Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Floyd L. Davidson |
Date | 09/19/2014 22:05 (09/19/2014 12:05) |
Message-ID | <87mw9vtly3.fld@barrow.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Savageduck |
Followups | Savageduck (2h & 30m) > Floyd L. Davidson nospam (3h & 8m) > Floyd L. Davidson |
SavageduckNot any more or less than it will be with your monitor. The printer is either 300 PPI or 360 PPI, and your monitor is probably something between 96 and 104 PPI.
On 2014-09-19 19:02:24 +0000, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>said:SandmanSavageduck
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?
Hell! 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.
I usually open all my RAW images from ACR @ 360 ppi, andYou don't open anything at 360 PPI.
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.That's all just nonsense. The values you are setting are just an Exif tag and has no effect at all on the image.