Is the resolution of a qsl image the same if I order an e-qsl printed and shipped for $1 on card stock versus just printing it out on my own printer and paper? To me it would be worth the money if the card would be a sharper high res version and not the blocky low res version I get printing them myself. I have searched the sight and forum and can't find an answer. I love the ease of using e-qsl but this resolution issue bothers me.

Thanks
Mike KD8JHJ

---

KD8JHJ Michael D. Enders

Hi Mike,


I personnally sent a 528x336 background picture, as advised to do...
So I doubt you will ever get more than 100 pixels/inch if you order an already printed eqsl
Perhaps nicer-looking if it's printed on special card stock with a high quality laser printer ???


73, Guy F6DKQ

Edited by F6DKQ Guy FALCOZ on Mar 5, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Hi Guy,

Thanks for the reply. Yes I figured a e-qsl in any form coming out is only going to be as good as the file that first went in. Looking through the e-qsls that I have I can see differences in photos. Some are very sharp and some are not. The qso data font is the same on all of them of course.

I don't mean to sound picky but my business is graphic arts. I am an industrial screen printer. I have and still am learning lots about digital imaging as it has completely revolutionized how we do things in the graphics industry. So by all means I am not complaining about e-qsl especially since I use the service for free. I just have to echo the comments from Jay Horman KA3JLW's earlier post that I hope improving the resolution is somthing being considered for the future. It would help persuade me to upgrade my membership too.

Mike KD8JHJ

---

KD8JHJ Michael D. Enders

I have raised this issue in another thread.

A photo quality print requires a minimum of about 180 dpi, 300 is better. eQSL uploads are 72 dpi.

Now, some years ago, there was a time when 72dpi came out OK on the printers of the day.

However, 72dpi on my printer looks awful.

The primary objection, if I recall from the other thread, is that some (many?) hams are on dial-up and don't want to have to deal with a larger image. There is a minor objection regarding storage space, but given that as of this morning, 1.5 TB disk drives are under $150 Cdn, I can't see that as being a realistic objection.

One suggestion I've made is that large files be allowed and let users select in their profiles whether they want to download large 300 dpi eQSLs or smaller 72 dpi eQSLs.

I'm not a graphic artist, but I do design QSL cards, and do my own digital photo processing. I use an Epson R2400 printer, and I don't bother printing eQSLs because they look so poor when printed at proper QSL size.

You can get nice contact sheets by printing your eQSLs at 300 dpi. They come out 1.3"x0.8" give or take and you can get a zillion on a single sheet.

---

VE3OIJ P. Darin Cowan

Thanks for the info Darin. Yes 72dpi explains it. I agree with your suggestion to increase the dpi on the uploaded file and then let the user decide file size to download. A few hams are displaying there qsl images in digital picture frames. I think thats a great idea and greater dpi would look better in that application too.

BTW I am a new op. Been licesensed for less than a year. I like the "personal stamp" that comes from a QSL card that I receive from a station I have worked. I send paper with SASE and have a nearly perfect return rate. I keep my cards in photo books and enjoy showing them to non-ham friends and family. So I'd love to see the e-qsls looking sharp next to the old school paper ones. I can't leave the e-qsls out of my collection because I have already received some that are great original ideas.

Mike KD8JHJ

---

KD8JHJ Michael D. Enders

Agreed with all comments.

I'm no longer a website programmer, but I suspect it wouldn't be difficult to allow users to either
a) choose their download resolution based on their connection speed or
b) have the site or user cookie somehow know the user's download speed and throttle the image sizes accordingly.

I love getting eQSLs and printing them. A while ago I gave up using photo paper for the prints because the graphic quality was bad enough that it just wasn't worth it. I don't expect "hi rez" but some of the cards really come out quite rough.

I understand that bandwidth isn't free and that graphics drive the bandwidth usage on a site like this. Maybe (as suggested) the higher resolution could be a perk of membership - essentially letting the users pay for bandwidth rights. And of course, allowing higher resolution cards would probably envigorate the small side business of professional QSL design, either for the eQSL team or 3rd party providers.

---

KA3JLW Jay Horman