the number 72 (bad, very bad–like 666)

PB
Posted By
Paul_Bullen
Nov 6, 2003
Views
462
Replies
16
Status
Closed
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.

Powered by Creative Market

J
jhjl1
Nov 6, 2003
Relax, have a Martini and crack open a coconut.


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

wrote in message
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.
MM
Michael Moody
Nov 6, 2003
Huh?

wrote in message
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.
BH
Beth_Haney
Nov 6, 2003
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?
EM
Elena Murphy
Nov 6, 2003
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?
LM
Lou_M
Nov 6, 2003
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? 🙂
BH
Beth_Haney
Nov 7, 2003
Lucy is my heroine. 🙂 She just keeps snatching those nickels!
CS
Chuck_Snyder
Nov 7, 2003
I’m with Paul – 72 is very bad karma….

🙂

p.s. Welcome back, Elena!
KW
Kyle_White
Nov 7, 2003
Elena,

In response to your last question:

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

Kyle
BB
Bert_Bigelow
Nov 7, 2003
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 (800×600) monitor. I think that’s about all it’a good for.
Bert
PB
Paul_Bullen
Nov 7, 2003
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.
AT
Andrew_Turek
Nov 7, 2003
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.
AT
Andrew_Turek
Nov 7, 2003
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.
J
jhjl1
Nov 7, 2003
The Canon 300D shows 180 PPI.
Another interesting thread on ppi-
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&me ssage=6450097
Have A Nice Day,
jwh 🙂
My Pictures
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview
"Elena Murphy" wrote in message

(Might even be ‘every’ but I hesitate to use absolutes.)
MM
Mac_McDougald
Nov 7, 2003
The Canon 300D shows 180 PPI.

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

Mac
CS
Chuck_Snyder
Nov 7, 2003
Mac, that’s a good ‘stay out of trouble’ number….!
MM
Mac_McDougald
Nov 8, 2003
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

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections