ppi, dpi, and printing photos

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bob, Jul 11, 2004.

  1. Bob

    Bob Guest

    Hi, I am trying to print some 8x10" prints from 3072x2048 pixel photos taken
    from the 300d (actually, I'm sending them off to be printed by fotki.com if
    that matters). I am using photoshop cs.

    when I crop them I crop them to 8x10 proportions, but am not sure what to do
    from there. One I have for example is now 2374x1899 pixles...before crop it
    was 3078x2048 at 180 ppi (according to photoshop) after crop its ppi is now
    237.4 (what does ppi affect here)

    I have read that on hq prints, ppi can be 1/3 of dpi ... that sounds odd to
    me...is the printer doing interpolation?

    Please help me out by explaining the best practices for sending off jpg
    files for printing at 8x10" ...for instance, are you sending 3000x2400 pixel
    files?
     
    Bob, Jul 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bob wrote:
    > Hi, I am trying to print some 8x10" prints from 3072x2048 pixel photos taken
    > from the 300d (actually, I'm sending them off to be printed by fotki.com if
    > that matters). I am using photoshop cs.
    >
    > when I crop them I crop them to 8x10 proportions, but am not sure what to do
    > from there. One I have for example is now 2374x1899 pixles...before crop it
    > was 3078x2048 at 180 ppi (according to photoshop) after crop its ppi is now
    > 237.4 (what does ppi affect here)
    >
    > I have read that on hq prints, ppi can be 1/3 of dpi ... that sounds odd to
    > me...is the printer doing interpolation?
    >
    > Please help me out by explaining the best practices for sending off jpg
    > files for printing at 8x10" ...for instance, are you sending 3000x2400 pixel
    > files?


    The PPI of the image and the DPI of the printer have nothing to do with
    each other. You just need to aim for between 150 and 300 PPI for your
    images, and print at the highest DPI of the printer, to get the smallest
    drop size and finest print. If you send it out for printing, not your
    problem. Some might advocate resampling the PPI up, if you're getting
    very large prints. I'm not sure what the dividing line is, but if you
    are within the range I have indicated above, should be a fine print with
    no jaggies.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Jul 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bob

    Bob Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:kq%Hc.42254$...
    >

    .. Some might advocate resampling the PPI up, if you're getting
    > very large prints. I'm not sure what the dividing line is, but if you
    > are within the range I have indicated above, should be a fine print with
    > no jaggies.
    >



    Thanks Gary,

    so if my ppi is above 150 then I shouldn't worry about resampling?
    if with this others agree, this is precisely the answer I was looking for.

    thanks,
    Bob
     
    Bob, Jul 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Bob wrote:

    > Thanks Gary,
    >
    > so if my ppi is above 150 then I shouldn't worry about resampling?
    > if with this others agree, this is precisely the answer I was looking for.
    >
    > thanks,
    > Bob


    Do others agree? I don't know - I'm just thinking that any unnecessary
    resampling may degrade the image.

    You can experiment with all this, of course, if you have a good printer.
    Just resize your images as big as you want, 20 x 30, 30 x 40, anything,
    just for the hell of it, and print a patch of it and see. The DPI is
    dependant on the size of the image, so you will see it go down as size
    goes up, and be able to mark a point beyond which you do not want to go.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Jul 11, 2004
    #4
  5. Just out of habit I do resample. I use the crop tool and set it to 8x10 and
    300 dpi. I do the crop and save as best JPG and send it off. To be sure you
    might send one without resampling and one with and see if there is a
    noticeable difference....and let us know the results. After resampling you
    should sharpen of course.


