Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Stuff General Photography Talk 
Thread started 03 Feb 2010 (Wednesday) 16:08
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

why do 72 ppi images look good on a display but bad in a print?

 
mcluckie
I play with fire, run with scissors and skate on thin ice all at once!
Avatar
2,192 posts
Gallery: 109 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 449
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Hong Kong, Ozarks, previously Chicago area
     
Feb 04, 2010 00:33 |  #16

Wrong. Resolution in the formula refers to output device resolution, not image file. And I am talking commercial printing. I own an imagesetter; this is the industry math. Look it up. Using a res of more than twice the linescreen is a waste of processing. Yes, you can do less than my suggested 2x on lower res devices, like a 600 dpi laser, maybe even 1200. And SPI isn't even a term.

sing fewer SPI than this would not make full use of the printer's available LPI; using more SPI than this would exceed the capability of the printer, and would be effectively lost.

This makes no sense at all. Whats available LPI? Any printer can do any LPI.


multidisciplinary visual guy, professor of visual art, irresponsible and salty.
Leicas, Canons, Hasselblads
all and historic dingus

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Feb 04, 2010 09:24 |  #17

mcluckie wrote in post #9537265 (external link)
What a bunch of lame answers.
It's freakin' late for me, and what i wrote below isn't my best linear lecture by far, but I was compelled to try to get this info off because of responses like "thats the way it is."

Monitors display 72-75 pixels per inch.

Sorry, didn't bother reading any further as this is just plain wrong, one might even call it lame if one were so inclined. Back in the last century it may have been correct but it hasn't been for years.

Let's look at a fairly low-res screen, say 17", 1280x1024 pixels. That's a 5:4 ratio. The 17" screen is a diagonal, with that aspect ratio we have a width of 14.46 inches to give a resolution of 88 ppi.

Look at a higher-spec monitor, like my laptop. That's 15.7" wide and 1920 pixels or 122 ppi.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dugcross
Senior Member
Avatar
879 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2008
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
     
Feb 04, 2010 10:03 |  #18

mcluckie wrote in post #9537415 (external link)
Wrong. Resolution in the formula refers to output device resolution, not image file. And I am talking commercial printing. I own an imagesetter; this is the industry math. Look it up. Using a res of more than twice the linescreen is a waste of processing. Yes, you can do less than my suggested 2x on lower res devices, like a 600 dpi laser, maybe even 1200. And SPI isn't even a term.


This makes no sense at all. Whats available LPI? Any printer can do any LPI.

I'm talking commercial, imagesetter is not commercial, I'm talking webpresses, Komori, Harris and so on.

As for SPI not being a term! That statement in itself shows your ignorance. You have a lot to learn. I've been making a living professionally in the press industry for over 24 years now. I have years of experience backing up what I'm saying. By the way just to put you in the know of what SPI does mean, even though the term does not exist on your standards, I did you a favor and attached it below.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Doug Cross
Graphic Designer and Photographer
www.crossphotographics​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ImRaptor
Goldmember
Avatar
1,448 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Humboldt, SK Canada
     
Feb 04, 2010 10:15 |  #19

So,
The justification that SPI is a term is to show a wikipedia article that states it does not cite and references or sources? I'll let you see the flaw in that plan.


http://imraptor.devian​tart.com/ (external link)
Why yes, I am a jerk. Thank you for asking.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dugcross
Senior Member
Avatar
879 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2008
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
     
Feb 04, 2010 10:23 |  #20

ImRaptor wrote in post #9539338 (external link)
So,
The justification that SPI is a term is to show a wikipedia article that states it does not cite and references or sources? I'll let you see the flaw in that plan.

There's no flaw there, that was just an example to show that the term exists! Here, just for you I attached another example and if that's not good enough do a search on the web yourself, it's out there.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Doug Cross
Graphic Designer and Photographer
www.crossphotographics​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ImRaptor
Goldmember
Avatar
1,448 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Humboldt, SK Canada
     
Feb 04, 2010 10:26 |  #21

dugcross wrote in post #9539383 (external link)
There's no flaw there.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't disagreeing on the SPI term being relevant. I was just pointing out that you picked probably the worst source imaginable to try and prove your point. If you still don't see the flaw then you have proven your ignorance.


http://imraptor.devian​tart.com/ (external link)
Why yes, I am a jerk. Thank you for asking.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jeffrf
Member
79 posts
Joined Oct 2007
     
Feb 04, 2010 10:30 |  #22

just toma (talking out my a..) but I think it is because the picture from a monitor is being lit from behind making it glow and "pop" while we usually view paper photos in terrible light. just my little added addition to the often confusing topic. sorry.....


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/11037896@N05/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dugcross
Senior Member
Avatar
879 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2008
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
     
Feb 04, 2010 10:41 |  #23

ImRaptor wrote in post #9539395 (external link)
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't disagreeing on the SPI term being relevant. I was just pointing out that you picked probably the worst source imaginable to try and prove your point. If you still don't see the flaw then you have proven your ignorance.

Sorry about that, I'm just a little stressed right now. Yes, you are right that probably wasn't the best choice to go with. I see the flaw in the terms you're talking about but not with mine. My point was just the fact that I could have picked from any source showing that SPI is a term that exists.


Doug Cross
Graphic Designer and Photographer
www.crossphotographics​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Todd ­ Lambert
I don't like titles
Avatar
12,643 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 131
Joined May 2009
Location: On The Roads Across America
     
Feb 04, 2010 10:44 as a reply to  @ dugcross's post |  #24

I always thought SPI meant Short Penile Instrument ????

:p




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dugcross
Senior Member
Avatar
879 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2008
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
     
Feb 04, 2010 10:50 |  #25

Todd Lambert wrote in post #9539480 (external link)
I always thought SPI meant Short Penile Instrument ????

:p

Ha, thanks Todd, I needed the laugh.


Doug Cross
Graphic Designer and Photographer
www.crossphotographics​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sledhed
Goldmember
Avatar
2,510 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Crete, IL.
     
Feb 04, 2010 10:53 |  #26

dugcross wrote in post #9539463 (external link)
Sorry about that, I'm just a little stressed right now. Yes, you are right that probably wasn't the best choice to go with. I see the flaw in the terms you're talking about but not with mine. My point was just the fact that I could have picked from any source showing that SPI is a term that exists.

Doug - I'm not saying SPI doesn't exist but it's not a real common term in the printing industry. How do I know this? For the past 20+ years I've been the print buyer for a large text publishing company. We deal with all of the big boys, RR Donnelley, Quad, World, Courier and more.


Chris
Gear List | Website (external link) | Sports Sample Pictures (external link) | Four Seam Images (external link)

If you’re good at something, never do it for free. - The Joker

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dugcross
Senior Member
Avatar
879 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2008
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
     
Feb 04, 2010 10:59 |  #27

Sledhed wrote in post #9539538 (external link)
Doug - I'm not saying SPI doesn't exist but it's not a real common term in the printing industry. How do I know this? For the past 20+ years I've been the print buyer for a large text publishing company. We deal with all of the big boys, RR Donnelley, Quad, World, Courier and more.

I agree with you. I know it's not a common used term but to say it didn't exist was wrong. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, a little stressed, and I guess I'm coming off harsh on my posts but in no way do I mean it that way. My apologizes to anyone I might have offended.


Doug Cross
Graphic Designer and Photographer
www.crossphotographics​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
essvee
Member
115 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
     
Feb 04, 2010 12:20 as a reply to  @ dugcross's post |  #28

While the discussion is interesting, I think we're *way* off point in regards to the OP's question. And I think the answer is rather simple.

Monitors produce an image by emitting light somehow. Printed materials rely on ink on paper reflecting light. With a monitor, 72-125 ppi is "enough" info to provide a pleasing image, especially if you consider the amount of "bleed" you get from pixel to pixel due to the limitations of our eyes and the masks or individual LCD crystals being excited to radiate said light. The light behind the pixel is relatively bright and you're looking right into it. You don't see the pixel as much as you see a tiny blob of light with the pixel in the center. Throw a loupe or magnifying glass on your screen and you'll get what I mean.

Our eyes aren't really seeing exactly what's there. Consider that the images are painted in a scanning fashion yet we don't perceive that as it happens too quickly for our brain and eyes to capture it.

