Resolution makes no difference. To tell the size of an image look at
the total number of pixels and bit depth.
You can set up a blank document in Photoshop (or whatever program you
use) and put in the number of pixels across and horizontal and
vertical. Then put in resolution...frequency of pixels per inch. No
matter what number of pixels per inch you put in the total is the
same defined by the number of pixels both horizontal and vertical.
The dots per inch are only redistributing the number of pixels in the
image. It is either compressing all the pixels into a smaller space
or allowing them to be bigger (fewer) in the same amount of space.
Bit depth (RGB, Grayscale, or Bit Map) also makes a difference is the
total file size. I got to about 14 kb with a file set up at at the
size you gave (4000 dpi) at bit map mode (black white only) These
type files could be saved as GIF files (lossless file format).
Hope that helps.
On Mar 1, 2007, at 1:01 AM, TeacherArtExchange Discussion Group
> Subject: Question about digital entries ??
> From: Woody Duncan <email@example.com>
> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:27:51 -0700
> X-Message-Number: 8
> Sorry for the long explanation. My question is at the end.
> I'm a bit perplexed. The NMWS has for a couple of years been
> accepting (only) digital entries for our juried exhibits.
> We do this via e-mail and later send the jpegs on to our
> juror on a CD. It is working fine, sort of. There has been a
> learning curve for some of our members. For the last two
> exhibits, I have served as file manager. I download the jpegs
> to my computer and put together a spread sheet.
> We planned this change to digital carefully. We set these standards
> for entries:
> jpeg only
> 72 dpi
> 700 pixels on the longest dimension (or as close as possible)
> file name convention:
> first 4 letters last name
> first 4 letters first name
> 2 digit month
> 2 digit year (of exhibit)
> A, B, or C for 1st, 2nd and 3rd entry
> Example: duncwood0507A
> Of course not every entry follows the guidelines and I'm too nice a
> so I fix them or explain how to submit a corrected entry. Too many
> try to do it themselves rather than get help from someone who knows
> Now, finally my perplexing question: After the last exhibit I was
> by others that the 72 dpi was not important. So I quit being
> concerned that
> some are 75, 96, 180 or 300. The monitor shows all those as if they
> were 72.
> If the image size is near 700 pixels on the longest side they will
> all appear
> similar to our juror. But today I got two entries at 4000 dpi. I have
> no idea
> how the digital pic was created. Will it matter ? If it's going to
> look OK
> then I guess it's no different than 180 or 300.
> It's longest dimension is only 480 pixels so I can't reduce the
> in photoshop because it will just get unbelievably small.
> More groups are going to digital entries. I believe the standard is
> If our members send entries to other competitions that do not meet
> criteria won't they be rejected ? That's my real concern. If anyone
> share their wisdom with me I'd appreciate it.
> Woody Duncan firstname.lastname@example.org
> Invitation to my exhibitions
> http://www.taospaint.com/Painted/Horse.html >
> January 19, 2009 Be Patience America
> Join the Campaign Now
> John Edwards for President
> http://johnedwards.com/splash/ >
> Subject: Re: Question about digital entries ??
> From: <email@example.com>
> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:47:23 -0600 (CST)
> X-Message-Number: 9
> From what I know the computer screen will show a picture at 72dpi
> no matter what the original resolution is. The problem with a
> higher resolution is sending a photo via e-mail and the file size
> you have to store on your hard drive takes up far more space.
> Resolution is essentially for printing. A 72dpi will not print as
> an 8x10 as nicely as a 300dpi. Most home printers will not handle a
> resolution of larger than 300dpi Why they would send you a file at
> 4000 is beyond me? For your purposes of viewing them on a computer
> screen higher resolutions are not necessary Does this help? Hope so.
> Renee Popek