    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:kq%Hc.42254$...
    >
    >
    > Bob wrote:
    > > Hi, I am trying to print some 8x10" prints from 3072x2048 pixel photos

    taken
    > > from the 300d (actually, I'm sending them off to be printed by fotki.com

    if
    > > that matters). I am using photoshop cs.
    > >
    > > when I crop them I crop them to 8x10 proportions, but am not sure what

    to do
    > > from there. One I have for example is now 2374x1899 pixles...before

    crop it
    > > was 3078x2048 at 180 ppi (according to photoshop) after crop its ppi is

    now
    > > 237.4 (what does ppi affect here)
    > >
    > > I have read that on hq prints, ppi can be 1/3 of dpi ... that sounds odd

    to
    > > me...is the printer doing interpolation?
    > >
    > > Please help me out by explaining the best practices for sending off jpg
    > > files for printing at 8x10" ...for instance, are you sending 3000x2400

    pixel
    > > files?

    >
    > The PPI of the image and the DPI of the printer have nothing to do with
    > each other. You just need to aim for between 150 and 300 PPI for your
    > images, and print at the highest DPI of the printer, to get the smallest
    > drop size and finest print. If you send it out for printing, not your
    > problem. Some might advocate resampling the PPI up, if you're getting
    > very large prints. I'm not sure what the dividing line is, but if you
    > are within the range I have indicated above, should be a fine print with
    > no jaggies.
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier
    >
     
    Gene Palmiter, Jul 11, 2004
    #5
  6. Bob

    Bob Williams Guest

    I do exactly what Gene does for the same reason.
    Setting your crop tool to 8 x 10 @ 300 ppi is so easy and reliable.
    Upsampling from 237.4 to 300 ppi will cause NO noticeable image
    degradation.
    BTW, if Photoshop showed your original image, (3078 x 2048 pixels) to
    have 180 ppi, it DID NOT show the size to be 8 x 10. It would have to
    show the image to be 17.1 x 11.4. (Ex. 3078/180 = 17.1) Check that out.
    Bob Williams

    Gene Palmiter wrote:
    > Just out of habit I do resample. I use the crop tool and set it to 8x10 and
    > 300 dpi. I do the crop and save as best JPG and send it off. To be sure you
    > might send one without resampling and one with and see if there is a
    > noticeable difference....and let us know the results. After resampling you
    > should sharpen of course.
    >
    >
    > "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    > news:kq%Hc.42254$...
    >
    >>
    >>Bob wrote:
    >>
    >>>Hi, I am trying to print some 8x10" prints from 3072x2048 pixel photos

    >>

    > taken
    >
    >>>from the 300d (actually, I'm sending them off to be printed by fotki.com

    >>

    > if
    >
    >>>that matters). I am using photoshop cs.
    >>>
    >>>when I crop them I crop them to 8x10 proportions, but am not sure what

    >>

    > to do
    >
    >>>from there. One I have for example is now 2374x1899 pixles...before

    >>

    > crop it
    >
    >>>was 3078x2048 at 180 ppi (according to photoshop) after crop its ppi is

    >>

    > now
    >
    >>>237.4 (what does ppi affect here)
    >>>
    >>>I have read that on hq prints, ppi can be 1/3 of dpi ... that sounds odd

    >>

    > to
    >
    >>>me...is the printer doing interpolation?
    >>>
    >>>Please help me out by explaining the best practices for sending off jpg
    >>>files for printing at 8x10" ...for instance, are you sending 3000x2400

    >>

    > pixel
    >
    >>>files?

    >>
    >>The PPI of the image and the DPI of the printer have nothing to do with
    >>each other. You just need to aim for between 150 and 300 PPI for your
    >>images, and print at the highest DPI of the printer, to get the smallest
    >>drop size and finest print. If you send it out for printing, not your
    >>problem. Some might advocate resampling the PPI up, if you're getting
    >>very large prints. I'm not sure what the dividing line is, but if you
    >>are within the range I have indicated above, should be a fine print with
    >>no jaggies.
    >>
    >>Gary Eickmeier
    >>

