Austin wrote:
>from my images, 35mm or 2 1/4. I really can't imagine every seeing a 100ppi
>output that was "nice"... Even 180 is too low, except for the largest
of
>images I print. 240 is about the minimum acceptable resolution I can send
>to the printer, or image quality degrades quite noticeably. We obviously
>have different standards is all I can guess.
I think that's an important point - we all have different standards. I
have a photographic print on my wall at home which everyone I know loves,
yet it was made from ordinary 100ASA Kodak print film back in about 1982.
It's quite grainy! The point is you would normally view it from halfway
across the room, not at reading distance. For me, this is the sort of situation
where a print with less than 240 ppi would work.
The biggest print I'm likely to observe at normal reading distance is about
A4 (roughly 10x8) and in that situation, the more resolution, the merrier.
But when it comes to "poster" sizes of A3 or larger, I don't think it matters
so much - YMMV. :)
Rob
PS It's not *possible* for me to get 240ppi at A3 unless I get a 400dpi
scanner.
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
