See, here I am not communicating clearly again. And I used to be a journalist.
<g>
The point in raising dots per inch on a printer is that some printers give
better results at certain dpi. Epsons like 360, and if you're a fan of Jeff
Shewe, 720. They like in lesser degrees dpis that differ. Thus in printing from
Lightroom, Shewe recomments printing larger images at 360 dpi and small images
at 720 dpi. I've been doing that for some time now to good effect.
But on the screen we're talking about pixels per inch, ppi. I was just curious
as to whether some sizes benefit in clarity from certain pixel counts per inch.
I think I may have gone off the deep end on this one, however, as while the dpi
stuff makes sense at a certain level, the ppi makes less since because we're
not translating from electronic files to prints on paper.
As the infamous Emilie one said, "Never Mind."
FWIW, I uploaded another B&W, which I spoke of earlier, to the TOPE. This one I
sized at 1600 ppi. I wonder how it appears on various monitors. It's still
relatively small on mine, but it's less than 1750, which Philippe said fits his
24-inch iMac.
--Bob
On Jan 10, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> I don't understand your point. I noted your previous plan, "I typically
> upload 800 picas on the long side, 72 ppi." but decided not comment.
>
> Surely the size, in pixels, is all you need to consider; the ppi, dpi or any
> other resolution is immaterial.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|