    >
    >
    >
     
    Bob Williams, Jul 11, 2004
    #6
  7. "Bob" <> wrote in message news:<xY_Hc.31595$>...
    > Hi, I am trying to print some 8x10" prints from 3072x2048 pixel photos taken
    > from the 300d (actually, I'm sending them off to be printed by fotki.com if
    > that matters). I am using photoshop cs.
    >
    > when I crop them I crop them to 8x10 proportions, but am not sure what to do
    > from there. One I have for example is now 2374x1899 pixles...before crop it
    > was 3078x2048 at 180 ppi (according to photoshop) after crop its ppi is now
    > 237.4 (what does ppi affect here)
    >
    > I have read that on hq prints, ppi can be 1/3 of dpi ... that sounds odd to
    > me...is the printer doing interpolation?
    >
    > Please help me out by explaining the best practices for sending off jpg
    > files for printing at 8x10" ...for instance, are you sending 3000x2400 pixel
    > files?


    Resampling the image always slightly degrades it, as does artifical
    digital sharpening. Don't do either. It makes no difference to the
    printer which ulitmately resamples as it puts colored dots to paper
    anyway.

    The exception being light mixers which don't even need to resample
    while printing. They "print" by exposing real silver halide paper to
    combined color lasar light, so they are immune to droplet size
    considerations. Then the paper is developed traditionally. This is
    both the highest quality, and often the cheapest (no ink), way to
    print.
     
    Georgette Preddy, Jul 11, 2004
    #7
  8. Bob

    Bob Guest

    "Bob Williams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I do exactly what Gene does for the same reason.
    > Setting your crop tool to 8 x 10 @ 300 ppi is so easy and reliable.
    > Upsampling from 237.4 to 300 ppi will cause NO noticeable image
    > degradation.
    > BTW, if Photoshop showed your original image, (3078 x 2048 pixels) to
    > have 180 ppi, it DID NOT show the size to be 8 x 10. It would have to
    > show the image to be 17.1 x 11.4. (Ex. 3078/180 = 17.1) Check that out.


    Yes, you are correct for sure....okay that is what the ppi was doing
    there...reflecting the fact that it was 17.1x11.4 inches...I think I get it
    .... maybe??
    Bob
     
    Bob, Jul 11, 2004
    #8
  9. Bob

    Bob Guest

    "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote> digital

    >sharpening. Don't do either. It makes no difference to the
    > printer which ulitmately resamples as it puts colored dots to paper
    > anyway.


    this is kind of what I thought...I had some suspicion that even if my image
    was of perfct 8x10 300 dpi, that the printer might resample it
    anyway....however...I am still unsure if the printer will do a better job
    then photoshop at upsampling...I guess the only way to know is to test it
    out as someone else suggested....

    thanks to everyone for your answers, if I get any interesting results for
    the test I will be sure to post them!

    Bob
     
    Bob, Jul 11, 2004
    #9
  10. Bob

    Big Bill Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 20:58:09 GMT, "Bob" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Georgette Preddy" <> wrote> digital
    >
    >>sharpening. Don't do either. It makes no difference to the
    >> printer which ulitmately resamples as it puts colored dots to paper
    >> anyway.

    >
    >this is kind of what I thought...I had some suspicion that even if my image
    >was of perfct 8x10 300 dpi, that the printer might resample it
    >anyway....however...I am still unsure if the printer will do a better job
    >then photoshop at upsampling...I guess the only way to know is to test it
    >out as someone else suggested....


    You did it again...
    " perfct 8x10 300 dpi". It wasn't 300 *dpi*, it was 300 *ppi*.
    *dpi* is "dots per inch"; in a printer, a dot is a droplet of ink. The
    higher the 'dpi' rating of a printer is, the smaller the droplets are,
    and the more precise the printer can be in positioning those droplets
    on the paper.
    When your graphics program sends an image file to the printer driver,
    the driver will convert the pixels into a matrix of ink droplets the
    printer can then use to position the ink droplets on the paper.
    There is no set correlation between a pixels and any droplets of ink;
    a white pixel will have none, and a colored pixel will have a few,
    some or many depending on just what the value of the pixel is, and the
    properties of the printer, and how you told the printer to print.
    So never thnk of printing in terms of "dpi", always think in terms of
    "ppi"; the computer will do all the needed conversion fro you.
    >
    >thanks to everyone for your answers, if I get any interesting results for
    >the test I will be sure to post them!


