If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Why pixel peeping (usually) makes no sense
On Nov 17, 8:15 am, John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:10:43 +1100, "cmyk" wrote in With all due respect, that's an essentially meaningless distinction. (I love it! He says that, and then criticises cmyk for 'insults'.) So let's just stick to facts. John, I think you cannot get better than 209 ppi from your Panasonic at 11 x 14. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you can show us the math? I'm happy to be proven wrong. Best regards, mt (O: |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Why pixel peeping (usually) makes no sense
"John Navas" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:10:43 +1100, "cmyk" wrote in : "John Navas" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:13:14 +1100, "cmyk" wrote in : For my 7.2MP Panasonic FZ8, 11x14 is "excellent" at about 216 DPI. To produce an 11x14 print without interpolation from your FZ8, you can only print at 200ppi. Printing at 216dpi is only going to degrade the image through interpolation. You can see what's optimum by dividing the print dimensions by the available number of pixels. That gives an angular resolution of around 115 arc-seconds. With all due respect, that's an essentially meaningless distinction. You would do well to take time to study this instead of peremptorily dismissing it. Been there; done that. Your response betrays a certain lack of understanding of some fairly basic issues. Insults only serve to diminish the credibility of your own argument. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) Insults? I'm simply stating -politely - what's patently obvious. -- cmyk |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Why pixel peeping (usually) makes no sense
wrote in message ...
You took most of the words out of my mouth, cmyk - well done.. Thanks For a: . 4x6 print, you'd want about 360ppi . 5x7 print, you'd want 300-360ppi . 8x10 or 11x14 print, you'd want about 288ppi . 16x20 print, you'd want about 240ppi . 20x30 print, you'd want about 200ppi ..these numbers are pretty much what I would accept, too... (O: By what standard do you define 'acceptable', 'very good', excellent', 'best'? Exactly. And then you throw in viewing distance as well? (O: No wonder it gets argued! Hi Mark, For print distances, I'll stick with Kodak's research. AFAIK, no-one else has done any and the old-school notion of viewing distance = print diagonal or any other similar linear relationship has been thoroughly debunked. And has been for 15 years (Kodak first came out with this in November 1992). Cheers -- cmyk |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Why pixel peeping (usually) makes no sense
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Why pixel peeping (usually) makes no sense
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:49:35 -1000, Scott W wrote:
I also would take some issue with your table of needed pixels, this is a personal thing. For an 8 x 10 print I would say 4MP is acceptable, but just and very good would be 8MP. And with a good printer you can see a noticeable improvement going from 8 to 16 MP for a 8 x 10 print, so I don't see how even 8MP could be call best for this size print. It's clear that you never do much photography, nor printing. Even more important than the number of pixels is the subject matter. With the right subject matter even the images from 1.2MP cameras (with good optics) can print exceptionally well at 8x10 sizes. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Why pixel peeping (usually) makes no sense
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:10:43 +1100, "cmyk" wrote:
You would do well to take time to study this instead of peremptorily dismissing it. Your response betrays a certain lack of understanding of some fairly basic issues. Your whole post betrays your lack of experience with reality and photography in general. Print quality is more dependent on subject matter than it will ever do with PPI settings. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Why pixel peeping (usually) makes no sense
On Nov 17, 2:21 am, ClarkJohnson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:10:43 +1100, "cmyk" wrote: You would do well to take time to study this instead of peremptorily dismissing it. Your response betrays a certain lack of understanding of some fairly basic issues. Your whole post betrays your lack of experience with reality and photography in general. Print quality is more dependent on subject matter than it will ever do with PPI settings. It's even more dependent on the photographer having a heartbeat. A dying photographer generally takes bad pictures as he is preoccupied with the predicament he finds herself in; for instance, he may well be engaged in a last-minute reconsideration of his religious beliefs (or lack thereof), since it's getting urgent, etc. At any rate, it's unlikely he'll take good pictures. Anyway, why not mention that too if we won't restrict ourselves to the number of pixels needed? It's important, no? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Why pixel peeping (usually) makes no sense
"ClarkJohnson" wrote in message ...
Your whole post betrays your lack of experience with reality and photography in general. Print quality is more dependent on subject matter than it will ever do with PPI settings. And just where did I say that subject matter was unimportant, or less important? But since *you're* claiming "Print quality is more dependent on subject matter than it will ever do with PPI settings", perhaps you'd care to back that up with some evidence. -- cmyk |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Why pixel peeping (usually) makes no sense
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:54:04 +1100, "cmyk" wrote:
"ClarkJohnson" wrote in message ... Your whole post betrays your lack of experience with reality and photography in general. Print quality is more dependent on subject matter than it will ever do with PPI settings. And just where did I say that subject matter was unimportant, or less important? But since *you're* claiming "Print quality is more dependent on subject matter than it will ever do with PPI settings", perhaps you'd care to back that up with some evidence. That's easy. Take a picture of a red square with a 1-pixel resolution camera. You can blow it up to the size of a billboard and it'll still have the same amount of detail, color, and retain the same shape. The same is true of any subject depending on what kind of details are in it to begin with. For all your PPI calculations they'll never hold up in real-world situations. Sure, those number are fine for the anal couch-potato photographer and math-brained print-maker who only has web-tv and not even a printer. One who thinks it's all in the numbers. You know, the digital byte-benders who have never left their basements, have never touched a real camera, never changed ink in a printer, nor seen the light of day. But it's not true in the real world. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Why pixel peeping (usually) makes no sense
"ClarkJohnson" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:54:04 +1100, "cmyk" wrote: "ClarkJohnson" wrote in message ... Your whole post betrays your lack of experience with reality and photography in general. Print quality is more dependent on subject matter than it will ever do with PPI settings. And just where did I say that subject matter was unimportant, or less important? But since *you're* claiming "Print quality is more dependent on subject matter than it will ever do with PPI settings", perhaps you'd care to back that up with some evidence. That's easy. Take a picture of a red square with a 1-pixel resolution camera. You can blow it up to the size of a billboard and it'll still have the same amount of detail, color, and retain the same shape. The same is true of any subject depending on what kind of details are in it to begin with. That would have to be the lamest 'evidence' possible. It's an insult to your intelligence. If you take a screen dump of any worthwhile image and print it to a full sized A4/letter page, it'll likely look awful from a normal viewing distance, even if printed at 1200dpi or more. Doesn't matter how good the image was. Likewise, if you take a 50Mp image then downsample it to 100dpi for a 6x4 print, all you'll end up with is mush. The simple fact is that the print resolution is just as important as the subject matter. If you've got a decent image, then printing it at the optimal print density for the size and viewing distance will give the best results. Any interpolated image whose density isn't evenly divisible by the printer's maximum resolution is going to suffer. You see it all the time on-screen when there's a mismatch between the the number of pixels in the image and the number available for displaying them. Printers suffer from the same limitations, just not so noticeably. Throwing away a few pixels around the margins, printing to a slightly smaller size to avoid such interpolations, or using a higher resolution that suits the printer (which might amount to the same thing) is generally preferable. -- cmyk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For some people film makes more sense | Graham Fountain | 35mm Photo Equipment | 60 | December 26th 06 10:02 AM |
Olympus E-400 grip makes way more sense | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | December 3rd 06 01:01 AM |
Wide Angle IS makes sense... | MarkČ | Digital Photography | 84 | September 9th 06 01:42 PM |
Wide angle IS makes sense... | MarkČ | Digital SLR Cameras | 9 | September 3rd 06 01:26 PM |
Hopefully this makes sense | HeritageMom | Digital Photography | 20 | February 9th 06 07:08 PM |