It's really kind of a small snivel, but if I may...

It is generally accepted that a photo-quality print requires at least 200 dpi. If you want a print of something that has little detail - essentially large blocks of single colour with fairly sharp edges, you can get away with less, but realistically, you need at least 200 dpi, particularly if you are printing from a jpeg.

At the standard QSL size of 140mm x 90mm (5.5" x 3.5") that translates to an image that is 1100x700, or about double the current size of images in eQSL on both dimensions.

eQSLs as they are now, generally look fine on screen because a standard screen is typically 72 or 96 dpi resolution. Actually, a quick check of the math indicates that screen resolution is EXACTLY what they are set for.

Unfortunately, if you have a photo printer, they really don't look so hot when printed - there are digital artifacts of the jpeg process, and they typically look to be of low quality, especially if the image is busy or has lots of fine detail.

So my suggestion is that eQSL images be allowed to be at least 1100x700, or better still, 1650 x 1050. That would make for a gorgeous print at 300 dpi.

Perhaps this could be something available to silver or gold members, if database size is an issue (yes, I understand that allowing the pictures to be 3x bigger in both dimensions makes them 9x bigger in the database).

I use an Epson Stylus Photo R2400 - it takes 4" roll paper which is awesome for printing these things. But the print outs really do look like a low quality jpeg compared to other things I print., unless I print them out 2.6" x 1.2" (little wallet-size QSLs).

I would conjecture that being able to print spiffier looking eQSLs will cause them to raise less of an evil eye when presented for other awards as well.

---

VE3OIJ P. Darin Cowan
Edited by VE3OIJ P. Darin Cowan on Dec 10, 2006 at 09:38 PM

Maybe as an option but I would certainly not want it all the time. The increased size of the cards (in bytes) would be excessive especially for people on dialup. I never print my cards anyway so the current format is just fine.

---

G3YMC Dave Sergeant

A settable option then, so they can be uploaded (you only have to do that for yourself once) at 300 dpi, but displayed at a 96 dpi size for people who never print. eqsl.cc could even simply require that people who want their eQSL available in a higher dpi also upload a current 96 dpi image, so there's no load on the server making a small thumbnail.

The increase in size would be excessive for whom? If there's 500,000 eQSL users, and they all upload a 1 MB image that's 300 DPI, that works out to 500 GB of storage... or about $457 CDN, retail price (http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2203982&sku=TSD-750AS : see for yourself) in disk space, with plenty of room left over, so it's certainly not onerous on this web site.

I understand about people on dial-up, but it's 2006, the rest of the world has to move on, and the technology to make thumbnails from large images (and that's what a 96dpi image is - a thumbnail) is well known. It should be easy to accomodate people who have slow-speed internet.

I'm serious about the opinion for submitting them for other awards. If they could be printed as a quality image, rather than looking like a cell-phone camera image stuck on a piece of expensive photo paper, then I am certain there would be less hassle about submitting them for the various other awards.

---

CG3OIJ P. Darin Cowan
Edited by CG3OIJ P. Darin Cowan on Dec 15, 2006 at 02:35 PM

We print several hundred cards a week here for people who have ordered printed/mailed versions of their cards. We print them with a Canon photo quality printer onto glossy postcard stock.

I have to say that the majority of the cards look quite good. Certainly good enough to display on the wall in a hamshack. A large percentage of the cards look really stunning, and a small percentage look rough, as you said.

I don't think anybody is going to win a photography contest, but with over 120,000 members spread all around the world in a wide range of Internet access speeds, and all of their graphics online, and bandwidth considerations, I think we can hold our own against the traditional QSL card.

---

Of course, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong!

73,
Dave Morris, N5UP