Just tried again on the desktop, and still the same as last night. I can see the slide show, and navigate that no problem, but the header image doesn't show, and I still have that scrollbar.

Dan

I use mine all the time when doing landscape shots on a tripod. Doesn't guarantee 100% accuracy, but it's a lot better, a lot of the time, than judging by eye.

At least for me.

Dan

Next to useless, I think.

That's right. My monitor that displays at 90ppi would need a view of 30% to show a 300ppi image at exact print size. Any ideas how I can view at 30% in Elements? I can do 25% or 33%. 'Print Size' from the options is 24%, which is way too small.

Oo, just seen that using the scroll button on the mouse I can get 30.3%, which is pretty close. Just a shame the 'Print Size' view is so far out.

Double 'Oo'! Just discovered the option for setting your screen resolution in the preferences - now set at 90 pixels/inch and 'Print Size' is now spot on!

Dan

Hmmm, just tried it on the little Netbook using IE7 and XP (same as the desktop) and it looks fine too, so will try the desktop again later.

Dan

I have just read the link above, and I understand it fine, but regarding the point I made, i.e. to view the document at 'Print Size', the program needs to know the monitor's ppi, it's still a valid point.

Sometimes I might be doing a document with images and text (my leaflet is a case in point) and I want to see how large the text will actually be, without actually printing out a sample. If the program knew the ppi of your monitor, when you told it to display at 'print size', it would be able to resample the image to display it at the exact size it would be printed, rather than an approximation that is always wrong in my experience. So in this respect, I shan't forget about monitor ppi!

Dan

I'm now not seeing the header image, or any of the links to the seperate galleries, although the links do work, but they're all 'hidden'.

I'm using IE7. Had a look earlier and could see it all fine.

Also, the frame that holds the images has a scroll bar on the right hand side, which doesn't look too pretty.

Dan

You may well have the image saved at 96ppi, but when you print it, and you tell the printer driver that you want a 10x8 print, it will just increase the ppi until the image size is reduced to the size you want.

In case that doesn't make any sense, let's use an example!

Your photo is 3600 x 2400 pixels, and you've saved it at 96ppi. If you printed it at 96ppi, it would be 37.5 inches long (3600/96). If you tell the printer you want it to be 10 inches long, the printer divides 3600 by 10, to get 360ppi (pixels per inch). You now fit all 3600 of your pixels in a line 10 inches long.

A 10x8 print, of an image at 96ppi, would have the pixel dimensions of 960 x 768, which obviously wouldn't be making the most of your K20D.

This is an often used generalisation - my HP LP2275w, with a pixel pitch of 0.282mm, displays at 90ppi. One with a pitch of 0.294mm would be 86.4ppi. Others may be around 100ppi. It would be handy to be able to set your monitor's ppi in Photoshop to get exactly the right size shown if you view at 'print size'.

Dan

Everyone run for cover!!

Dan

I like it too!

Dan

Thanks Bracken, but having looked at another shot (below), as well as the originals shown already, I think I'm tending to agree with restyles, due to the dorsal fin - it does look as though it's one continuous fin, rather than the two distinct ones of the Zander. You got me looking in the right direction though, the Zander and the Ruffe are on the same page in my little wildlife book.




Thanks,
Dan

P.S. I'm glad I amazed your children Michal.