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 on 10/25/01 7:21 PM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> 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. > >
