Although inkjets have a pretty impressive gamut.

Hey I use 400% on-screen to see what's going on <grin>. I've got a very
powerful loupe and inkjet prints look awful at that scale. The obvious
thing is it's just these little random dots with lots of white paper
between. Black areas have little white grit every so often. Looks
horrible up close like that.

No doubt prints are much worse quality than on-screen. Noise and
posterization that are bothersome on screen are imperceptible on a print
simply because it's a poor reproduction. I know inkjet printing is very
impressive but maybe there is considerable room for improvement.

Although... looking through my loupe & back at an 800% view of the
original on screen... there are something like 5 or more dots to stretch
across a 2-pixel wide line (275 dpi print at 2800 dpi printer setting),
but still the on screen original has more definition & the print is
relatively muddy. Subtle details and tonal changes are just not visible
on the print.

So I wonder at what dpi printing, can you get all the detail and tones
of the original? Maybe 200 or 150 dpi? It seems a shame to throw o ut
information if it can be captured printing larger. Of course it's going
to look softer but you stand back looking at a larger print anyways. The
days of actually seeing pixels on a print are long gone. I don't know
that'd probably have to be below 72dpi before you could actually see
square pixels on a print. I've got a 100dpi print of the same image and
it looks really close to as much detail as the on-screen original. So
I'd say that's the best way to print, at 100dpi or so. That's a 30-inch
wide print for a 6MP image. That way you aren't throwing anything away.

I specifically mentioned, several posts
back, that anything beyond 100% was only
useful for detailed retouching and spotting.

Again, I think I should point out that a)
I do a lot of work with film scans,
anywhwere from 20 Mpixels up to about
120 Mpixels, and b) for most of these,
I'd like a file that could (in a pinch)
be used to make large prints, say 24x36"
or thereabouts.  (Easy with LF film
scans, not so easy with 35mm scans.)

If I was limiting myself to 8x10" prints,
I'd have no need for anyting better than
my trusty 10D and would spend a lot less
time fussing around in Photoshop.

The smallest prints I make are 5x8"
which I sell for around $20 matted.

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Although I probably should start a totally new subject here, these
last few posts seem a good place to stick my toe in.  My interest for
a long time is in how to eliminate the difference between the actual
appearance (colors) of a good inkjet print when viewed in subdued
daylight and the subject that you photographed.  I really don't give a
rat's a__ about all the differences being discussed herein, like
monitor to print, etc.  Just the final color match.  

An example to consider:  photograph a bill of US Currency, in the
subdued daylight, with an "18% Gray Card" in the image, both with the
camera spot metering on the Gray card and then with it metering on a
portion of the bill.  Do as MUCH adjusting in P.S. as you might, with
a calibrated monitor, then tweak your printer til you give up.  The
print will almost never match the subject, especially in the greenish
brown cast of the paper itself.  Seems the USGov has figured out a way
to prevent counterfeiting quite well.  LET ME ASSURE YOU - MY MOTIVES
HERE ARE NOT THAT,  BUT RATHER TO GET REALISTIC PRINTS OF ALL HUES.

Olin McDaniel

I think you are talking about subjective judgments, not measurables.  I'm not knocking subjectivity, but it does get hard to
agree on matters such as the maximum useful number of dpi for scanning.