    Testing [experimentation] is the way to go. Depending on your printer,
    there will be several levels of printing quality. The type of paper
    used will also make a difference.
    Enjoy the trip!

    >
    >Bob
    >


    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jul 12, 2004
    #10
  11. Bob

    Bob Guest

    "Big Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > You did it again...


    what did I do again? or is this more like"Oops, I did it again" lol
     
    Bob, Jul 12, 2004
    #11
  12. Bob

    Big Bill Guest

    On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:52:56 GMT, "Bob"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Big Bill" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> You did it again...

    >
    >what did I do again? or is this more like"Oops, I did it again" lol
    >

    Probably an "Oops!"
    You referred to *ppi* as *dpi*.
    A very common mistake; it leads to confusion(!) when trying to
    determine what to do to an image before you print it.
    My point is, forget *dpi* when printing; remember *dpi* when buying a
    printer. :)

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jul 12, 2004
    #12
  13. "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    SNIP
    > Resampling the image always slightly degrades it, as does artifical
    > digital sharpening. Don't do either. It makes no difference to the
    > printer which ulitmately resamples as it puts colored dots to paper
    > anyway.


    Bad advice, as usual.

    It all depends on the printer driver's native ppi setting (changes with
    paper choice).
    Epson printers commonly resample to 720 ppi, while HP and Canon resample to
    600 ppi, internally (assuming photograde paper). Offering the printer driver
    a different number of pixels for a specified output size, forces an unknown
    resampling before dithering.

    It is much better to resample, then sharpen, to the outputsize needed, and
    use an appropriate ppi for the printer driver. A program like Qimage does
    that automatically (including the post sharpening).

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 12, 2004
    #13
  14. Bob

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > SNIP
    >
    >>Resampling the image always slightly degrades it, as does artifical
    >>digital sharpening. Don't do either. It makes no difference to the
    >>printer which ulitmately resamples as it puts colored dots to paper
    >>anyway.

    >
    >
    > Bad advice, as usual.
    >
    > It all depends on the printer driver's native ppi setting (changes with
    > paper choice).
    > Epson printers commonly resample to 720 ppi, while HP and Canon resample to
    > 600 ppi, internally (assuming photograde paper). Offering the printer driver
    > a different number of pixels for a specified output size, forces an unknown
    > resampling before dithering.
    >
    > It is much better to resample, then sharpen, to the outputsize needed, and
    > use an appropriate ppi for the printer driver. A program like Qimage does
    > that automatically (including the post sharpening).
    >
    > Bart


    Darn, that raises yet another question for me, if I may?

    My Epson defaults (with photo paper) to 720 dpi... and I've
    been forcing it to 1440 each and every time.

    I wonder if I'm doing it a dis-service?

    Anyone know for sure, or is it back to experimenting
    again :)

    Take care.

    Ken
     
    Ken Weitzel, Jul 12, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <CDAIc.81385$P7.11103@pd7tw3no>,
    says...
    >
    >
    > Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    > > "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > SNIP
    > >
    > >>Resampling the image always slightly degrades it, as does artifical
    > >>digital sharpening. Don't do either. It makes no difference to the
    > >>printer which ulitmately resamples as it puts colored dots to paper
    > >>anyway.

    > >
    > >
    > > Bad advice, as usual.
    > >
    > > It all depends on the printer driver's native ppi setting (changes with
    > > paper choice).
    > > Epson printers commonly resample to 720 ppi, while HP and Canon resample to
    > > 600 ppi, internally (assuming photograde paper). Offering the printer driver
    > > a different number of pixels for a specified output size, forces an unknown
    > > resampling before dithering.
    > >
    > > It is much better to resample, then sharpen, to the outputsize needed, and
    > > use an appropriate ppi for the printer driver. A program like Qimage does
    > > that automatically (including the post sharpening).
    > >
    > > Bart

    >
    > Darn, that raises yet another question for me, if I may?
    >
    > My Epson defaults (with photo paper) to 720 dpi... and I've
    > been forcing it to 1440 each and every time.
    >
    > I wonder if I'm doing it a dis-service?
    >
    > Anyone know for sure, or is it back to experimenting
    > again :)
    >

    It's OK - the higher the better :) The printer still
    resamples to 720ppi, but then does some 'clever stuff' to work
    out the dot placement for 1440dpi (or 2880 etc.)

