(still chuckling :) Thanks for the very refreshing posts, Wire! Makes me glad I came back..
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.. It is generally agreed that your average photolab print is at best 200 dpi, and yet they are quite sharp even under close, say 10", scrutiny. So for an image that will be viewed at 24" or more, 100 dpi may be not only acceptable, but *extremely* acceptable. I agree 240 dpi and up is nice, but I would strongly encourage folk to *try* lower resolutions and decide for themselves. You may find those images you were scared to crop because they would end up with too few pixels, may just be usable after all.. Umm, maybe it is just that your printer doesn't work well at 100 dpi, Austin..? :-)) mark t (quickly ducking for cover!) Earlier, Wire pontificated: > 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 > > >>> Austin wrote: >...... > > 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. ... This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
