Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

> Hey, Austin.. Drop the loupe, hop up from your desk, stick an 11"
> x 17" 300dpi print on the wall next to a 200 and a 100 - and then
> take 2 steps backward..

I have a wall I use for print evaluation.  It has a large magnetic white
board, and strip magnets on it, used to hold the prints.  I put up prints
side by side and evaluate them.  My largest print size is 17x22 from my
3000.  I can see differences from "standard viewing distances" that have
convinced me that 180+ is the minimum resolution that is acceptable to me
for the type of work I do, if not 240+ preferred.  100 is vastly degraded.

> It is generally agreed that your average photo lab print is at
> best 200 dpi,

Where has this been agreed upon?  I'm not doubting it, but I never heard
that.  I also would say that probably doesn't hold true for (especially B&W)
darkroom prints with decent negatives and decent enlarging lense.

> Umm, maybe it is just that your printer doesn't work well at 100
> dpi, Austin..?  :-))

In order for me to print at 100dpi (without decimating the data), I would
have to make a VERY VERY large print.  For a 2 1/4, I scan at 2540...and
that gives me a 24x24 print at 240.  I'd be over 50" x 50" if I was to print
at 100dpi.

Point is, whether 100ppi looks "good" at all VASTLY depends on print size.
Certainly 100ppi will look GREAT if the print is the size of a billboard,
but for a 13x19, it looks poor, IMO.


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.