't leave it at home with the Sony for next year's
vacation, new camera or not. Curt
Emerald Bay/Lake Tahoe:
http://www.fototime.com/ {B7BB278D-15F9-4C32-9380-53EE8B02633E} picture.JPG

Click to expand...

--
Bill C
http://www.photosig.com/myphotosig.php
c-2100,C-700

Curt A · Aug 3, 2002

Hi Julie,

VERY funny response! Thanks for the compliment also. Really do think the only weakness with my camera is details of very small objects like in landscapes. Hardly ever take landscape photos, so like I said will just "suffer along" with my Uzi!

Curt

Juli Valley said:
Lovely shot. Saving pennies, eh? You had better start saving $20
bills.

Curt A · Aug 3, 2002

Hi Don,

Isn't too tough having to suffer along with our Uzi's.

For the most part, I love portrait photography most and haven't really seen any reason to be unhappy in that area. The genuine enthusiasm for the Uzi here isn't just based on whim and fancy. This camera performs perfectly for me and others. Curt

Don Olson said:
Don

BillyBoy02 said:

Curt A. said:

Hi all,
Just recently completed a weeks camping trip to California/Nevada's
Lake Tahoe, and this year left my Sony 505v tucked away at home
where it has pretty much remained since I got my Uzi.
I am incredibly pleased with the vast majority of photos I took
with my favorite photographic partner, my Uzi. I have found that in
dayligh, subdued, bright light or otherwise, I almost feel that
something "must be wrong" as when I open the photos in PSElements,
the vast majority need nothing but sharpening to make me happy.
This NEVER was the case with the Sony. Autofocus was never fooled
or failed during any of the 4- 64mb cards of photos. Each time I
use this camera, I am more pleased
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree,I was looking at the e-10,e 20 although your
photo here looks very sharp and nice !

Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution

LuckyDon said:

is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos. I'll just
have to "suffer along" with my Uzi until maybe next year. But
I'll bet I won't leave it at home with the Sony for next year's
vacation, new camera or not. Curt
Emerald Bay/Lake Tahoe:
http://www.fototime.com/ {B7BB278D-15F9-4C32-9380-53EE8B02633E} picture.JPG

Click to expand...

--
Bill C
http://www.photosig.com/myphotosig.php
c-2100,C-700

Click to expand...

Curt A · Aug 3, 2002

Hi Ted,

Hadn't remembered or even though of switching to Tiff for landscapes. Thanks for the tip. Obviously part of my original post was very tongue-in-cheek, but I'm sure that the higher resolution cameras will do better with small or distant objest clarity/sharpness. Since I very rarely do landscape photos, I'm still VERY happy with my camera. Thanks much for the photo compliment. Curt

Ted Luker said:
Ted Luker said:

When I am looking for as much detail as possible I will use the
TIFF format. No loss of picture quality (compression), or detail
get everything the UZI has to offer. The file size is something
some people will not like because it will use up a card very quick.
I will carry 4 128 MB cards with me, and a few smaller cards, for a
one day shoot.

Click to expand...

Curt A · Aug 3, 2002

Hi Peter,

Funny thing is, I hardly ever print!

so my assumption point may be ridiculous to begin with. Thanks for the response and info. Curt

Peter Bradley said:
If you are just going to look at images on the screen there are not
many screens that will even run to 1600 x 1200 so, quite frankly,
unless you are doing large prints or a lot of image croping 1600 x
1200 is all you need.

I only think I would like a bit more for maintaining a good
resolution image after croping.

Peter B
Olympus C-2100uz, B300, FL40

Curt A. said:

Hi all,
The weak link..... I suppose would be its' resolution. This can
certaily be argued as unimportant on many photo situations,
especially close-up portraits. However I do get that "nudge"
towards saving my pennies for a new digital SLR when I compare the
sharpness/resolution of the new higher mp cameras with my 2100uz on
LANDSCAPE PHOTOS. Still capable of capturing beauty, the resolution
is probably reducing the impact of those type of photos.

Click to expand...

--

Now where did I put those SLRs?

Peter Ferguson · Aug 3, 2002

Tom K. said:
Using a simplified example, if you could butt together four
1200x1600 pictures edge to edge (you can't, you need 30-50%
overlap) you would get a file that was double the resolution or
2400x3200 - that's the equivalent of a 7.68MP camera! Pretty
powerful stuff.

Excuse me folks for butting into this thread but isn't the above a bit misleading? All you seem to be creating is a larger 2meg image. A 4 or 5 mp camera using lets say a 28mm lens will capture 4 or 5 mp of data within that anlge range. Lets say you line up the space between two telephone poles with the uzi and a 5mp camera and take the shot. How does stitching another scene to the left or right of the uxi shot increase the detail between the telephone poles?

By stitching shots together, you are indeed increasing the dimensions of the image but not increasing the resolution as it applies to details captured.

Peter

Curt A · Aug 3, 2002

Hi Mike,

Have been pretty ill here fo a week, and technical details seem daunting, and I don't do well with them anyway. Just stands to reason that more pixels per any given area will result in better detail in small or distant objects. Still..... the Uzi is an incredible camera, and I'm more than pleased with it. The truth be told, most viewers of photographs have no interests in resolution degree of detail, color accuracy etc. It's just us digicam nuts who even care. I used to have a stereo system that I ultimatey paid several thousand dollars for, and just ended up boring the pants right off everbody with my demonstrations as to stage presence cartridge accuracy etc. Nobody cared, they just wanted to hear music.

Thanks for the response. Curt

Mike Klemmer said:
'Fine' is such a relative word. IMO, a 2.1 mp image printed at
8x10 shows noticeable degradation in quality vs a 4 mp print. For
'personal' shots it's probably fine, but I would be embarrassed to
try and pass off any of them as fine art.

Ideally you want to try to maintain 300 dpi or better on prints,
and for a 2.1 mp image, that works out to a 4x6 print, An 8x10
would be only 150 dpi.

Uzi's weak (photographic) link...

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Debbie L

Guest

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts