To answer your question, Not really.
When you speak in terms of percentages, one has to nail down some variables.
What application are you viewing the image?
How large is your screen?
What resolution is your screen running at?
We also know that generally the pixels at a certain dpi, say 300, will map to a point on the screen print.
Having more than 300 will cause the printers application to reduce the image for you, and having to few will cause his printing application to interpolate.
Now you could run the "touchy-feely" route and have him do a series of prints from different dpi files and use them as a guideline for what you see on your screen at home.
Then you could compare what you got from the printer and make an emotional decision as to what dpi to use for prints.
Keep in mind we are also dealing with reflectivity from the print and your screen is back lit. This has an effect on contrast of the image as well.
Without dragging this out, there is my 2¢.
Robert
On 8/17/07, ADavidhazy <andpph@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
I think it is customary practice for printers to "demand" image files at 300 dpi (whatever
that is) at final printed size of a reproduction. I guess this is to reproduce images so
they have a high quality and don't look pixelated or something. (I think I have
oversimplified things).
In any case, I was pondering whether one can get a fair idea of whether an image file has
sufficient digital "resolution" so that when printed it will look "good" by looking at the
image at a larger size than what it will be reproduced at. So if I have a 5x5 cm image
file at 300 dpi but I look at it on my CRT or LCD screen at 200% or 300% or 600% or more
magnification and at 300% the image on my screen looks OK ... but at 600% it starts to
fall apart ... is that an indication of anything?
Hope I have not been to obfuscating in this question ... drinking a Snapple only.
cheers,
andy
--
Robert Hall
www.RobertHall.com
