"The writer is making all sorts of assumptions in that. I agree
that 300 ppi (or dpi) is the "standard" resolution for printed
output (depending on various factors, but a good average), but
does this mean that you have to have a one-for-one source to
output pixel?"
When referring to printed output, I mean offset press, not a photo print.
There is a huge difference. In that world, 300 is a real minimum for decent
quality. As I said, much below that, and even Ray Charles can see the
difference.
There are all sorts of opinions (like something else, we all have one) on
what 300 equates to in the old halftone world. The standard then was 133
line screens for normal use. In those days, a 150 line screen would be a
little flat looking. But now, the software that turns the PS file into a
negative or plate is a sophisticated rip software that massages things.
Speaking of massaging, that's the key to good digital prints. Different
brands print differently, and each has its own rip. As with women, some are
better than others.
When we get to inkjet printers, it's even more black art. It is likely that
smaller files are acceptable with a good inkjet.
"Bill Pearce has expressed that 1:1 is a desirable thing in his
world. That may be true, but I believe that his sharpness
quotient is also based on the rest of his imaging methodology
and tools. If he is maximizing the sharpness of his lenses and
eliminating vibration beyond most photographers, he is getting
down in the "pixel-sharpness" world. This would be where you'd
actually be seeing 1/300 resolution."
I'm ov the opinion that file size affects the ability to resolve fine
detail. In weddings and etc, that's not always good. In commercial work it
is different. I would be lost shooting weddings and portraits.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|