Wow, how can something so simple get so complicated and convoluted so quickly.
Rather than continue to debate this issue I visited the following; CCI, Epson, Phlearn, Canon and Adobes web site and asked about image resolution and print resolution. Because Adobes was the last site here is what they had to say:

About pixel dimensions and printed image resolution
Pixel dimensions measure the total number of pixels along an image’s width and height. Resolution is the fineness of detail in a bitmap image and is measured in pixels per inch (ppi). The more pixels per inch, the greater the resolution. Generally, an image with a higher resolution produces a better printed image quality.

About printer resolution
Printer resolution is measured in ink dots per inch, also known as dpi. Generally, the more dots per inch, the finer the printed output you’ll get. Most inkjet printers have a resolution of approximately 720 to 2880 dpi. (Technically, inkjet printers produce a microscopic spray of ink, not actual dots like image setters or laser printers.)

Printer resolution is different from, but related to image resolution. To print a high quality photo on an inkjet printer, an image resolution of at least 220 ppi should provide good results.
============================================================
Interesting that it says Image DPI: and then shows the answer as 240 pixels/inch.

Guess the bottom line is, who cares. It just helps if the proper industry terms are used when communicating with others.

Mark;
In the broadest of terms you are correct, a monitor calibration in its-self has nothing to do with the luminence of the printed image. It does however have everything to do with trying to achieve an acceptable visual similarity between the monitor image and the printed image.

When you say you increase the brightness in the printer settings, exactly how are you doing that? And isn't that the same thing, lightening the input image so the output image is closer to what you want. How do you know exactly how much to increase that brightness so you get the correct output?

The only way that my print drivers allow me to effect the brightness is if I allow the printer to control the output. Doing this negates the icc profile for the media and all bets are off as to the output.

Happy Holidays.

Sorry but I must disagree. Here's a quote from a color and printing web site.

"What is the difference between PPI and DPI? PPI describes the resolution in pixels of a digital image whereas DPI describes the amount of ink dots on a printed image. Though PPI largely refers to screen display, it also affects the print size of your design and thus the quality of the output."

If you have a 20x30 inch image at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) and you print at 720 dpi your printed image will be 20x30. If you print the same image at 1440 dpi your printed image will still be 20x30. However if you reduce the ppi to 150 your image would then be 40x60.

Dragonophile;
What your experiencing is extremely common. One of the members provided a Phlearn video that interviews a print professional. I watched it and it was very informative.

The luminence difference between your prints and the monitor are a result of your monitor not being correctly set to match the printer. The monitor calibration, suggested by many is exactly the correct thing to do, but its not the final step. Once you've done a complete calibration you should do a test print and compare that against the monitor, if its not correct make some additional adjustments to the luminence value of your monitor. Once you've obtained a visually appealing balance note your luminence and or contrast settings.

When printing make sure that you are using the correct ICC profile for the media that your printing on.
Make sure that you read the literature that came with the media, it will tell
you what printer settings were used when the profile was created; i.e., paper type, print resolution (dpi).
Using different settings will create differing results. Also be aware that generic profiles provided by the paper manufacturer are not that great, about 50 to 75% accurate. The best method is to create your own ICC profiles. When setting up your print driver make sure that you are using your editing software to control your colors. The printer should never control the colors. In my case Photoshop controls the colors through the ICC profile crated for the media.

Remember, not all print media has the same color gamut. What may look good on one type of media may not look as good on another.

My set-up (2) monitors, both displaying 100% RGB and (2) Epson printers, 9800 & P8000.
Media used; Water Color paper, Resin Coated Luster, Gloss and Matt Canvas. Prints are a visual match to what's displayed on the monitors. I have and use both the I1 and Colormunki for the creating monitor and ICC profiles.

Good luck and happy holidays.

I believe you meant that the background image is 72ppi. When you upside it to 300ppi it will become smaller. Now you can upscale it to the proper size at what ever ppi resolution you need.
When you print you will be using dpi (dots per inch), my Epson allow me the following options; 360, 720, 1440 or 2880 dpi.

Happy Holidays

Thanks. Checked out the list of features that are available once basic elements is unlocked.
Looks like an excellent learning tool to get a basic understanding of some of the more complex features in Photoshop.
Happy Holidays

The oldest version of ACR that's compatible with CS6 is ACR9.2.

Elements or Photoshop?

Depends on what type of photographer you are. If your a SOOC then elements is great. While the differences between your current version and the 2020 version may be small its always beneficial to run the latest.

If your a RAW shooter who endeavors to create the scene that unfolded for you then Photoshop is the only way to go. Yes, the learning curve for Photoshop is longer but the voyage of discovery is so worth it.
Photoshop has always offered significantly more editing functionality than Elements, Lightroom or any other editing software. Yes, it costs $10/month. Most people waste $10 a month on junk food, coffee, soda, or alcoholic beverages.

