Professional Web Applications Themes

the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666) - Adobe Photoshop Elements

Recent discussions have made me want to get something absolutely clear in my mind. Am I right that, except in historical and mythological accounts, the number 72 (or 72-96) should have _no_ (i.e., none whatsoever, not even the slightest) role in the practice of digital photography? It has significance neither for the screen nor for printing. Is this right? Is it not further correct that the number 72 is neither simply 'dated' nor 'harmless', but rather timelessly evil. It never had a legitimate function and it is positively harmful, since it is based on a serious confusion that hinders attempts ...

  1. #1

    Default the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    Recent discussions have made me want to get something absolutely clear in my mind. Am I right that, except in historical and mythological accounts, the number 72 (or 72-96) should have _no_ (i.e., none whatsoever, not even the slightest) role in the practice of digital photography? It has significance neither for the screen nor for printing. Is this right? Is it not further correct that the number 72 is neither simply 'dated' nor 'harmless', but rather timelessly evil. It never had a legitimate function and it is positively harmful, since it is based on a serious confusion that hinders attempts to understand the processes of digital photography. Shouldn't people who invoke the number 72 be treated like violators of a taboo: quickly isolated and put through a purifcation process? Shouldn't there be no sympathy for the devil? --Paul B.
    Paul_Bullen@adobeforums.com Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    Relax, have a Martini and crack open a coconut.

    --
    Have A Nice Day,
    jwh :-)
    My Pictures
    http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview

    <com> wrote in message
    news:la2eafNXanI... 
    absolutely clear in my mind. Am I right that, except in
    historical and mythological accounts, the number 72 (or 72-96)
    should have _no_ (i.e., none whatsoever, not even the slightest)
    role in the practice of digital photography? It has significance
    neither for the screen nor for printing. Is this right? Is it not
    further correct that the number 72 is neither simply 'dated' nor
    'harmless', but rather timelessly evil. It never had a legitimate
    function and it is positively harmful, since it is based on a
    serious confusion that hinders attempts to understand the
    processes of digital photography. Shouldn't people who invoke the
    number 72 be treated like violators of a taboo: quickly isolated
    and put through a purifcation process? Shouldn't there be no
    sympathy for the devil? --Paul B.


    jhjl1@adobeforums.com Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    Huh?

    <com> wrote in message
    news:la2eafNXanI... 
    my mind. Am I right that, except in historical and mythological accounts,
    the number 72 (or 72-96) should have _no_ (i.e., none whatsoever, not even
    the slightest) role in the practice of digital photography? It has
    significance neither for the screen nor for printing. Is this right? Is it
    not further correct that the number 72 is neither simply 'dated' nor
    'harmless', but rather timelessly evil. It never had a legitimate function
    and it is positively harmful, since it is based on a serious confusion that
    hinders attempts to understand the processes of digital photography.
    Shouldn't people who invoke the number 72 be treated like violators of a
    taboo: quickly isolated and put through a purifcation process? Shouldn't
    there be no sympathy for the devil? --Paul B.


    Michael Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    Wow, it sounds like Paul has already had the martinis!

    Paul, I don't think it's fair to say the number 72 is evil! It once had a purpose, and for some things 72ppi can continue to be used and nothing bad will happen. It no longer has the sanctity it once was given, but who cares?

    What exactly is it that's bothering you so much about this?
    Beth_Haney@adobeforums.com Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    Isn't "Shouldn't there be no sympathy for the devil." a double negative?

    Which is to say that, since just about every (Might even be 'every' but I hesitate to use absolutes.) digital camera known to man currently saves files at 72 dpi, and since it's still useful for thumbnails, contact sheets, and the web (which is to say it's fine and not really harmful or erroneous), and since billions of stars align just so and, since the sun manages not actually to come up every day, but to be there when our little planet turns around, well then, who cares? Is it Friday yet?
    Elena Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)



    What exactly is it that's bothering you so much about this?




