You're exactly correct. I surely can't see what isn't there. But if I
can see the difference in an A-B comparison why should I be happy with
the lower resolution image? Maybe you are but I'm not. I usually work
pretty hard to get and retain as much detail as I can.
Chuck Norcutt
On 12/14/2011 10:32 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> A good quality print should have 250-300 pixels per inch.
>
> I believe you are overstating that a bit. Absent of an A-B comparison,
> I doubt most people would notice ANY loss of resoultion/detail in a
> print with 180 pixels per inch.
>
> Besides, in reality, we're up against lens/optical/dof issues by that point.
>
> The eye notices edges. As long as an edge is razer sharp, it doesn't
> matter if you got there with 100ppi, 200ppi or 300ppi. The eye has
> little ability to notice much low-contrast details.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|