Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Savageduck |
| Date | 09/19/2014 21:20 (09/19/2014 12:20) |
| Message-ID | <2014091912205569627-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Floyd L. Davidson (45m) > Savageduck |
On 2014-09-19 19:02:24 +0000, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>said:
SandmanHell! 72 ppi, or 360 ppi makes no difference on a display, but try that with a printer and the result is going to be quite obvious.
In article <87vbojttf4.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:Sandmannospam
In article <bc792678-99f5-4416-8002-0d75afbeadf2@googlegroups.com>,Floyd L. DavidsonWhisky-davenospam
Do you happen to know whether or not this preview file is a copy of the original file but 'rendered' at 72DPI rather than the final copy which is mostly likely to be 300+ DPI for printing ?
there is no dpi or more accurately ppi until you print. everything is always done to the original image.
Until you print... or display an image on a monitor screen. Same thing, and a different value for DPI/PPI.
Now Floyd thinks the DPI information saved for an image file is in any way related to the physical PPI of the screen. Isn't he adorable?
I usually open all my RAW images from ACR @ 360 ppi, and if I am making a round trip from LR to PS they take that trip at 360 ppi. If I am saving, or exporting for display/web sharing they usually go out at 72 ppi, but mostly I don't bother, and they end up out there at 360 ppi.
-- Regards,
Savageduck
09/13/2014-
