> > 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.
