<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Get Colormanaged &#187; web</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.getcolormanaged.com/tag/web/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.getcolormanaged.com</link>
	<description>Blog about Colormanagement and Image Editing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:09:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Pixels per inch for web</title>
		<link>http://www.getcolormanaged.com/general/introduction/ppi/</link>
		<comments>http://www.getcolormanaged.com/general/introduction/ppi/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:10:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>René</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Photoshop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[introduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[browser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dpi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PhotoshopCS4]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ppi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Save for web]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.getcolormanaged.com/?p=447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What is the significance? Simply put? Nothing. Well, if that were all I had to say on the subject, this would have to be my shortest blogpost ever&#8230; Okay, a bit more info then: A lot of first time DSLR users are concerned that their shiny new camera delivers files that are &#8220;only&#8221; 72dpi, while [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h3>What is the significance?</h3>
<p>Simply put? Nothing.<br />
Well, if that were all I had to say on the subject, this would have to be my shortest blogpost ever&#8230; Okay, a bit more info then:<br />
A lot of first time DSLR users are concerned that their shiny new camera delivers files that are &#8220;only&#8221; 72dpi, while their old point and shoot delivered 300dpi files. Why is this concern unwarranted? Surely 300 is more then 72, and more is better, right?</p>
<h3>Wrong</h3>
<p>The old <del>wisdom</del> saying is that &#8220;300dpi is for printing and 72dpi is for screen&#8221;.<br />
There are a few things wrong with that.<br />
First and foremost, the term &#8220;dpi&#8221; stands for <strong>dots</strong> <strong>p</strong>er <strong>i</strong>nch. In a digital file there are no dots, only <em>pixels</em>. So the correct term is <strong>pixels</strong> <strong>p</strong>er <strong>i</strong>nch (ppi).<br />
Also, 72ppi originated as it was the resolution of an <em>ancient</em> Mac monitor. Current monitors have a much higher pixel density: My old 12&#8243; PowerbookG4 for instance has a screen resolution of about 100ppi. Most current screens are somewhere between 80 and 120ppi.<br />
<span id="more-447"></span></p>
<h3>Do the math&#8230;</h3>
<p>for <em>your</em> screen: Simply measure width and height and divide the number of pixels by the measured values&#8230; <strong><em>Tip</em></strong>: Once you found the figure for your screen, be sure to enter it in the PSCS4 preferences under &#8220;Units and Rulers, Screen resolution&#8221;: That way, the &#8220;Zoom, Print size&#8221; will show an accurate sized preview.<br />
So, is a 300ppi file better then a 72ppi file?</p>
<h3>No difference</h3>
<p>If you hadn&#8217;t gathered as much from the above, for display on screen, only the <strong>display you&#8217;re using</strong> will determine the &#8220;resolution&#8221;.<br />
So, a file that contains for instance 500&#215;750 pixels will be displayed at a different size (in inches, centimeters, or whatever you prefer), depending on the screen you&#8217;re using to view it. The arbitrary ppi figure set in the file has <em>no</em> relevance <em>whatsoever</em>.</p>
<p>To illustrate that, here is an example: Each file is 500&#215;750 pixels. One is 72ppi, the other 300ppi. </p>
<p><img title="500x750 pixels, 300ppi" src="http://www.getcolormanaged.com/images/Blog/ppi/rhd_20091212_EHBO_0065_300.jpg" alt="500x750 pixels, 300ppi" /><br />
<img title="500x750 pixels, 72ppi" src="http://www.getcolormanaged.com/images/Blog/ppi/rhd_20091212_EHBO_0065_72.jpg" alt="500x750 pixels, 72ppi" /> </p>
<p>Notice the difference? No? That&#8217;s because <em>there <strong>isn&#8217;t</strong> any</em>.</p>
<h3>Why use it then?</h3>
<p>Because you <em>have to</em> put something in the box: There is <em>no way</em> that Photoshop will allow you to <em>not</em> fill in a value. However, what you put in there is pretty arbitrary. Use whatever you like basically for display on screen.<br />
I prefer to use 300ppi for general use, since then the &#8220;image size&#8221; dialog box will quickly tell me about how large I can <em>print</em> an image at decent quality. For web, I mostly use 72ppi (unless I forget) since, well, that&#8217;s what some people expect&#8230;</p>
<p>Some more reading: <a href="http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html" onclick="urchinTracker('/outgoing/www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html?referer=');">here</a></p>
   ]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.getcolormanaged.com/general/introduction/ppi/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