    Is that Lucy's "The Psychiatrist is IN" sign I saw you put up on your door? :-)
    Lou_M@adobeforums.com Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    Lucy is my heroine. :) She just keeps snatching those nickels!
    Beth_Haney@adobeforums.com Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    I'm with Paul - 72 is very bad karma....

    :-)

    p.s. Welcome back, Elena!


    Chuck_Snyder@adobeforums.com Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    Elena,

    In response to your last question:

    Yup! It's Friday! (Eastern Standard Time)

    Kyle
    Kyle_White@adobeforums.com Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    It's 66 + 6...I don't know much about the Bible, but aren't all those sixes bad news?
    :)
    I use the dreaded "72" to give me a rough estimate of the size of an image on a medium-sized, low-res (800x600) monitor. I think that's about all it'a good for.
    Bert
    Bert_Bigelow@adobeforums.com Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    Bert,
    It never occured to me that 66 + 6 = 72. That is pretty funny. Maybe I was inspired. It did seem pretty intense at the time. I began speaking in tongues, and then fainted. Yes, 666 is the mark of the beast, the anti-christ in the Book of Revelation.

    But you have put you finger on the area of confusion that remains in my head. How does the number 72 give you a rough estimate of the size of an image on a medium-sized, low-res monitor? Do you mean the size it will be when printed? But you wouldn't want to print it at 72 dpi would you?

    Beth (and possibly some others) made some points I should follow up on, but I will have to do that a bit later.
    --Paul B.
    Paul_Bullen@adobeforums.com Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    I work for the department of the British Government which handles its litigation and over the years have dealt with some very fruitcake litigants in person, folks with conspiracy theories to make your hair curl. One of them was so terrified when he found that the room my department uses in the main Law Courts in London was numbered 666 that he would not go in at all and insisted on talking in a draughty corridor. Ah well, some when the Lord gave out brains this chap thought He said trains and missed his. And when the Lord gave out chins he thought He said gins and asked for a double . . .

    Andrew.
    Andrew_Turek@adobeforums.com Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    I work for the department of the British Government which handles its litigation and over the years have dealt with some very fruitcake litigants in person, folks with conspiracy theories to make your hair curl. One of them was so terrified when he found that the room my department uses in the main Law Courts in London was numbered 666 that he would not go in at all and insisted on talking in a draughty corridor. Ah well, when the Lord gave out brains this chap thought He said trains and missed his. And when the Lord gave out chins he thought He said gins and asked for a double . . .

    Andrew.
    Andrew_Turek@adobeforums.com Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    The Canon 300D shows 180 PPI.
    Another interesting thread on ppi-
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=6450097
    --
    Have A Nice Day,
    jwh :-)
    My Pictures
    http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview
    "Elena Murphy" <com> wrote in message
    news:la2eafNXanI...

    (Might even be 'every' but I hesitate to use absolutes.)


    jhjl1@adobeforums.com Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    > The Canon 300D shows 180 PPI.

    My Kodak 4800 sets TIFF and hirez JPEG to 230. Automatically, no
    override.

    Mac

    Mac_McDougald@adobeforums.com Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    Mac, that's a good 'stay out of trouble' number....!


    Chuck_Snyder@adobeforums.com Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: the number 72 (bad, very bad--like 666)

    > Mac, that's a good 'stay out of trouble' number....!

    Oh, it's probably a bad omen number in *somebody's* culture.
    And of course, it's not a ppi that I strive to hit in general.

    Also, somewhere down the resolution options, the camera either quits
    tagging the ppi or tags at the !shudder! 72 again, as that's what
    Photoshop/Elements sees them as (I have 4 or 5 JPEG rez/quality options
    on camera).

    Mac
    Mac_McDougald@adobeforums.com Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 12th, 10:29 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 4th, 01:41 AM
  3. sort from the smallest number to the highest number
    By Boon Chong Ang in forum PERL Beginners
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 30th, 03:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139