Sending images to Costco, Wal-Mart

Wayne wrote:
> In article <D5udnf1U6ZV0acDbnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d RemoveThis @comcast.com>,
> jpmcw RemoveThis @comcast.net says...
>
>> He doesn't know his stuff. More than likely, the dpi setting for the
>> printer is 720 or higher. He may be thinking of 320 ppi, which is the
>> resolution of the digital image.
>
>
> No, the commerical labs dont use inkjets or dithered color. They use the
> good stuff.
>
>
>> The above is correct except for the mixup of terms. Sub ppi for dpi
>> above and you're all right.
>>
>> DPI "happens" at the scanning and printer end, not the digital image
>> itself, which has pixels, not dots.
>
>
> LOL. No, that is only the self-invented definitions of the newbies
> trying to grasp the difference. PPI is acceptable, but the real world
> term has always been dpi for both meanings, for years longer than we had
> inkjets printing photos. Same as any English word, the context defines
> which it means. Simply not an issue.
>
> Look up the specifications of Fuji Frontier and Noritsu printers (used by
> Costco), and you will see their specifications say "dpi" - meaning pixels
> per inch of course... they have no dithered ink drops. Dye-subs too, and
> scanners too, the specifications say dpi, meaning pixels.
>
> If still any doubt, look up the specifications for the JPG and TIF file
> formats.. this field in the file format for resolution is defined as
> "dpi". It means pixels per inch.
>
> That is simply the name of term, regardless if newbies like it or not.

You don't need to pull the old guard stuff here, Wayne.
There's a distinct advantage to using both terms correctly, and
differently than they were used 10, 15 or 90 years ago.

I really don't care if those people who have no need for the
distinction, such as printer mfgs. who make continuous tone printers.

This is a digital photo group, not a scanning nor traditional printing
group. Yes, the distinction is 21st Century, but it's one that bears
understanding.

--
john mcwilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Sending images to Costco, Wal-Mart 

On May 30, 12:05 pm, John McWilliams <j....RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
> > In article <irrr535qdqcujag9bo2dtag9i3qbccl....RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
> > j....RemoveThis@unspameljefe.net says...
>
> >> I just tried to get ideal file size specs from the local Costco, so I
> >> could optimize my jpegs to their machines. I'm not sure the guy quite
> >> understood what I was asking. He said they print at 320 dpi, file
> >> sizes as large as 5000x7000. That's pretty darned huge.
>
> He doesn't know his stuff. More than likely, the dpi setting for the
> printer is 720 or higher. He may be thinking of 320 ppi, which is the
> resolution of the digital image.
>
>
>
> >> My 5D RAW files are around 12.8 MB at 16-bit color. Anybody found an
> >> "ideal" size for something like that to translate into 4x6 and 8x10
> >> prints from a service like Costco?
>
> > 300 dpi is the more usual number for this type of printer, but
> > if 320 dpi is the number, then you translate it this way:
>
> > (4 inches x 320 dpi) x (6 inches x 320 dpi) = 1280x1920 pixels
>
> > (8 inches x 320 dpi) x (10 inches x 320 dpi) = 2560x3200 pixels
>
> The above is correct except for the mixup of terms. Sub ppi for dpi
> above and you're all right.
>
> DPI "happens" at the scanning and printer end, not the digital image
> itself, which has pixels, not dots.
>
> --
> john mcwilliams

They are probably using a Noritsu optical printer, which runs at 320
ppi, which in this
case is the same as the dpi.

http://www.noritsu.com/Products/R2R+Digital+Printers/R2R-1100/default.aspx

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Sending images to Costco, Wal-Mart 

On Wed, 30 May 2007 14:45:54 -0700, jj wrote:

> I just tried to get ideal file size specs from the local Costco, so I
> could optimize my jpegs to their machines. I'm not sure the guy quite
> understood what I was asking. He said they print at 320 dpi, file
> sizes as large as 5000x7000. That's pretty darned huge.

About 15.5" by 22" according to my calculations.

>
> My 5D RAW files are around 12.8 MB at 16-bit color. Anybody found an
> "ideal" size for something like that to translate into 4x6 and 8x10
> prints from a service like Costco?

