Choosing the Perfect Print Resolution for Your Photos
Feb 8, 2024 22:23:38 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
So let’s keep it going! It’s only 3 pages long.
It made it out to at least 6 pages.
Feb 8, 2024 23:31:56 #
Longshadow wrote:
I suppose it depends on one's definition of pixels.
One doesn’t get their own definition of pixels. They already have a clear definition.
Feb 8, 2024 23:34:58 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
OK, so you are referring to prints from film instead of prints from a digital source?
Or are you saying that when you print a digital image, the print has no pixels? Somehow the printing process eliminates the pixels? And what is the smallest element of a print from a digital image called?
Or are you saying that there are no pixels if they are too small to be discerned on a print?
Or are you saying that when you print a digital image it's no longer digital?
Or are you saying that when you print a digital image, the print has no pixels? Somehow the printing process eliminates the pixels? And what is the smallest element of a print from a digital image called?
Or are you saying that there are no pixels if they are too small to be discerned on a print?
Or are you saying that when you print a digital image it's no longer digital?
It’s all been laid out there for you. I’m not gonna waste any more of my time trying to help you understand it.
Feb 8, 2024 23:36:51 #
Longshadow wrote:
So if I zoom in in an editor, save, and print, what are the little squares?
Elephants?
Elephants?
That has to be the most stupid comment yet. I say yet because I have no doubt if the ability of some here to top it.
Feb 9, 2024 07:47:23 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
One doesn’t get their own definition of pixels. They already have a clear definition.
True, but some people will make their own definition, based on their interpretation/perception of something.
Happens with many things.....
Many times.
Feb 9, 2024 07:48:43 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
That has to be the most stupid comment yet. I say yet because I have no doubt if the ability of some here to top it.
maybe you missed the intent...
Look again at the image I posted.
What are the little squares called?
Feb 9, 2024 08:17:25 #
Longshadow wrote:
maybe you missed the intent...
Look again at the image I posted.
What are the little squares called?
maybe you missed the intent...
Look again at the image I posted.
What are the little squares called?
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-799120-5.html#14443279
Feb 9, 2024 08:19:57 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
It’s all been laid out there for you. I’m not gonna waste any more of my time trying to help you understand it.
If you are unable to explain why you deny the existence of pixels, there's no way we can put any credence in what you say.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Feb 9, 2024 08:37:56 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
If you are unable to explain why you deny the existence of pixels, there's no way we can put any credence in what you say.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Feb 9, 2024 20:36:31 #
CamB wrote:
I just went and watched this video. Two things came to mind. 1) I remembered how math has always made my head spin. I watched the first two minutes twice and could not follow what he was talking about, even though he has a nice presentation. 2) I'm so glad we don't have to know or deal with any of this to make great prints.
Yes, digital photography is pure math - no more and no less. Some folk like to learn about the math and some of us just get on with making photos. Just like you, I also fall more into the latter.
However, sometimes knowing a bit about the underlying math of our craft can come in rather handy when you're faced with an argument by someone who likes to think they know things, when in fact they don't really know much at all about what they are talking about. Good fun!
Feb 9, 2024 20:44:23 #
Heaththiel wrote:
Oh Lord, this thread is a good one 🤣🤣
I knew it would be. And that is really what prompted me to start this thread.
Plenty of humour.
Feb 9, 2024 20:45:24 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
So let’s keep it going! It’s only 3 pages long.
Now up to seven pages long. And it's very amusing.
Feb 9, 2024 20:47:47 #
Feb 9, 2024 20:49:31 #
billnikon wrote:
This is all fine and good. I do not do my own printing. I send them to the professionals. My job is to deliver as clean and image as I can through taking the image and working in Photoshop.
I believe it is always up to the photographer to capture as clean an image as possible for the printer.
I believe it is always up to the photographer to capture as clean an image as possible for the printer.
Likewise for me. I like clean images and I send mine to the printshop as well.
Feb 9, 2024 20:52:22 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Wouldn't it make sense to look no further than the 1:1 pixel-level resolution? What do you expect to see in a print, when you look at the molecules that compose the paper and ink?
I always look at the molecular level of my prints.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.