Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Common Printer Myths Explained - PPI vs DPI

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

User_Removed
7 Jul 2011 - 11:02 PM

No, I do take your point about articles v forum posts. However I think you're the "ignorant sod" as you misread the ePz article then call the first sentence "pure *****" without taking into account the line above and that the article is about PPI v DPI so it's going to be about images made of pixels. There's nothing wrong with the article.

I think I'm right to point out that you are actually guilty of coming out with "pure *****" with your "72" opinion as if it's a fact which people will find when they Google and will take notice of because they mistake you as being experienced in the matter and will wrongly assume that you know what you're talking about.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
7 Jul 2011 - 11:02 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mikehit
mikehit  46189 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
8 Jul 2011 - 9:04 AM

Chris - I see what you mean now about that table.
The way I readi it I though it was showing 'if you want have this number of pixels, this is the size you can print.". But from your explanation it is actually saying "if you want this size print this is the minimum number of pixels you need".

As I said in my previous post: if it is not clear then it is not properly explained/presented.
But I will repeat that that table makes no reference to dpi because that is intrinsic to the print quality. Again it is misleading.
So you have still not changed my opinion that it needs to be re-written to make it easier for the audience for which it was intended to understand.

Pete
Pete Site Moderator 1318434 forum postsPete vcard ePz Advertiser England96 Constructive Critique Points
8 Jul 2011 - 2:56 PM

I don't think guy understands




Last Modified By Pete at 8 Jul 2011 - 2:57 PM
Kris_Dutson
8 Jul 2011 - 3:02 PM

That's the best post on this thread Pete. Wink

mikehit
mikehit  46189 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
8 Jul 2011 - 3:14 PM

ppi.

Paws per inch?

darranl
darranl  5318 forum posts England
8 Jul 2011 - 3:40 PM

One of mine sleeps in the output tray of the printer - unfortunately it is networked so you don't always realise there is a cat in there when you start to print Wink

Just Jas
Just Jas  1225748 forum posts England1 Constructive Critique Points
8 Jul 2011 - 3:59 PM

Gosh, Pete - that left jab, followed by the right hook!

Is his name 'Henry', by any chance? Grin

User_Removed
8 Jul 2011 - 6:01 PM


Quote: So you have still not changed my opinion that it needs to be re-written to make it easier for the audience for which it was intended to understand.

Mike that's totally fair. We can agree that the article isn't wrong per se but might be misinterpreted. I think the addition of just a few words in the right places would clarify things?

e.g. The sentence "Images are made from pixels" becomes "Digital images are made from pixels".

Yes the table doesn't make any reference to dpi, (if you actually mean ppi then it's inherent in my opinion) - if you have a 3000 x 3000 pixel image and you print it at 10 inches by 10 inches it has to be printed at 300 pixels per inch

If you're actually talking about dpi, not ppi, then I think you might have missed some points in the article.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.