I am tired of all the "circular" arguments and BS and general crawp about image resoultion and this whole "DPI" issue.
I am a 20+ year Photoshop/Painter user and have scads of years and project experience with working the crawp, low res imagery and making them better quality images and I have used these very same techniques in my own artworks and projects that I am very, VERY particular about.
I know what I am talking about here and know what has to be done to get good quality images for any type of print scenario.
DPI term, in and of itself, doesn't matter, it's the amount of ACTUAL pixels and pixel data that is in an image that matters!!!
If there isn't enough pixel data in an image, it is going to look like garbage whenever, wherever you print it out.
If you take a normal, typical 72 dpi digital camera Jpeg image (NOT the RAW image format) from any consumer digital camera and print this out at its actual full size pixel dimensions, the image is going to look like garbage and very "blocky" and pixellated.
Change that image's dpi in any basic photo editor to any larger DPI value like 150, 225 or 300 DPI. the image is going to shrink down, the same pixel information compresses inwards and you get a smaller, but much sharper looking printed image.
This is how editing digital imagery works.
If you start off with a low DPI and/ or low pixel image that is NOT suitably clear when it prints out, the only way to get more pixel data into an image is to use multiple small incremental amounts of something called "digital interpolation" that adds additional pixels to an image by the software analysing the image's surrounding pixel data to make an educated "guess" to add the proper or approximate surrounding color pixels needed to increase the pixel data/resolution/density in a digital image.
If this interpolation method is done in small percentage increments (usually expressed in DPI), you can add pixel data to a low pixel image and, also, enlarge its size and create a much sharper, clearer, less pixellated, printable image that, if this method is done correctly and consistently can produce/create a very nice, final printed image from one that was total garbage when first printed out.
Is this a better explanation for everyone visiting this post? Hmmmm.....
<Edited by Host>