What ever way you decide to go, have a great journey.

Before you run out and purchase any printer you should ask yourself what type of media might you want to print on.

My first printer was a Canon, it produced some very nice prints but Canon would not support printing on several types of media available for ink jet printers. This information came directly from Canon support help line. I returned the printer.

Epson was the only printer that supported virtually any type of media I desired to print on, obviously ink jet printer media, silks, cottons, canvas and all paper types, roll and sheet.

The media used has a major impact on the look and feel of the finished image. Water Color paper is one of my favorites as it creates a soft textured look to the finished image while keeping the vibrancy of the colors.

I wanted larger images than a 13x19 so I started with the Epson 7600, then upgraded to the Epson 9800 and now to the Epson 8000. While large format printing may not be what you want, the Epson line does have smaller format printers available.

As for inks, I'd strongly recommend using only OEM inks. I have used after market inks from vendors claiming that their inks are identical. While the ink did work in the printer the color consistency just wasn't there. Nothing more frustrating than using several feet of expensive media only to find that the prints aren't usable.

Grahame;

I said, Macro is all about DOF. You confirmed that in your comment. It doesn't matter whether its a deep or narrow DOF. So, where is the ERROR of my statement?
You also confirmed what you feel is boring, all in focus macro work, is nothing more than your opinion. I was just stating the obvious, your not the standard. Frankly, with what credentials do you voice your opinion? Are you a published professional with hundreds of award winning macro shots, do you have international acclaim, or are you just someone who thinks they know?

Grahame;
MY POINT EXACTLY.........DOF!!!!!!!! of course the obvious add-on's are COMPOSITION & LIGHTING.
And let us not forget perhaps the most important one of all, THE PHOTOGRAPHER. After all, the beauty of photography as with all art forms is the inspiration and sight of the one who created it.

I hadn't realized that you'd been appointed the defacto standard of acceptable and not acceptable macro photography. Ever thought that there may be some who find your work, lacking, boring and perhaps even un-inspired.

I've always found that reading about a subject and getting a through knowledge is far more beneficial than asking and getting mis-lead by those who really don't have a clue.
After all, Macro photography is all about DOF. The better the DOF the less photo's that are required.
Take a read.

"For Cameras that can only focus on one object distance at a time, Depth of field is the distance between the nearest and the farthest objects that are in acceptably sharp focus.[1] "Acceptably sharp focus" is defined using a property called the circle of confusion.

The depth of field can be determined by focal length, distance to subject, the acceptable circle of confusion size, and aperture.

As distance or the size of the acceptable circle of confusion increases, the depth of field increases; however, increasing the size of the aperture or increasing the focal length reduces the depth of field. Depth of Field changes linearly with F-number and circle of confusion, but changes in proportional to the square of the focal length and the distance to the subject. As a result, photos taken at extremely close range have a proportionally much smaller depth of field.

Sensor size affects DOF only in that changing the sensor size on a camera requires changing the focal length to get the same picture. It is the change in focal length that then affects the DOF."

Joe.

Thanks for the reply.

I can't account for the colors you received on your images, there are a number of variables, and I wasn't there. All I can ask is that you visit any web site that shows a Kelvin Temperature chart and it will tell
you that at 8000K your image will have a blue bias, at 3000K it will have a yellow bias.

As for specific colors, I can make anything any color you'd like. I can make colors that perhaps your monitor can't display and I know I can create colors that even the finest of printers on the market today can't reproduce.

As for the heated topic; White Balance.
Rather than sourcing technical papers which may confuse some, I'm going with a more easily understood
site.
" You can choose the white balance setting on the camera, but if you shoot raw files rather than JPEGs, you can choose it later when you edit your images. With JPEG files, the white balance setting is ‘baked into’ the pictures as they are processed by the camera and any extra color data is discarded. With raw files, the full color data captured by the sensor is saved in the file, and while the camera’s white balance setting is recorded with the data it can be used or ignored later when you process the image."

After reading several of your suggested articles my stance is exactly the same, WB data is provided and used in-camera for the creation of those jpg preview images and is stored along with all other data from the sensor. Most RAW processors use the WB data as a starting point.

I have never debated the use or non-use of the WB data. That would be dependent on the algorithms use. WB at best is a guesstimate of the temperature of light on the subject your shooting.

I've asked an engineering friend at Canon to share with me the gory details of WB.
As soon as he gets back I'll reply further.

Joe;
When is the magic white balance actually set, after the fact when the image is sitting on my computer.

I can't speak for your colors, I wasn't there.

Joe;
When is the magic white balance actually set, after the fact when the image is sitting on my computer.

I can't speak for your colors, I wasn't there.