res setting for web

[Stagecoach]

Grahame and John, I fold.

I can find no way to make my point (that the ppi setting has no effect on an image posted for viewing on the web) any clearer.

Sorry.

Ted,

I also can't see anywhere that either me or Scott Kelby has suggested that the ppi setting (as the box referred to in this thread) has any effect on an image posted for viewing on the web. So not sure what you point is?

Edit : I see you have added to your post ............................

I simply do not understand why a print resolution of 72 ppi is any more or any less "ideal" than any other resolution for photos that will only be viewed on-screen.
Sorry.

But he has not said or referred to a "Print resolution" wrt to the 72ppi he mentions, that I can see when reading the section.

[xpatUSA]

Ted,

I also can't see anywhere that either me or Scott Kelby has suggested that the ppi setting (as the box referred to in this thread) has any effect on an image posted for viewing on the web. So not sure what you point is?

Graham, I want to be told WHY 72ppi is "ideal" per se for images to be viewed only on-screen (which is what Kelby said and with which y'all are agreeing) and why, by extension, any other ppi (e.g. my 180ppi) is somehow less "ideal". Mentions of printing in that narrow context are obfuscation and are red herrings.

Of course I realize what Kelby meant but what he wrote is wrong, plain and simple.

I continue to maintain that 72ppi is no more ideal than any other ppi for images to be viewed only on-screen. That is all. Do you agree or not?

[xpatUSA]

Ted,

I also can't see anywhere that either me or Scott Kelby has suggested that the ppi setting (as the box referred to in this thread) has any effect on an image posted for viewing on the web. So not sure what you point is?

Edit : I see you have added to your post ............................



But he has not said or referred to a "Print resolution" wrt to the 72ppi he mentions, that I can see when reading the section.

Good point. The EXIF Standard does not mention printing:

XResolution
The number of pixels per ResolutionUnit in the ImageWidth direction. When the image resolution is unknown, 72 [dpi] is designated.
Tag = 282 (11A.H)
Type = RATIONAL
Count = 1
Default = 72

The default is indeed 72 dpi . . perhaps that's why Kelby says that it is "ideal" - a poor choice of word, IMO.

Which leaves me puzzled as to why both my posts look the same size on my 96dpi screen and are neither resized by the browser nor by my screen driver to be 72 and 600 dpi. Any idea why?


"Resolution" . .

[Stagecoach]

Graham, I want to be told WHY 72ppi is "ideal" per se for images to be viewed only on-screen (which is what Kelby said and with which y'all are agreeing) and why, by extension, any other ppi (e.g. my 180ppi) is somehow less "ideal". Mentions of printing in that narrow context are obfuscation and are red herrings.

Ted,

Firstly, I can't read in any post, anyone agreeing/suggesting that 72ppi is the "ideal" per se for images to be viewed only on-screen or by extension any other ppi (eg your 180) is somehow less "ideal". So not sure where you are coming from with this ideas?

Of course I realize what Kelby meant but what he wrote is wrong, plain and simple.

I would suggest that depends upon which context you take it in. I take it in the context that if looking at an image on a monitor that has say a resolution of 40ppi it's going to look pretty poor.

[xpatUSA]

Ted,

Firstly, I can't read in any post, anyone agreeing/suggesting that 72ppi is the "ideal" per se for images to be viewed only on-screen or by extension any other ppi (eg your 180) is somehow less "ideal". So not sure where you are coming from with this ideas?

John quoted Kelby as saying:

'Word for word, Kelby writes, "A resolution of 72 ppi is considered "low resolution and is ideal for photos that will only be viewed onscreen (such as Web graphics, slide shows, etc.).'

Perhaps you missed that. My objection is to the word "ideal". As a matter of fact and to his credit, John used "sufficient" . .

I would prefer:

A resolution of 72 ppi is considered "low resolution" and is irrelevant for photos that will only be viewed onscreen (such as Web graphics, slide shows, etc.)

I would suggest that depends upon which context you take it in. I take it in the context that if looking at an image on a monitor that has say a resolution of 40ppi it's going to look pretty poor.

Not if "a monitor" is twice the size of mine, viewed at twice the distance, eh?

Are you suggesting that changing the image resolution tags to 96ppi would make your 40dpi monitor look better?

That is a rhetorical question - feel free to ignore it. On that subject, it would be nice if some of my other questions had gotten answered. Asking questions and getting answers is often a good way to resolve discussions as opposed the statement/counter-statement routine . .

[Stagecoach]

Ted, when someone keeps editing and adding to their posts they become too time consuming to respond to and it's now late here so I'm off for now.

[george013]

I think 72 ppi was once a standard for the monitors. Now it's higher. That figure is used to resize the picture so it gets an a predicted size on the screen. Now 96 is the standard. Look at the date of your books.

Again, a printer can resize or resample the image when asked to print full size. A monitor doesn't.

George

[xpatUSA]

Ted, when someone keeps editing and adding to their posts they become too time consuming to respond to and it's now late here so I'm off for now.

Sorry about that. Let's just forget it.