TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

[quote=Rongnongno]TriX: Paul is correct.

DPI is a printing, not a display term. I cited the difference, you did not read

Well, to begin with, perhaps the title of your thread “set the DPI of your screen’ indicates that you think DPI is relevant to your display. It isn’t, hence the reason I pointed out that it is not relevant to displays. Did you intend to say PPI?

PPI has no relevance - only the size of the image in pixels matters. Not true. You want to see the difference? Use a web page with set images using pixel size. Depending on the display's resolution the same image is visually smaller or greater. If only here, PPI matters - even if out of the publisher's hands..

Since you have no idea what size display or resolution of that device a web page is being viewed on, PPI is meaningless.

No display has had a 72 PPI resolution since the early Mac computer (because it matched the 72 DPI of the Apple ImageWriter printer). This “default” PPI/DPI myth apparently continues because it appears as a default value in EXIF data, and changing it has no effect on anything.

I mention the mythical 72 DPI/PPI because it is constantly referenced in these type of discussions. As I said, no current display is 72 PPI. In fact it is mentioned in the 2nd response to your post.
.
...Same goes for the web displays. For example to create great thumbnails on UHH, just uses the limits (width=600, height=no known limits) imposed by the site and edit for it.

Exactly, and you have just made my case - the PPI doesn’t matter - only the size of the image in pixels.

I am getting exhausted of the ignorance being presented as gospel. Display PPI and printer DPI matter. Not including them in post-processing because of ignorance, laziness or poor choices of information's sources is not acceptable regardless of the final product.

IF it’s important to YOU that the size on your screen is the actual size image that will print, then by all means use whatever method you like to make them match. Frankly I don’t think that’s an issue for most, and you can certainly accomplish that in other ways, but what ever you prefer. BUT referring to those that disagree with you or edit in a different manner as lazy or ignorant (even when like Paul, they somehow manage to turn out stellar images) is both arrogant and intolerant and frankly, I expect better from you as well.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

You are correct Yup, THAT Is my error. I actually only noticed it now. Had you mentioned it in your initial answer I would have asked the admin to correct the title. Now it is too late, asking for a change would be disingenuous.

As to the rest, I describe HOW A display PIXEL or a printed DOT gets a color shade value then a physical size in the display and a printer, noting on the way that the display pixel is dynamic both in size and value when the printer is fixed once done.

Anyone who challenges this process is a nincompoop, sorry. I am done being nice.

The relationship between the print view and real view depends on the information being entered in the units/rulers settings is crucial. Print view would not work otherwise.

As noted several times 72DPI is a default and has no relevance. I said that many times but never mind hey? It is a mantra here, whatever you say or type 72DPI is a joke. You find that joke other options in PS CC preference

Nothing so far is wrong, at all.

While one may disagree when using print view or real view, that to me is not an issue. The issue is the final product, in my case, a print.

All the successive post are non-sense because one individual refuses to understand the processes used to create pixels on a display and a dot in a printer. Both are related when viewed and worked using software.

I have not attacked that individual ability to create images. I have never done that to anyone regardless of the issue at hand. I am tired of the stubbornness and intellectual laziness that prevents him to understand what this all about.

------
You assume I know something about wherever an image is displayed. You are wrong. I stated that you cannot predict it. What I am saying is that when posting an image on the net instead of going willy-nilly there is a way around that by using a real size and forcing the browser to display it by using the image height and vertical pixel size and parameter in the HTML coding. Which, I mentioned, would result in an accurate reproduction of the image at different visual sizes depending on each display DPI.

This is also true. If you do not use this process, once again anything goes, including the quality of the image displayed.

Once again, it is about control. I did not make your point. I explained that taking control allows for better image in this case thumbnails being posted, as a sample i used UHH thumbnail known size restriction. We know the size (mentioned it too) so creating a 600 pixel wide image is the solution to post a better thumbnail as a sample. We are not into teaching how to maximize the use of UHH here, are we? Then we can use larger thumbnails and link them to a 'real size'. I can post a sample of that too if you insist.

------------------
The laziness is not in what you use or not use but in refusing to understand what is posted. Display PPI and printer DPI are physical representation of a calculated pixel value. You can balk all you want this is not something you can interpret in any way you desire.

------------------
To say that PPI/DPI resolution is irrelevant is sheer lunacy as it used all the time by the software, the display(s) and the printer(s). That the processes are transparent to us does not allow us to say 'it does not matter'.

It gets further down into foolishness when one selects a camera depending on its sensor array resolution as in this case the reverse is happening. A color shade is transformed from a physical size to a mathematical value. If the 'PPI' does not matter, why does it matter there and nowhere else?

'PPI' should be Sensor Per Inch (SPI), to keep the nomenclature accurate.

------------------
Not everyone's cup of tea to control all aspects of editing and printing?
You are correct yet all perfectionists and control freaks use all tools available to them to improve and control their final product. None, as far as I know, consider the web as a place to post anything of value unless they are in control which is impossible so... **** internet as a final use.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

After three pages of wandering in the woods looking for a point, what was your point?

If it was a misguided attempt to emphasize that UHH members should resize their images for optimal screen display, we covered that one a while ago, with copious examples embedded in the text-based discussion.

Recommended resizing parameters for digital images

If your point was something else, what was it? What actionable knowledge did you seek to demonstrate?

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Only important if you’re printing images. Many never do and some of us print less than 5% of our images.

Just Shoot Me Loc: Ithaca, NY

Paul,
The answer is simple. The number of dots in a pixel are equal to but not greater than the number of crayons left in your box. And to figure the number of crayons in your box, just count the number of shavings in the sharpener drawer and divide by 2 or was it 3?
Ron

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Somebody looks really stupid here and it’s not Paul.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I think he spells his name wrong. It should be “Wrongwrongno”. He fancies himself a deep thinker and posts his supposedly “deep thoughts” and they’re pretty consistently garbage.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

And the usual personal attacks from the same guy. I am used to it now.

Anything else to add?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

That I do not dispute. From the get go it is about printing and viewing FOR printing.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Err, once again, I did not approach resizing yet as there are methods that are much better than others depending on what is at stake. The image determines how to resize, not a set formula.

This about how pixels are created on a display and dots for a printer. Once again apples and oranges confusion for you.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I just knew you were gonna go there after your personal attack on Paul.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

What actionable knowledge did you seek to demonstrate?

What best practice?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Once (if ever) we get past the usual PPI / DPI (and 72PPI) discussion, perhaps Jacque could explain why: “When you work on an image seeing the image in real size is more important than anything else.”

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Any error made while post-processing is glaring at you. Especially when an image is reduced.
 → Artifacts due to the image compression (banding, softness) are exposed
 → Grain that is so decried becomes invisible or nearly invisible. Once you see that, why correct something that will not exist in the final print?
 → Light fringing or halos are reduced or simply eradicated. I found that sometimes a fringe can add to an image.
 → ...
The list is long If you resize up an image you can discover that a brush stroke is ill placed or not setup correctly (size/feathering, spacing, color shade slight mismatch), a mask is not accurate enough, bleeding in unexpected place, objects that was invisible suddenly shows up...

You can then concentrate on more important issues that concerns the overall look
 → color scheme
 → composition
 → ...
And finally decide if the image can be finalized
 → Add a signature or logo by example

I personally found that I was no ambitious enough in my printing hence the large prints I produce.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I take your points, BUT the fact is that few digital images are actually printed, and those that aren’t may be viewed on any size device from a cellphone to a 32” 8K monitor with any resolution, so unless you’re printing, it’s an exercise in futility. In fact, if you edit at larger than print size, the worst that will happen is that you do some extra work that can’t be seen on that particular size print, but if the image is as close to perfect as you can make it at an enlarged size, then it will always be at least that good when viewed or printed smaller.