Andy, where do you get the 300 "dpi" from? (I put "dpi" to avoid
argument over what it means!)
Most advice I've had - including that from, yes, NIKON, was files being
sent to the printer were fine at 180 or so "dpi".
Then they showed us prints interpolated up to A0.... from very ordinary
files as from a Coolpix 995.
Can't comment on the rest. If it looks OK on the monitor, it usually
prints OK. That's all I worry about.
Howard
P.S. Whatever snapple is, drink proper cider instead. It's much
healthier - well, maybe you'll get drunk quicker!
ADavidhazy 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