    As was stated above - ignore the advice about not sharpening.
    Preddy is a well known loony (search the group for evidence)
    and it's generally best to ignore him.
     
    Graeme Cogger, Jul 12, 2004
    #15
  16. Bob

    Big Bill Guest

    On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:20:18 GMT, Ken Weitzel <>
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >> "Georgette Preddy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> SNIP
    >>
    >>>Resampling the image always slightly degrades it, as does artifical
    >>>digital sharpening. Don't do either. It makes no difference to the
    >>>printer which ulitmately resamples as it puts colored dots to paper
    >>>anyway.

    >>
    >>
    >> Bad advice, as usual.
    >>
    >> It all depends on the printer driver's native ppi setting (changes with
    >> paper choice).
    >> Epson printers commonly resample to 720 ppi, while HP and Canon resample to
    >> 600 ppi, internally (assuming photograde paper). Offering the printer driver
    >> a different number of pixels for a specified output size, forces an unknown
    >> resampling before dithering.
    >>
    >> It is much better to resample, then sharpen, to the outputsize needed, and
    >> use an appropriate ppi for the printer driver. A program like Qimage does
    >> that automatically (including the post sharpening).
    >>
    >> Bart

    >
    >Darn, that raises yet another question for me, if I may?
    >
    >My Epson defaults (with photo paper) to 720 dpi... and I've
    >been forcing it to 1440 each and every time.
    >
    >I wonder if I'm doing it a dis-service?
    >
    >Anyone know for sure, or is it back to experimenting
    >again :)
    >
    >Take care.
    >
    >Ken

    You should know that; you're the one doing it.
    What are the differences between a print done at 720dpi as opposed to
    1440dpi?
    If there's no difference, do you need to spend the extra time & ink to
    do it at 1440dpi?

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jul 12, 2004
    #16
  17. "Ken Weitzel" <> wrote in message
    news:CDAIc.81385$P7.11103@pd7tw3no...
    SNIP
    > My Epson defaults (with photo paper) to 720 dpi... and
    > I've been forcing it to 1440 each and every time.
    >
    > I wonder if I'm doing it a dis-service?


    As usual, it depends. The positioning grid accuracy of the tiny droplets is
    1440 or 2880 per inch (depending on direction). These droplets are used to
    dither intermediate ink colors which then appear like continuous tones
    because they are placed closer together than the eye can resolve.

    When the image data is detailed enough to provide true detail for each of
    the 1440x1440 pixels per inch sent to the driver (even with limited dithered
    color accuracy), the resulting image quality can still be good because there
    is some error diffusion built in the dither algorithms. However, due to
    paper and ink interaction, it is doubtful that you can exceed a real
    resolution of 720 ppi (see http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/). In
    that case you might as well limit your file size to 720 real pixels per
    inch, but with better dithered color accuracy. The only possible exception
    is for line images, these usually have a limited need for absolute accuracy
    of color, but they do need all resolution you can provide to avoid
    stair-stepped edges.

    So, if your original file has true detail per pixel, try a high resolution
    setting in the printer driver (depending on the paper/ink, it may work). If
    you have to interpolate to provide the pixels, stick with a very good
    quality interpolation to 720 ppi, sharpen that and have accurate dithered
    color.

    Again, Qimage does all that for you, because it interrogates the printer
    driver for the internal ppi needed for the paper/ink combination, uses good
    interpolation or good downsampling if needed, re-sharpens after that to
    compensate for resampling losses, and then avoids overflowing the spool
    buffer by sending small chunks of data, all without the need to resize your
    original file.
    You just tell it how large the output must be, and off it goes (even if it
    exceeds available paper size, it will produce tiles for post-print pasting
    together). It also economizes printing by optimal use of paper by rotating
    and sorting images per physical page (if requested).

