The "new" ppi math

[dwood]

Okay, so the conventional wisdom regarding image print resolution was that if your image had a native ppi between 180 and 480, you were better off not up-res'ing. So, I just watched the LL L2R video that covered the print module, and seems like the 180-480 thing may be changing. I'd be very interested to hear from you Jeff on what the "new math" findings are pointing to.

[Schewe]

In Lightroom 2.0, I've found that "some" images may benefit from setting a higher PPI setting in Lightroom and then let LR 2 do the output sharpening at that high resolution. Generally, only a 50% or so increase would show any benefit and only on a few images with a LOT of super high frequency textural detail (and I mean super high frequency and it only helps a "bit"). And, that's only with images with enough base resolution to work with.

So, going from 300>360 or 360>480 may show better high frequency detail...but trying to go from 180>480 is a waste of time.

[dwood]

In Lightroom 2.0, I've found that "some" images may benefit from setting a higher PPI setting in Lightroom and then let LR 2 do the output sharpening at that high resolution. Generally, only a 50% or so increase would show any benefit and only on a few images with a LOT of super high frequency textural detail (and I mean super high frequency and it only helps a "bit"). And, that's only with images with enough base resolution to work with.

So, going from 300>360 or 360>480 may show better high frequency detail...but trying to go from 180>480 is a waste of time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214660\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

got it - thanks

[sralser]

So, going from 300>360 or 360>480 may show better high frequency detail...but trying to go from 180>480 is a waste of time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214660\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]


My question - these numbers you state - these would be printer independent, or would you use different values for a Canon printer vs an Epson vs HP.?

thanks


Steve