Stop asking for “300 PPI.”

Because that’s not really the question you should be asking.

“We need an image — could you send it over in 300 PPI?”

We still hear that line far too often.

From clients, colleagues, suppliers. And we get it: it sounds like you know what you’re talking about, as if “300 PPI” is some kind of quality label.

But honestly?

Those three letters have been causing misunderstandings, frustration and mistakes for years. Time to clear things up. What really matters is not the number in your image info — it’s whether the image is fit for the size you’re using it at. And for that, you need more than just “300 PPI”.

PPI without context? Meaningless.

PPI stands for “pixels per inch”. It’s the number of pixels you need per inch to print something sharply.

But… unless you know the final print size, that PPI value tells you nothing.

Some examples:

• A 10 x 15 cm image at 300 PPI → you need at least 1181 x 1772 pixels
• That same image in a newspaper at 200 PPI → 787 x 1181 pixels is enough
• A large banner viewed from afar → 30 to 72 PPI will do

So it’s always the combination of size and resolution that counts. Not some “magic” number. Without context, the question “300 PPI?” is empty.

What happens if someone simply asks for 300 PPI?

• Images get blown up in Photoshop to 300 PPI — without any real quality improvement
• Poor input gets disguised as “print-ready”
• Designers and prepress teams run into unclear expectations
• Deadlines get met with visuals that are… well, just bad

All because no one asked for what was actually needed: the right number of pixels for the right size, in the right use case.

So what should you be asking instead?

Not: “Do you have this in 300 PPI?”

But: “We’re using this image at size X, for purpose Y. How many pixels do we need for a sharp result?”

That way you give clear direction to your design team, photographer or supplier — and avoid the trap of someone “magicking it into 300 PPI” without making it any better.

And with large format printing? Pay extra attention.

For LFP — posters, exhibition stands, billboards — two extra factors come into play:

1. Scale factor: designs are often created at 10% or 25%, not full size
2. Viewing distance: the further away the audience, the lower the resolution can be

If you stick to 300 PPI there, you’ll end up with unmanageable files, longer loading times and unnecessary hassle.

Smarter: work with adapted scaled resolutions, matched to context.

And what about logos?

That one’s simple: use vector files. AI, EPS or SVG. Always sharp, always scalable, always correct.

Raster versions (JPG or PNG) are only fine if you know the exact size and resolution — and don’t need to scale them up.

Blowing them up “to get them to 300 PPI”? That’s the fastest way to a fuzzy logo in print.

And that old “72 PPI for web” rule?

Best to forget it. That myth belongs in the past.

Screens today run at much higher resolutions:

• 4K monitors: 150 PPI or more
• Smartphones: 400–500 PPI is standard
• And CSS? It works at 96 PPI

For online use, you just work in pixels: 1200 x 800, 1080 x 1920… PPI doesn’t matter there at all.

Why this isn’t a detail, but a workflow issue.

This isn’t just about image quality. It’s about control. About collaboration. About clear communication. Every time an image goes wrong — whether because of blurry output or a last-minute argument at deadline — it usually comes down to one weak link: a vague image briefing. That’s exactly where Catena makes the difference.

Time to start handling resolution properly, once and for all?

If you’re responsible for campaigns, content or print, you want to know your visuals are right. Not by guesswork, but based on clear agreements.