Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Storage of digital images


> Martin writes:
>
> > The problem is that the artist generally has
> > no control over the viewing distance.
>
> That is often true, but if you follow that line of reasoning, nothing less
> than infinite resolution is acceptable.  Unfortunately, infinite
resolution
> is not achievable.

Anthony,

That doesn't follow at all. There is a finite close distance that is the
limit people can focus their eyes. I would guess that it is about 12 to 14".
Which if you take your value of the diagonal as the "normal" viewing
distance suggests an 8x8" to 10x10" print.
>
> > People are going to walk right up to that
> > 6x6 foot print and view it at 18".
>
> The larger the print, the closer the viewing distance tends to be, if it
is
> exhibited under identical conditions.  So you really need MF or LF for the
> wall-sized prints, if you want to retain detail (although I see a lot of
> wall-sized enlargements from 35mm, too).

I see have seen large prints from 35mm and I have enjoyed them, but it is a
different artistic statement than what you would get using a larger negative
or file size.
>
> > I have never heard anyone recommend input to
> > an inkjet below about 240 ppi which corresponds
> > to 1.5 x 160 ppi. A more common rule of thumb
> > is 360 ppi.  Beyond that I cannot detect any
> > significant difference but others report
> > that they do see a difference by going to
> > 720 dpi.
>
> In theory there is always a difference for higher resolutions.  In
practice,
> the visible difference improves in a rapidly diminishing fashion with
> increasing resolution, such that 1.5x is usually the cost-effective
choice,
> 2x on rare occasions.  But it is largely pointless for photographers to
try
> to get 360 ppi to print on a 160 ppi printer.  They'd be far better off
> going to 240 ppi and finding a printer that can output 200 ppi.

I agree that at a certain point you get less and less improvement from
increasing resolution until further increases achieve no visible
improvement. I simply question where that point is. I am confused as to
where you get the 160 ppi figure. I am inclined to agree with Austin
(collective gasp <G>) that inkjet printer output cannot be meaningfully
described in terms of ppi since the images are dithered. You could draw a
pixel analogy with halftone printing where each variable sized dot
represents a pixel but I don't see this type of pattern in my output. My own
experience is that output visibly starts to deteriorate when I send less
than 360 ppi to my Epson printers.
>
> > For myself I would like the image quality of my
> > inkjet prints to be equal to my silver fiber
> > prints and this seems to require 360 ppi to the
> > printer regardless of print size. Since the
> > largest I can print with my 1280 is 13x19 this
> > leads me to a minimum file size of about 30
> > megapixels or if I want my file to be capable
> > of being printed at 20x24 about 60 megapixels.
>
> So you work exclusively in medium format and beyond, right?  You won't get
> resolutions like that from 35mm, as a general rule.

I currently shoot 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5. I generally only print the 35mm up to
about 6x9" or 7x10" but that is solely my personal preference for my work. I
do like the prints I have tried from 35mm negs on 11x17 and 13x19 paper much
more than traditional enlargements at those sizes.
>
> I like to have the highest possible resolution, too, but the reality is
that
> it usually doesn't matter that much.  If it did, digital would not be as
> popular as it is today.

Yes and no. There certainly is an upper limit to amount of resolution that
is usable or meaningful. I simply feel that you are using an input value to
the printer that is unnecessarily low. Most of us are using desktop printers
that will accommodate 13x19 paper. Even printing full bleed at 360 ppi input
to the printer we are only looking at a 32 megapixel file (4680X6840) which
does not seem like a very large file to me. If you have that much resolution
in your file, it would seem to me that you are better off using it then not.
Some of this may be subjective and critical eyes maybe less accepting of
lower resolutions.

Martin