You mean they can print from RAW? I would have assumed they'd need JPEG -
possibly TIFF.

>
> JJ
 >> Stay informed about: Sending images to Costco, Wal-Mart 

In article <irrr535qdqcujag9bo2dtag9i3qbcclgks RemoveThis @4ax.com>,
jj RemoveThis @unspameljefe.net says...
>
>
>I just tried to get ideal file size specs from the local Costco, so I
>could optimize my jpegs to their machines. I'm not sure the guy quite
>understood what I was asking. He said they print at 320 dpi, file
>sizes as large as 5000x7000. That's pretty darned huge.
>
>My 5D RAW files are around 12.8 MB at 16-bit color. Anybody found an
>"ideal" size for something like that to translate into 4x6 and 8x10
>prints from a service like Costco?


300 dpi is the more usual number for this type of printer, but
if 320 dpi is the number, then you translate it this way:

(4 inches x 320 dpi) x (6 inches x 320 dpi) = 1280x1920 pixels

(8 inches x 320 dpi) x (10 inches x 320 dpi) = 2560x3200 pixels

--
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"
 >> Stay informed about: Sending images to Costco, Wal-Mart 

In article <D5udnf1U6ZV0acDbnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d DeleteThis @comcast.com>,
jpmcw DeleteThis @comcast.net says...

>He doesn't know his stuff. More than likely, the dpi setting for the
>printer is 720 or higher. He may be thinking of 320 ppi, which is the
>resolution of the digital image.


No, the commerical labs dont use inkjets or dithered color. They use the
good stuff.


>The above is correct except for the mixup of terms. Sub ppi for dpi
>above and you're all right.
>
>DPI "happens" at the scanning and printer end, not the digital image
>itself, which has pixels, not dots.


LOL. No, that is only the self-invented definitions of the newbies
trying to grasp the difference. PPI is acceptable, but the real world
term has always been dpi for both meanings, for years longer than we had
inkjets printing photos. Same as any English word, the context defines
which it means. Simply not an issue.

Look up the specifications of Fuji Frontier and Noritsu printers (used by
Costco), and you will see their specifications say "dpi" - meaning pixels
per inch of course... they have no dithered ink drops. Dye-subs too, and
scanners too, the specifications say dpi, meaning pixels.

If still any doubt, look up the specifications for the JPG and TIF file
formats.. this field in the file format for resolution is defined as
"dpi". It means pixels per inch.

That is simply the name of term, regardless if newbies like it or not.

--
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"
 >> Stay informed about: Sending images to Costco, Wal-Mart 

jj.RemoveThis@unspameljefe.net wrote:
> I just tried to get ideal file size specs from the local Costco, so I
> could optimize my jpegs to their machines. I'm not sure the guy quite
> understood what I was asking. He said they print at 320 dpi, file
> sizes as large as 5000x7000. That's pretty darned huge.
>
> My 5D RAW files are around 12.8 MB at 16-bit color. Anybody found an
> "ideal" size for something like that to translate into 4x6 and 8x10
> prints from a service like Costco?
>
> JJ

Surely they do not want the RAW file, so the file size of your RAW image
isn't particularly indicative.
16 bit tif file, converted from 5D raw files are MUCH larger than
12.8MB(!)... They are more like 72 or 73MB. They might want you to submit
them at 8 bit. From there...you can reduce the file size of the original
conversion to a size that is adequate for the print size.

Perhaps you didn't really mean RAW...rather a reduced tif file(?).

-Mark² (5D RAW user)

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
 >> Stay informed about: Sending images to Costco, Wal-Mart 

In article <Oqqdnc6OKadPkcPbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>, jpmcw.DeleteThis@comcast.net
says...

>> That is simply the name of term, regardless if newbies like it or not.
>
>You don't need to pull the old guard stuff here, Wayne.
>There's a distinct advantage to using both terms correctly, and
>differently than they were used 10, 15 or 90 years ago.


Sorry John, but I am not interested in any advantage you perceive in wanting
the world to do it a different way. dpi already has a fine name. I prefer
to go with what already is, in the real world. You are the one that decides
this usage for the world. And neither am I. All these equipment
manufacturers are the ones that define usage, it means what they say it
means, and they say dpi. Always did, and still do, even after John discovered
images. If and when you convince them to do it differently, then maybe I
will come around too. Until then, you are just some guy shouting "wrong" to
the rest of the world. You know what they say about reexamining your own
position when all the rest of the world is wrong.

The advantage comes in understanding either way it is said, dpi or ppi, i.e.,
understanding the actual meaning of the context (instead of arguing
semantics), because we are obviously going to hear it both ways.

It seems a very good thing to be prepared to understand what is said.

--
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"
 >> Stay informed about: Sending images to Costco, Wal-Mart 

Wayne wrote:
> In article <Oqqdnc6OKadPkcPbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d.TakeThisOut@comcast.com>, jpmcw.TakeThisOut@comcast.net
> says...
>
>>> That is simply the name of term, regardless if newbies like it or not.
>> You don't need to pull the old guard stuff here, Wayne.
>> There's a distinct advantage to using both terms correctly, and
>> differently than they were used 10, 15 or 90 years ago.
>
>
> Sorry John, but I am not interested in any advantage you perceive in wanting
> the world to do it a different way. dpi already has a fine name. I prefer
> to go with what already is, in the real world. You are the one that decides
> this usage for the world. And neither am I. All these equipment
> manufacturers are the ones that define usage, it means what they say it
> means, and they say dpi. Always did, and still do, even after John discovered
> images. If and when you convince them to do it differently, then maybe I
> will come around too. Until then, you are just some guy shouting "wrong" to
> the rest of the world. You know what they say about reexamining your own
> position when all the rest of the world is wrong.

What Noritsu, Fuji, Frontier etc., and their reps use in terminology or
the marketers put in their brochures has no bearing on how terms should
be used in digital photography. Probably the minority here have their
prints done on these machines, and they are sizing their images in ppi
in any event.
>
> The advantage comes in understanding either way it is said, dpi or ppi, i.e.,
> understanding the actual meaning of the context (instead of arguing
> semantics), because we are obviously going to hear it both ways. '

That doesn't make it right, nor helpful. Except in your limited case
above, they are not synonymous.
>
> It seems a very good thing to be prepared to understand what is said.

Absolutely, and in fact, that's one reason why one should be precise
with terms used in digital photography, where there is a difference
between the two, and understanding those differences is essential to
grasping a number of concepts.

It's time to drop certain 20th C. terminology.

--
john mcwilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Sending images to Costco, Wal-Mart 

Wayne wrote:
> In article <pNKdnanL-4Zoi8LbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>, jpmcw.DeleteThis@comcast.net
> says...
>
>> I do appreciate the even handed reply up to this point, though, esp. the
>> links to real world documents. However, they are 15 years old, and
>> produced at a time when, with the exception of gov't, military, research
>> labs, and cutting edge individuals, all digital images were derived from
>> scans.
>
>
> What does "derived from scans" have to do with it? (rhetoric, I know it has
> nothing to do with it). I assume you may refer to cameras somehow, and
> cameras do create pixels too, but cameras have no concept of dpi or ppi (or
> inches for that matter). Scanners and cameras and drawing programs create
> pixels, but the images all use the same concepts to print them. Which is
> called dpi. The term ppi works too, and is used some now, and I'm fine
> with that, but the long established name is dpi. We need to know both terms
> are used interchangeably. Goes much better then.
>
>
>> Times have changed.
>
> Yeah I know... one of my own problems is that I can never spell Albuquerque
> without looking it up. Pretty name, but difficult for me to spell. But those
> folks think that the 300 year old name still works just fine, and see no need
> to change it, and worse, dont seem properly respectful of my preference.
> Life is tough sometimes. So it is not missed, yes, it was an analogy to
> the name dpi. Both already have a fine name.
>
>
>> As to qualifications: It'd be only meet if you'd go first.
>
> I am not the one arguing that the rest of the world is wrong, and should
> immediately change to match my notions of imagined new standards. I am happy
> to go along with the established ways of the world, which needs no
> credentials. You can easily confirm world practice for yourself, in the
> specifications of all these scanners and continuous tone printers, all of
> which use dpi, all of which are about pixels, and none of which are about your
> dithered ink drops of one primary color.
>
> But when the self-appointed cop waves his hands and shouts "wrong", esp about
> the most common practices, we certainly expect to see some credentials
> indicating authority in the matter, to know how much attention to give it.
>
> We wont go anywhere from here, so I'm done.

What a cop out. You blew hard and lost.

I've not said you were wrong in your terminology in your little scanning
or printing world; just there are different needs for precision in
some terminology inherent in digital photography.

And I am hardly telling the world anything; just a few folk such as
yourself who insist on applying incorrect terminology from another era.

--
john mcwilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Sending images to Costco, Wal-Mart 

On May 31, 11:27 am, John McWilliams <j... RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
> > In article <pNKdnanL-4Zoi8LbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnn... RemoveThis @comcast.com>, j... RemoveThis @comcast.net
> > says...
>
> >> I do appreciate the even handed reply up to this point, though, esp. the
> >> links to real world documents. However, they are 15 years old, and
> >> produced at a time when, with the exception of gov't, military, research
> >> labs, and cutting edge individuals, all digital images were derived from
> >> scans.
>
> > What does "derived from scans" have to do with it? (rhetoric, I know it has
> > nothing to do with it). I assume you may refer to cameras somehow, and
> > cameras do create pixels too, but cameras have no concept of dpi or ppi (or
> > inches for that matter). Scanners and cameras and drawing programs create
> > pixels, but the images all use the same concepts to print them. Which is
> > called dpi. The term ppi works too, and is used some now, and I'm fine
> > with that, but the long established name is dpi. We need to know both terms
> > are used interchangeably. Goes much better then.
>
> >> Times have changed.
>
> > Yeah I know... one of my own problems is that I can never spell Albuquerque
> > without looking it up. Pretty name, but difficult for me to spell. But those
> > folks think that the 300 year old name still works just fine, and see no need
> > to change it, and worse, dont seem properly respectful of my preference.
> > Life is tough sometimes. So it is not missed, yes, it was an analogy to
> > the name dpi. Both already have a fine name.
>
> >> As to qualifications: It'd be only meet if you'd go first.
>
> > I am not the one arguing that the rest of the world is wrong, and should
> > immediately change to match my notions of imagined new standards. I am happy
> > to go along with the established ways of the world, which needs no
> > credentials. You can easily confirm world practice for yourself, in the
> > specifications of all these scanners and continuous tone printers, all of
> > which use dpi, all of which are about pixels, and none of which are about your
> > dithered ink drops of one primary color.
>
> > But when the self-appointed cop waves his hands and shouts "wrong", esp about
> > the most common practices, we certainly expect to see some credentials
> > indicating authority in the matter, to know how much attention to give it.
>
> > We wont go anywhere from here, so I'm done.
>
> What a cop out. You blew hard and lost.
>
> I've not said you were wrong in your terminology in your little scanning
> or printing world; just there are different needs for precision in
> some terminology inherent in digital photography.
>
> And I am hardly telling the world anything; just a few folk such as
> yourself who insist on applying incorrect terminology from another era.
>

Well to start the guy at Costco is most likely using a printer that
prints at 320 dpi, one of the
resolutions of a Noritsu printer, which I believe some of them use.
http://www.noritsu.com/Products/R2R+Digital+Printers/R2R-1100/default...

My own rule in using dpi vs. ppi is to use which ever is correct, but
not to give someone a hard time about using dpi instead of ppi. Most
of the time I can tell what they meant and going into the dpi vs. ppi
debate will most likely get the real subject lost, as it has in this
case.

By the same token I use ppi when appropriate not so much because it
reduces confusion but it reduces needless arguments.

I would say that it is a bit much to assume that someone does not know
what they are talking about just because they happen to use dpi when
they really meant ppi.

This approach has worked very well for me, no one gives me a hard time
for using ppi and I don't feel the need to give anyone else a hard
time for using dpi.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Sending images to Costco, Wal-Mart 

In article <y_GdnQLlEZQCb8PbnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d.TakeThisOut@comcast.com>, jpmcw.TakeThisOut@comcast.net
says...
>
>What Noritsu, Fuji, Frontier etc., and their reps use in terminology or
>the marketers put in their brochures has no bearing on how terms should
>be used in digital photography. Probably the minority here have their
>prints done on these machines, and they are sizing their images in ppi
>in any event.