With printed material, we see the image bathed in the ambient light around us so there is nothing but that ink and paper to resolve in our eyeball. No "bleed" if you will (bad eyes, old age, etc notwithstanding). This allows us to see the detail more accurately, within the limitation of our eyes anyway. Monitors simply take advantage of the design of our eyes and brains to fill in the extra detail printed materials have to actually lay on the paper.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
channel_49
Member
63 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Feb 04, 2010 12:25 |  #29
bannedPermanent ban

Not sure if anyone has answer this properly, but... dpi stands for Dots per inch, which
specifically refers to print, monitors don't have a dpi. People refer to it as 72dpi simple to show
the amount of pixels per inch of the actual monitor's size, however it doesn't work the same
way as in print.

One important thing to remember is that monitors are back lit, papers are not, the
constant refreshing and far viewing distance makes the monitor appear as sharp, where as
up close it isn't. The same principles apply for color in print vs color on monitor. Of course you
must also factor in that CMYK is a subtractive system, where as RGB is an additive system.

Since we're not talking about color, here is how dpi really works. In photoshop, when you see
dpi in the image settings, that simple refers to how big you can print said image on paper, at
said resolution. 300 dpi would mean that for every inch, you are printing 300 pixels, each pixel
being a single dot. The actual size of the image will be in the first box, the dimensions in pixels,
whatever dpi you set it as, the actual size will not change, that how big the image is. This is
not to say that it doesn't get upsized, most people just set the image to 300dpi when it does not
have enough information so photoshop will interpolate said image to the pixel dimensions so
that it can print at 300dpi. Since there is no real image information, it must be generated by
interpolation, which will look... bad.

So, for a standard 8.5"x11" print @ 300dpi, your image needs to be 2550px x 3300px,
for a standard 11"x17" print @ 300dpi, your image needs to be 3300px x 5100px,
for a 24"x36" print @ 300dpi, your image needs to be 7200px x 10800px. Although you won't need
the poster size @ 300dpi, because you never view it up that close anyways, same as a monitor.

Why print at 300dpi? Very simple, it is at that resolution the human eye cannot distinguish
the dots, try looking at some printed text @ 300dpi very very close and try the same on a monitor,
you will notice that the paper is sharper, you cannot distinguish any imperfections within the
text. Modern monitors have fast enough refresh rates that you can't really call them "not sharp"
as well, but I'm sure you've noticed when you take a picture of a monitor,
you can notice the dots.

Simple put, its because a monitor is not static, while a piece of paper is static.

---

For those arguing about what monitor dpi is, its very simple, just divide the resolution by the
physical size of the monitor, and you will get the dpi. As you change the resolution, that dpi changes,
it's very simple, and not really a fixed number.

Pixels are pixels, inches are inches, dpi is just a conversion unit to get from one to the other,
and it changes as the two units its converting changes. Without interpolation, your image is just
X by Y pixels and it will not change, you can downsize it or upsize it, but that information will be
resampled by the program and generated, thus it won't look "good".


~~~
Why do people put their gear list here?
Pro photogs usually have everything anyways.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
channel_49
Member
63 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Feb 04, 2010 12:34 |  #30
bannedPermanent ban

dugcross wrote in post #9537021 (external link)
72 dpi is just that 72 dots (pixels) per inch so at 300 dpi you have 300 pixels in the same area whereas the 72 dpi image only 72, with 300 giving it more detail. Newsprint is only at 150 to 200 dpi. Trying to print at a higher dpi on newsprint puts you in the danger of ink bleeding together since newsprint is so porous. Taking all of the into account billboards are only 15 dpi but since you're seeing them at such a greater distance it actually looks better then a 72 dpi printed piece up close.

Technically anything on a monitor is measured at ppi (pixels per inch) only actual printed material is dpi (dots per inch).

He knows exactly what you're talking about.
That's why you trust a GD with print, and since I'm also a GD, I can say that his answers
are the most accurate out of everything posted here... Newspapers are exactly 150-200 dpi
just like he said, I know because I work in editoral...


~~~
Why do people put their gear list here?
Pro photogs usually have everything anyways.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

11,808 views & 0 likes for this thread, 20 members have posted to it.
why do 72 ppi images look good on a display but bad in a print?
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Stuff General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
2783 guests, 161 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.