Photo dimensions when opening a raw image in photoshop.

I am just learning to work with raw images. After I finish editing the photo on Camera Raw 6.7 and open the image in photoshop, the image opens with dimensions of about a 13x19. If I open the same image in jpg (taken at the same time the CR2 was taken) format straight to photoshop, the dimensions are about a 33x66. Since there are instances when I want to print 20x24 or 20x30 images, how can I save the raw image to a image with larger dimensions? I also notice that if I look at the images in explorer, the jpg is 6.75MB and the CR2 is 20.5MB which is what I would expect. Just trying to figure out why the dimensions of the photo is smaller for the CR2. Any help is appreciated.

Thanks

Earl

Don't pay any attention to the inch dimensions. Only the pixel dimensions matter.

Because the PPI value is being changed, and the "size" dimension is determined by the PPI value. The more pixels you assign to a unit length of an image, the higher the resolution you will get, but you will get a smaller image. The default value for ACR/PS is 300 PPI, and for an in camera JPEG from a Canon camera it is 240 PPI.

Alan

Such a large issue for a simple post so I would suggest watching this video first.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=44mV3NsLmXw.

Thanks everyone. The video was just what I was looking for and answered my questions. I appreciate the assistance.

Earl

eblansfield wrote in post #17894084
Thanks everyone. The video was just what I was looking for and answered my questions. I appreciate the assistance.

Earl

The other 39 from the series are equally informative

YouTube is an vast underrated resource for us photographers...use it.

The problem, of course, is knowing which Youtube videos are good and which ones are crap.

There's also a lot of really outdated stuff on there.

Generally the best bet is to identify quality by channel. Then you can usually consume mostly good content from that channel.

One big advantage of reference and teaching matetials that have gone through the traditional publishing process is that they will generally gone through some level of peer review, so that utter rubbish is not produced. This is in the publishers benifit as no publisher wants to develop that sort of reputation.

Self publication on the web though removes all of those checks. You only have to look at the variable quality of much of the information on Wikipedia. Quite a lot of it is fine, especially the well known general scientific stuff that is relativly simple to check on. There are other sections on there though that are simply completely erronious. As well as photography I do a lot of shooting, and most of the information on wikipedia regarding sport shooting in the UK is simply wrong. If I am finding that, how much else on there is similarly flawed?

I now place very little trust in self published work, unless I already know the quality of the author. Web fora like POTN are OK as generally they have enough users to repudiate the erronious ingormation.

Alan