John, these manufacturers use the term dpi because that is simply the long
established name for the term for image resolution - dpi means pixels per
inch. I expect them to continue using dpi whether you like it or not, so it
seems rather wise to plan for understanding it. These are continuous
printers, and there are no dithered ink drops involved (as per your own
attempt at a reserved meaning for ink jets). These printer dpi specs refer to
the spacing of their pixels. Same with dye-subs, same with scanners, always
about pixels, and the manufacturers specs say dpi because that is simply the
name for pixels per inch. If you cannot handle two meanings for one term
(virtually any English word has multiple meanings), why not put your efforts
into arguing that ink jets should find a new term for their usage?

I dont care which way myself, I can understand it either way. Because if
regarding images (instead of about dithered ink drops), dpi can only mean
pixels per inch. There is no possible way to imagine dithered ink drops are
involved in the subject of image files, so we have no problem understanding
the meaning either way. It means what the context dictates, the only thing it
can mean. This is just how things are, and there is merit in understanding
how the real world works.

Here is the specification for the JPG image format:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/jfif3.pdf

Page 5 defines the field for image resolution, in dots per inch.

Here is the specification for the TIFF image format:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/jfif3.pdf

Page 38 defines image resolution in dots per inch (or dots per centimeter).

So, if using these file formats or if using these printer or scanner devices,
you are using dpi, like it or not. That is the real world.

Pixels are just colored dots too. Jargon, but just as specific in their way
as your imagined reserved ink drop usage. Regardless, usage has always been
dpi.

For example the famous topic "72 dpi". We all know this usage is about
(imagined) pixels on video screens, and we know "72 dpi" never refers to the
subject of printing, dithered or not. Yet a Google search for "72 dpi"
returns 2.2 million hits, and "72 ppi" returns only 0.1 million hits. Not one,
but two orders of magnitude more real world usage. Seems quite dramatic that
this is simply the language of the real world John. And newbies need to
understand that fact, to understand most of what they read.

Make no mistake, I am NOT arguing for the exclusive use of dpi. I dont care
which, I can understand either way. I think it very important that everyone
be able to understand it both ways, because it is used both ways everywhere.
In my view, you should feel free to use whichever term you prefer to say, and
we will understand you. But you and I have been here before, so I am only
arguing that you could stop being the ass getting in the way anytime anyone
else says anything. It is harmful to newbies to shout that every instance of
dpi is "wrong". That leaves them mighty bewildered since dpi is all about
them, it being the actual term in use. Instead, it is helpful to newbies to
explain how the world in fact actually works. This is much more useful than
just explaining how John imagines it ought to work instead.

One wonders John, who exactly are you, and what is your authority, to declare
that all the rest of the world is wrong? I think your only argument is that
John doesnt care for it. It must be uncomfortable for you in the real world.

--
Wayne
http://www.scantips.com "A few scanning tips"
 >> Stay informed about: Sending images to Costco, Wal-Mart 

Wayne wrote:
> In article <y_GdnQLlEZQCb8PbnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d DeleteThis @comcast.com>, jpmcw DeleteThis @comcast.net
> says...
>> What Noritsu, Fuji, Frontier etc., and their reps use in terminology or
>> the marketers put in their brochures has no bearing on how terms should
>> be used in digital photography. Probably the minority here have their
>> prints done on these machines, and they are sizing their images in ppi
>> in any event.
>
>
> John, these manufacturers use the term dpi because that is simply the long
> established name for the term for image resolution - dpi means pixels per
> inch. I expect them to continue using dpi whether you like it or not, so it
> seems rather wise to plan for understanding it. These are continuous
> printers, and there are no dithered ink drops involved (as per your own
> attempt at a reserved meaning for ink jets). These printer dpi specs refer to
> the spacing of their pixels. Same with dye-subs, same with scanners, always
> about pixels, and the manufacturers specs say dpi because that is simply the
> name for pixels per inch. If you cannot handle two meanings for one term
> (virtually any English word has multiple meanings), why not put your efforts
> into arguing that ink jets should find a new term for their usage?
>
> I dont care which way myself, I can understand it either way. Because if
> regarding images (instead of about dithered ink drops), dpi can only mean
> pixels per inch. There is no possible way to imagine dithered ink drops are
> involved in the subject of image files, so we have no problem understanding
> the meaning either way. It means what the context dictates, the only thing it
> can mean. This is just how things are, and there is merit in understanding
> how the real world works.
>
> Here is the specification for the JPG image format:
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/jfif3.pdf
>
> Page 5 defines the field for image resolution, in dots per inch.
>
> Here is the specification for the TIFF image format:
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/jfif3.pdf
>
> Page 38 defines image resolution in dots per inch (or dots per centimeter).
>
> So, if using these file formats or if using these printer or scanner devices,
> you are using dpi, like it or not. That is the real world.

