The (in)significance of resolution

Started Apr 15, 2013 | Discussions thread
Laurence Matson
Forum ProPosts: 11,205Gear list
Like?
Re: The (in)significance of resolution
In reply to SigmaChrome, Apr 18, 2013

SigmaChrome wrote:

Laurence Matson wrote:

An example:

Moss Glen Falls near Rochester, Vermont

This file is 2 x 2.4 meters at 180 dpi. Since I cannot get that out of my printer, I change it to 1 X 1.2 meters at 360 dpi. For postcards (50 x 55 cm), I change to 720 dpi; for really small, to 1440 dpi. In each case, there is no loss of pixel-level detail but rather a noticeable detail enhancement. Again, I have had enough input over the last years to confirm that my pot-smoking habit has not consumed my perceptive abilities.

Hi Laurence,

This looks like a print you sent me a few years ago. I thought it was a number of images stitched together...?

Anyway, no matter how close you get to it, you simply can't see any artifacts at all. It is a 'Zero Viewing Distance' print.

Yes, this was 45 images made into one and then cropped. Printed at 360 dpi and 2800x1440 ppi on my Epson 9900 and Hahnemühle Smooth Something Rag.

-- hide signature --

Laurence
laurence at appledore-farm dot com
"The fact of being reported multiplies the apparent extent of any deplorable development by five- to tenfold" (or any figure the reader would care to supply).
Barbara Tuchman, A Distant Mirror
http://www.pbase.com/lmatson
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr
http://www.howardmyerslaw.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow