Printing and the myth of DPI

[markc]

I came across this site and thought people would be interested. There's a lot of misunderstanding of how DPI works when talking about a digital image, so I think "The myth of DPI" should be required reading.

http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/index.html

 

[Rose]

thank you

 

[John_05]

thank you Markc. that helped clear up a few things i have wondered for a while now.
when i first got the Fuji camera i have, i noticed the pictures had a DPI of 72. i had used a couple other digital cameras before that, and they saved at 180+ DPI and i assumed the Fuji was producing lesser quality images even though i didnt notice them being any worse, in fact they were better. i always wondered why the Fuji images looked better at 72 DPI then the other pictures i had seen at 300 DPI. now i know. thanks again!

 

[Canon Fan]

Good stuff. This will help me better explain to my friend why some of my 180dpi photos crush his 600dpi stuff. I just never had the correct terminology to win that conversation

 

[markc]

Glad it's helpful. Like the author, I'm amazed at how many pro shops still ask for 300 dpi images and leave it at that. I can understand it from people used to the printing press world, but a lot of these places should know better. They just end up confusing people.

 

[mysteryscribe]

This fight goes on constantly at my house. I'm an old time film photographer and my son in law is a modern nikon shooting er er person...

I judge a print for sharpness on how the eyes of the subject look, nothing else. If 100 dpt has sharp eyes, then it is fine with me. Not so the son in law. Has to be a 300 dpi file. I go by total pixel count and pay little attention to dpi. I know I need a minimum pixel count for each size print and thats what I upload. so far it hasn't let me down. I always thought it was because I make sure it is "wet" printed. It is nice to have the information you just gave me thanks.