I just have a little question...
Whenever I shoot RAW the file is always at 240 resolution. I like my images to at least be 300 so I always change that before saving to JPEG. Now, my question is, when I shoot JPEG the resolution is 300, so why is it 240 when it's RAW?
Thanks

it just has to do with the defaults that Bridge reads them at. it really makes no difference to change them... just keep doing what you're doing and everything is fine. the pixel dimensions are still the same (obviously) so no worries!

Thanks Meeks! I knew you'd be the one to respond I appreciate it.
You know what? I never thought of that before- the fact that the pixel dimensions are still the same. I guess I just had it stuck in my mind that somehow the resolution was what mattered, I mean the know the pixels matter but, oh never mind, hehe...

its kind of hard to explain, but in a way, pixel dimension matters MORE than ppi (aka resolution) but it depends on how you look at it.

you need to remember that for this example i'm referring to printing:

Take a 4x6 inch print. The simplest of examples.

Assume your lab needs a 300ppi file to print a 4x6. So you resize the file to 4x6 inches at 300ppi. The pixel dimensions will be 1200x1800 (1200 divided by 300 = 4 and 1800 divided by 300 = 6.) So you've got 300 pixels making up one inch of the print, bringing the dimensions to 1200x1800px.



Now, if you change the RESOLUTION (ppi) of the image file and NOT the pixel dimensions, you'll see different dimensions in inches... referring to how big you can print the file at that specific resolution. For instance (and I'm going to use this because its simple for my tired brain to explain) reduce the resolution to 150ppi.... you'll have an image that you can now print at 8x12 inches (assuming the printer is efficient at 150ppi... some are, some aren't) but again, the pixel dimensions are still the same, so they will provide the SAME result (a 300ppi 4x6 image)



Now I know I'm making this overly detailed, but I'm using these examples to prove a point. It's really the PIXEL DIMENSIONS of the image that matter... not so much the ppi. However (and this is whole 'nother story) don't let that fool you into thinking that your images can't be printed larger than their native size allows... there are a lot of little tricks and a much broader scale of details than what I've just gone into... this is just the basics.

Whew! Hope that helped.

Wow thanks Meeks for that elaborate explanation. On the flip side of that, that is why I thought that the resolution of a photograph (specifically the original data info at which it was captured) is what mattered because when you change a photo from say 240 to 300, the pixels expand in size. So in my mind, this led me to believe that RAW was capturing images at a less resolution but it's actually not less pixels, it's actually more (?) it's just compressed...? Am I correct in stating the latter?

Helped?! "Math, numbers, PPI, dialogue box, uncheck that box, more numbers, blah, blah, I really should go brush my teeth, I wonder how much longer I have before Lark wakes up from her nap, did I email them back email, yeah - I like this song...." <--- that's what I heard! For real though, I'm glad this question was asked and answered cause I have been wondering the same thing. Now I just have to come back and read it when I can concentrate..... my brain hurts

well not really compressed. the camera doesn't capture at a certain PPI (don't use DPI, that's a common misuse when speaking about digital images, DPI is DOTS per inch, used in printing, PPI is pixels per inch) the camera just captures an image of certain pixel dimensions. way to think about this is... well, you're over thinking it. throw away your idea of ppi and image capture and stuff and just think about the pixel dimensions. again, the resolution you see in photoshop or bridge is an arbitrary number chosen by the program. this confuses TONS of people so don't be embarrassed, and im certainly not trying to insult you if i sound a bit stern at times - this is fun and educational for me too! let's look into a real world scenario:

My Canon 1Ds Mark II captures images that are 4992 x 3328 pixels.

Now, before i go back into this, it's important to point something out. Again, resolution (PPI) only matters for printing. I mean, it's kind of a reference point in cases to determine if a file is optimized for the specific printer it will be printed on. However, when you're dealing with web images or other photos just to be displayed on your computer, PPI does not matter at all. Now that doesn't mean you should get in the practice of setting image ppi's at random numbers, but just to give you an idea, I'll cover a common misconception here. A lot of people think that the PPI of an image changes its file size (in megabytes.) This simply isn't true.

Let's take this image from my 1Ds Mark II - captured at full resolution, processed in Adobe Lightroom. I've exported it as a level 12 JPEG and opened a finder window in Mac OS X for this example. In the screen capture below, I've selected one of the examples, which I exported with a resolution setting of 72ppi. (By the way, I just slugged the ppi number into the filename for reference.) Note the file size is 5.5 megabytes, and down towards the bottom, you can see the pixel dimensions of 3328x4992.



Now, here's the details on the one I exported with a resolution setting of 300ppi...



And look at that... 5.5 megabytes!

Ok right, I understand that PPI refers to printing and that it doesn't directly effect the size nor dimension as you have demonstrated- And thank you very much for that!

However, let me ask you this and if you answer yes, then I think I got it, because what I have yet to grasp is how the camera 'freezes a moment', if you will.
The camera captures in pixels -not resolution- and then that's 'transferred' (for lack of a better word) to resolution (that you manually can alter) once uploaded?


ps.
I'm not embarrassed Meeks

yeah, you've basically got it! i think i understand what you're saying :-)

Whew! Thank God you said yes! lol Thank you for all your help and your extensive explanations- you walked that extra mile and I truly appreciate it.

Not a problem. I love going over this kind of thing from time to time because it makes me actually THINK about the things I do automatically every day. It's pretty interesting to put it into words and screen captures and make it all come together in a way that makes sense to others. So thanks for the challenge!