Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

[Wire Moore <wirem@home.com>]

Actually, I'm blind. I was in despair until I found this photography hobby.
Now it's all that keeps me going...

Seriously, I mean 100 ppi sent to the printer, not a 100 pixel wide image! I
have standards.

...

OK, the truth is I have very low standards...

Oh, never mind. I shouldn't have said anything :)

Wire

on 10/25/01 7:21 PM, Austin Franklin at darkroom@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> 
>>> Austin wrote:
>>>> Why would you want to output at a fixed 300 PPI?
>>> 
>>> Because that's the requirement of the offset printer which many
>> of my recent
>>> photos are going to.  Aside from that, 300 dpi is as a general
>> rule of thumb
>>> the "best" resolution *most* printers (pc and otherwise) work
>> with.  Some
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> After working with 4-color Epsons for a few years, I've found that the
>> resolution demands of photographs can be quite low, where as few
>> as 100 ppi
>> as a lower limit can produce nice results.
> 
> You must be talking about very small images, from a very poor negative.
> There is absolutely no chance that I can get a "quality" image at 100 ppi
> from my images, 35mm or 2 1/4.  I really can't imagine every seeing a 100ppi
> output that was "nice"...  Even 180 is too low, except for the largest of
> images I print.  240 is about the minimum acceptable resolution I can send
> to the printer, or image quality degrades quite noticeably.  We obviously
> have different standards is all I can guess.
> 
>> There's a book called "Real World Scanning & Halftones," which explains
>> print dots (spots) in depth.
> 
> Got it, it's a reasonably good book.
> 
>