3 ms·

So your argument is that 300 PPI displays are great for processing photos you intend to have printed at 300 DPI. I have no problem with this claim, and I'll ext

by sesqu 16y ago

So your argument is that 300 PPI displays are great for processing photos you intend to have printed at 300 DPI. I have no problem with this claim, and I'll extrapolate to "better for >= 300 DPI prints". So, I guess the obvious question is, how much DPI do various prints come out with? And since almost all electronic displays have far less than 300 PPI, would you agree that web designers do themselves a disservice if they get a high-resolution display?

jacobolus 16y ago
Well, personally I send a lot of prints to http://whcc.com/ http://whcc.com/, which involves uploading a 300 PPI image to an ftp server and filling out a web form, and then receiving a nice quality print by UPS 2-day ground a couple days later. If I was printing on an inkjet, I might print at even higher resolution, but after 300 PPI the improvements get harder and harder to notice. As for web designers: (a) they presumably aren’t the same as “photographers” that Tim Bray was explicitly talking about so I’m not sure they’re really relevant to my comment, but (b) it’s a lot easier to simulate lower-resolution displays than higher-resolution displays. That is, if you had a 300+ DPI monitor, you could approximate the appearance of both a traditional (say, 100 DPI) computer screen, and an iPhone, Android Phone, high-resolution netbook, or whatever else.