willie_901
Mentor
Rob,
All the art directors/marketing managers I encountered during may stint as a commercial photographer specified 300 ppi. So, I too assumed this was sufficient quality.
sojournerphoto
Mentor
Great post Shane, and welcome
580/Q
200 frames a day
Thanks, Murray! It's a pleasure. Bill's questions are thought-provoking. "Yeah, why exactly am I doing "x" this particular way?..." So much of what I do on the technical end is open to question and probably a lot of simplification, too.
Best,
Shane
580/Q
200 frames a day
580/Q
200 frames a day
Thank you, Robert. I'll resist the urge to edit and edit.... I always feel that I didn't take enough out - so I appreciate your kind words.
Cheers,
Shane
580/Q
200 frames a day
Dogman, I love your signature. Nothing is ever perfect, is it? Especially in light of the screaming terror that I won't get the camera pointed at the right things in time before it all dissolves... I think.
Best,
Shane
580/Q
200 frames a day
Willie, this has been my experience also. One guy who was doing a textbook actually asked for a specific dot-bleed setting at 300ppi for the prints that were to be re-photographed for the book. I'll admit to absolutely not being able to tell the difference no matter how hard I looked. I think he was an outlier.
Shane
580/Q
200 frames a day
Brian,
Panatomic-X, in an M-anything (I jumped from M3 straight to M6TTL) and a 21 or 28, for me was the gateway drug to medium format. I didn't stick with MF, though (and I never found Panatomic X in anything other than 135). In my quest for detail I went to LF as a teenager for a while and revisited it now and then. Too bulky and slow for this rugged and bumptious life. P-X was far more than good enough in the Leicas (or anything Pentax and Nikon in SLR that I ran -- it was never the film that held me back). There are some "forensic" emulsions that I came across that gave similar detail but... I wound up settling on Plus X in bulk after Panatomic-X became unavailable.
All this is moot in light of modern sensors that are out-resolving (so I'm told) many of the lenses that I use.
Cheers,
Shane
Last edited:
Axel
singleshooter
Dogman said:
Sorry - I just found the field in my user prefs. that enables seeing signatures
ptpdprinter
Mentor
If you read the Epson printer manual, it says use 360dpi because that is how Epson printers are designed. If you read the Canon printer manual, it says use 300dpi because that is how Canon printers are designed. There are technical reasons for those being their native resolutions but I don't know what they are. Maybe there is a difference in head spacing or nozzle diameter or pigment viscosity or firmware coding or whatever. You can use 300dpi with an Epson printer and 360dpi with a Canon printer if you chose to do so. You can use almost any number on any printer. The printer will then do whatever it has been programmed to do when presented with that number. I have an Epson printer and use 360dpi. I haven't done a comparison between an Epson print at 360dpi and an Epson print at 300dpi. Given my camera sensor and print size, I haven't needed the larger size that printing at 300dpi would give me, so I print at the printer's native resolution. Generally, my default behavior on technical matters is to follow the instructions, though sometimes I don't. For completeness, Epson has a fine resolution mode which changes the native resolution to 720dpi. There is a difference of opinion among knowledgeable members on the photography forums I frequent about whether invoking that feature and upscaling your images to 720dpi results in any improvement.
580/Q
200 frames a day
Absolutley, but somehow I wound up at 300dpi and it is fine. At any viewing distance. Probably I was trying to stretch 6 and 12 MP files to 12x18 and.....
I blundered accidentally into 720 and maybe under certain circumstances it would really make a difference but how much is a "real"? Nonetheless, I couldn't see the difference although I think I didn't handle the bleed settings properly. And a bunch of other things. I was also distracted by the size of the prints, obviously. After recovering (the horror, the horror) and reprinting back at 300, I didn't do any real controlled A-B comparisons. At some point I kind of let go of that stuff as long as some technical image issue is not distracting me from the image itself. Keeping everything profiled and managed is battle enough.
I'd rather be shooting. And, I'll admit, that's probably why I use jpegs (with a lot of camera tweaking) for 90% of my colour work.
Best,
Shane