It's wayne's world, fer shure!


I do appreciate the even handed reply up to this point, though, esp. the
links to real world documents. However, they are 15 years old, and
produced at a time when, with the exception of gov't, military, research
labs, and cutting edge individuals, all digital images were derived from
scans.

Times have changed.

>
> Pixels are just colored dots too. Jargon, but just as specific in their way
> as your imagined reserved ink drop usage. Regardless, usage has always been
> dpi.

And for you, I can see it always will be.
>
> For example the famous topic "72 dpi". We all know this usage is about
> (imagined) pixels on video screens, and we know "72 dpi" never refers to the
> subject of printing, dithered or not. Yet a Google search for "72 dpi"
> returns 2.2 million hits, and "72 ppi" returns only 0.1 million hits. Not one,
> but two orders of magnitude more real world usage.

Odd that you would quote Google hits! There are dozens of metaphors that
show why that's not a propos.

Seems quite dramatic that
> this is simply the language of the real world John. And newbies need to
> understand that fact, to understand most of what they read.
>
> Make no mistake, I am NOT arguing for the exclusive use of dpi. I dont care
> which, I can understand either way. I think it very important that everyone
> be able to understand it both ways, because it is used both ways everywhere.
> In my view, you should feel free to use whichever term you prefer to say, and
> we will understand you. But you and I have been here before, so I am only
> arguing that you could stop being the ass getting in the way anytime anyone
> else says anything. It is harmful to newbies to shout that every instance of
> dpi is "wrong". That leaves them mighty bewildered since dpi is all about
> them, it being the actual term in use. Instead, it is helpful to newbies to
> explain how the world in fact actually works. This is much more useful than
> just explaining how John imagines it ought to work instead.
>
> One wonders John, who exactly are you, and what is your authority, to declare
> that all the rest of the world is wrong? I think your only argument is that
> John doesnt care for it. It must be uncomfortable for you in the real world.

You almost make me want to reply in the third person, but John won't.

Understanding the differences between dots and pixels is pretty basic,
but as some fail to see that because it makes no difference in some real
world circumstances [viz: continuous tone printers], or in referencing a
screen resolution as "72 dpi" [where it couldn't possibly be dots, but
pixels], they can't seem to grasp that it's essential if one is learning
digital photography from the ground up. Of course, there'll be great
photographers who both use the terms interchangeably and who produce
fine prints, but they came to the party with experience.

Put another way, just because dpi and ppi can be proxy for the other in
some circumstances doesn't make it right.

If I've jumped on newbies, I am sorry; the last thing I want is to make
a newcomer uncomfortable. But I will take on those oldies who insist
their printing or scanning experience should dictate how terms are used.

As to qualifications: It'd be only meet if you'd go first.

--
john mcwilliams
 >> Stay informed about: Sending images to Costco, Wal-Mart 

On Wed, 30 May 2007 14:45:54 -0700, jj.DeleteThis@unspameljefe.net wrote:

>I just tried to get ideal file size specs from the local Costco, so I
>could optimize my jpegs to their machines. I'm not sure the guy quite
>understood what I was asking. He said they print at 320 dpi, file
>sizes as large as 5000x7000. That's pretty darned huge.
>
>My 5D RAW files are around 12.8 MB at 16-bit color. Anybody found an
>"ideal" size for something like that to translate into 4x6 and 8x10
>prints from a service like Costco?
>
>JJ


You'll find what you need here.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/
 >> Stay informed about: Sending images to Costco, Wal-Mart