Re: digital question #3

From: Etienne Garbaux ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 08/01/04-01:10:08 AM Z
Message-id: <p05210600bd32408a6372@[]>

Steve wrote:

> One more time: What are the merits of 5mpx versus 3 mpx.
> All we want is to photograph art work for web submissions and to make prints
> for a folder.

Hard to say until you elaborate on "making prints for a folder." The
general rule of thumb is that for decently high quality inkjet prints you
need to print the pixels at 200 per inch or more. By this metric, a 3.2 Mp
image can be printed up to 8x10". (I generally consider printing the
pixels 300 per inch necessary for high quality, by which metric 3.2 Mp will
giver prints approximately 5x7".) 5 Mp gives roughly 10.5x13" prints at
200 PPI and 6.5x9" prints at 300 PPI.

3 Mp is almost certainly enough for the web -- HTML graphics display at a
standard 72 PPI, so a full 3 Mp image would appear roughly 21x27" on a
computer monitor. (Many people, myself included, no longer use 72 PPI for
their monitors, so everything appears smaller than "life size"; to them, it
would appear somewhat smaller than 21x27".) Still, much larger than
anything you see on the web (480x640 pixels [0.3 Mp] is a fair-sized web

Best regards,

Received on Sun Aug 1 01:10:32 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 09/14/04-09:17:56 AM Z CST