    > Anyone know for sure, or is it back to experimenting
    > again :)


    The manufacturer does, but interrogating the printerdriver also helps.
    It never hurts to experiment, but the results become predictable if the
    basis is good.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 12, 2004
    #17
  18. Bart van der Wolf wrote:

    > "Ken Weitzel" <> wrote in message
    > news:CDAIc.81385$P7.11103@pd7tw3no...
    > SNIP
    >
    >>My Epson defaults (with photo paper) to 720 dpi... and
    >>I've been forcing it to 1440 each and every time.
    >>
    >>I wonder if I'm doing it a dis-service?

    >
    >
    > As usual, it depends. The positioning grid accuracy of the tiny droplets is
    > 1440 or 2880 per inch (depending on direction). These droplets are used to
    > dither intermediate ink colors which then appear like continuous tones
    > because they are placed closer together than the eye can resolve.


    Bart - if you know this - I can't help but wonder what is happening when
    you have a 720 ppi image being printed with a 720dpi resolution. To me,
    this would mean that each pixel in the original image is being printed
    with but one drop of ink - which is ridiculous, hence my question.

    What is really going on there?

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Jul 13, 2004
    #18
  19. "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:TGFIc.44133$...
    SNIP
    > Bart - if you know this - I can't help but wonder what is happening when
    > you have a 720 ppi image being printed with a 720dpi resolution. To me,
    > this would mean that each pixel in the original image is being printed
    > with but one drop of ink - which is ridiculous, hence my question.


    If you print (presumably) an RGB coded color every 1/720 inch, that color
    will be dithered. That means that apart from the number of inks, each (let's
    assume) 1/720x1/720 inch pixel can be dithered with 4 (1/1440x1/1440) or 8
    (1/1440x1/2880) full size drop positions. Of course these drops are not
    square, and they may be overlayed, or multiple variable volume smaller
    droplets may be mixed, to produce many shades of RGB color per pixel in each
    of the 4 or 8 placement grid positions.

    If larger pixels are chosen then the resolution may suffer, but the
    intermediate ink color per pixel will be more accurate. However, clever
    dithering will distribute the error of each pixel to its neighbors, so on
    average the colors are correct, and even if smaller, less accurate, pixels
    are dithered.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 13, 2004
    #19
  20. Bob

    Guest

    In message <BRhIc.23998$>,
    "Bob" <> wrote:

    >"Georgette Preddy" <> wrote> digital
    >
    >>sharpening. Don't do either. It makes no difference to the
    >> printer which ulitmately resamples as it puts colored dots to paper
    >> anyway.

    >
    >this is kind of what I thought...I had some suspicion that even if my image
    >was of perfct 8x10 300 dpi, that the printer might resample it
    >anyway....however...I am still unsure if the printer will do a better job
    >then photoshop at upsampling...I guess the only way to know is to test it
    >out as someone else suggested....
    >
    >thanks to everyone for your answers, if I get any interesting results for
    >the test I will be sure to post them!


    I wouldn't upsample an image for printing unless it was in danger of
    pixelating. Even then, I would not upsample to exactly 300 DPI; I would
    double or triple the number of pixels in each dimension.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 13, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Chris
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    658
    Barry Parker
    Jul 16, 2003
  2. MGlantzMN

    PPI vs DPI

    MGlantzMN, Aug 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    833
    Gary Eickmeier
    Aug 3, 2003
  3. Digital Puer

    DPI, PPI, and printing

    Digital Puer, Aug 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    3,054
    Don Stauffer
    Aug 25, 2003
  4. ccomp

    dpi and ppi differences

    ccomp, Nov 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    680
    Gary Eickmeier
    Nov 15, 2004
  5. Dalene

    DPI and PPI

    Dalene, Jul 12, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    69
    Views:
    2,148
    J. Clarke
    Aug 8, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page