"Norm Dresner" wrote in message
[re Photoshop preview resampling inaccuracies]
Absolutely! I zoomed in on a very small area and then flattened the image
and there was absolutely no difference in the pixels I could see at that level. I suppose I should have guessed this when a previous experiment showed that the effect was dependent on the size of the image -- doing the same thing with a very small image produced no effect.
There are a number of effects that preview differently, depending on the zoom. These are fairly rare, though, so it's not unusual for people to be surprised when it happens.
SO ... Let's see ... The images that Photoshop presents on the screen are all approximate because they have to be sampled at the screen resolution --
which in my case is 1920x1440 or about 128 PPI. But when I print, the resolution is (usually) 300 PPI. Does that mean that I can zoom to, say, 3x
the Fit-On-Screen magnification and see what the actual pixels that will be
laid down on the paper would look like? Your 100% recommendation is ~4.5x
the F-O-S magnification of 22.5%.
My recommendation would be to flatten the image temporarily, then set the zoom to match the print size.
When you view a zoomed out preview, Photoshop saves time by resampling first, then flattening. When you print, Photoshop does it in the opposite order: flattens first, then resamples to the resolution required by the printer driver.
For most images, this makes no earthly difference. A layer with a dithered bitmap image is a common case where this can matter. As a practical matter, if the appearance is not what you expect, 100% zoom is the most accurate preview. If you don't want to zoom to 100 percent, flattening the image also gets a better preview.
--
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com