Bob Talbot <BobTalbot@st-abbs.fsnet.co.uk> writes: > > I think even *pretending* to talk about web image sizes in DPI is > > misleading and will cause endless confusion, either immediately or > > later. The size of an image on the web is measured in pixels, > > period. > > > It's an easy way to stop geeks printing your pictures though: embed > in then a ludicrous dpi setting (say 9999.99 dpi) and they are > effectively safe ;o) Nope, geeks know all about that stuff. Trust me on this. Notice how it's been the geeks explaining it to the artists on this list? > I've had a serious thought though: > > If you have an image with 4000 pixels across, and you need to print it > at 150 dpi to get the size-on-paper you want, would it make any > difference to the finished product if you resample it up to 8000 > pixels wide and printed it at 300 dpi? Any difference at all that > is. > > Is it just a matter of whether PhotoShop handles the interpolation > better than the printer software? > Do printers such as the Epson 1200 have a "native" resolution which > means they "don't have to think"? > > Anyone actually done the comparison rather than just read about it? I suspect the differences are so subtle that many of us wouldn't notice. And that perhaps they're of the type that matter differently to different images. Generally speaking, I'm guessing the printer driver will do better than photoshop, because it works natively with the weird algorithms the printer uses to spread information around on the paper, which are not even known to Photoshop (different in various printers). -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
