300 vs 200 ppi
Okay so at a site :) someone started a thread asking why that a small portion of designers create their digital products at 200 ppi while the industry standard is 300 ppi. Honestly I don't get it. I admit it. I am stubborn. I create my layouts at 300 and always will. Unless they come out with new rockin printers in 10 years and maybe it will be higher lol. Anyways, so when I drop 200 ppi digi products on my layouts I need to upsize them because they are so small. So all this has been said at that site with the thread :) I don't know that I understand the concept myself that if 99% of the industry is created at 300 and new digiscrappers are being taught all over to create in 300 ppi why a designer or a site would just decide they should do it differently. Now I have my feeling as to why people decide that they know better than the 99% of everyone else but it might get me in hot water. But I guess I don't need to understand it as I will never design in 200 and to each their own I suppose. I do feel sorry for newbies that buy 200 ppi stuff and drop it on their 300 page and it is so small and they are confused. Or they upsize it without having to painstakingly go 5-10% at a time (um.. kind of a pain isn't it?) and end up with a poorer image. So I went through all the articles that are being used to support this and well.. here are some quotes from the same sources and some extras from reputable sources:
Scott Kelby:
"When the Feather Selection dialog box appears, enter 40 pixels (for high-resolution, 300-ppi images, *note from ME - note he calls high res images 300* try 150 pixels), and click on OK."
photoshopsupport.com
" When people use the term high-res, it's almost always referring to 300 ppi"
BY Kodak in their description of uploading digital pictures - from Yale.edu:
"When providing files for printing, we recommend 300 ppi resolution"
scantips.com:
"Graphic images (including images of text) need higher resolution than photo images, probably 300 dpi for commercial work, to maintain sharpness of the hard edges"
About.com
"Since writing this article photo printers have gotten much better--the dots are smaller and more compact--but still, you rarely need your image resolution to be higher than 240-300 ppi for inkjet printing."
Epson
"The ideal image resolution range is from 250 to 300 dpi for EPSON Photo printers."
vividlight.com:
"Since there are so many printers available, editors, writers, and digital printers needed a general "rule of thumb" number that would work for all printers when they were writing about digital printers. 300ppi provides enough density for the image that it will provide good results with any printer."
They did go on to say many printers don't print over 240 and 240 ppi is comparable to 300 when looked at with the human eye.
There are some things to note on these quotes. Firstly scantips says 300 is probably what should be used in commercial work and being in a commercial field...well.. Secondly the majority of them that don't say 300 everytime say 240-300. The question to me is why then are these digiproducts being produced at 240? Most of those articles said that the difference between 240 and 300 was minimal to the human eye. Not 200. My research indicates that there would be a noticeable difference between 200 and 300. These experts don't say there is no noticeable difference between 200 and 300. They say 240. So these 200 images are made to keep file size down but IMO there is a reason that printers, magazines and articles from experts all over the web recommend 240-300, many 300, and a lot saying 300 for commercial purposes such as printing. I myself will stick with what printers want. Maybe one day I will want to print these great digital papers :)
Scott Kelby:
"When the Feather Selection dialog box appears, enter 40 pixels (for high-resolution, 300-ppi images, *note from ME - note he calls high res images 300* try 150 pixels), and click on OK."
photoshopsupport.com
" When people use the term high-res, it's almost always referring to 300 ppi"
BY Kodak in their description of uploading digital pictures - from Yale.edu:
"When providing files for printing, we recommend 300 ppi resolution"
scantips.com:
"Graphic images (including images of text) need higher resolution than photo images, probably 300 dpi for commercial work, to maintain sharpness of the hard edges"
About.com
"Since writing this article photo printers have gotten much better--the dots are smaller and more compact--but still, you rarely need your image resolution to be higher than 240-300 ppi for inkjet printing."
Epson
"The ideal image resolution range is from 250 to 300 dpi for EPSON Photo printers."
vividlight.com:
"Since there are so many printers available, editors, writers, and digital printers needed a general "rule of thumb" number that would work for all printers when they were writing about digital printers. 300ppi provides enough density for the image that it will provide good results with any printer."
They did go on to say many printers don't print over 240 and 240 ppi is comparable to 300 when looked at with the human eye.
There are some things to note on these quotes. Firstly scantips says 300 is probably what should be used in commercial work and being in a commercial field...well.. Secondly the majority of them that don't say 300 everytime say 240-300. The question to me is why then are these digiproducts being produced at 240? Most of those articles said that the difference between 240 and 300 was minimal to the human eye. Not 200. My research indicates that there would be a noticeable difference between 200 and 300. These experts don't say there is no noticeable difference between 200 and 300. They say 240. So these 200 images are made to keep file size down but IMO there is a reason that printers, magazines and articles from experts all over the web recommend 240-300, many 300, and a lot saying 300 for commercial purposes such as printing. I myself will stick with what printers want. Maybe one day I will want to print these great digital papers :)
posted by Kim at 9:04 PM
4 Comments:
Thanks for posting this here. I found out that I had bought a ton of things from a site and they were only 200 ppi. But I didn't know that when I was buying--I thought everyone did 300 and nowhere did it say the files were only 200! Luckily, they were on a good sale.
So, I felt sad when I tried to mix the elements with other 300dpi stuff and I will probably stay away from that place for the most part, even though they have some wonderfully talented designers.
I choose to design at 300. I am very picky about my images and I will follow what my Epson printer recommends, which is 240 or higher.
yeah, Kim, I'm with you
I think the biggest problem with the thread at that site (wink) was that the 200ppi advocates were missing the point of the OP - you can't mix 200ppi elements with 300ppi elements on a page without resizing something, and that's a pain. why would the 200ppi site persist against all other designers? there is a certain stubborness (or arrogance) in persisting with this (just my opinion) against what appears to be the 300ppi standard - thanks for posting here (I wouldn't post this on that other site neither)
Having been in the computer graphics world for more years than I care to count I can give my expert opinion that there is a HUGE difference between 200 & 300 dpi. Most professional printers will simply not accept a file that is not 200dpi (or the equivilent. These designers aren't even giving their customers a chance to make awesome layouts with their stuff. Pity. Oh well, one less place I need to shop. :)
I noticed that post at 2Peas the other day and just frankly didn't understand the problem. I know that they're saying that they want the file sizes to be smaller, but is there that much difference between 200ppi and 300ppi for file size? I'd much rather use the extra space and have better quality stuff.
I know that I, for one, will be MUCH more careful about who I buy from now. It's 300ppi or nothing for me!
Post a Comment
<< Home