Photo book print quality: large vs. medium (both softcover)

Question

hello all,
I just wanted to share my experience about the difference in print quality between the medium softcover and large (in my case, softcover) books from iPhoto, something I wondered about before I took the plunge and ordered them.
I recently received copies of both, ordered a week apart, both using the 300 dpi hack, but unfortunately of diff't photos in each, so the comparison won't be too scientific.
First impressions: the photos in the large softcover seemed to me better than the medium. You can detect some very fine dots with the naked eye, in the places where a color shades into white. Overall, not objectionable at all, especially at a reasonable viewing distance. Akin to a decent/average inkjet photo. Meanwhile, the medium format struck me as having a worse print resolution, like a photo in a newspaper or cheaply printed magazine. The halftone pattern seemed more noticeable.
However, on closer inspection, side by side, I can see the halftone dots in each, and I wonder if they're actually printed at the same resolution. I think it was partly the bigger size of the average photo in the large book that convinced me it had a better resolution, and the smaller photos in a medium book can make the whole thing look bad. Also, I can definitely detect banding from the halftone pattern in the medium book that I don't notice in the large; but could this be due to the subject matter in the medium (blurred washes of muted color) more than a print resolution difference? Perhaps.
My conclusion: while it could be that the print resolution on the large is slightly better, I suspect my perception of the quality difference is based more on photo size and subject matter (sharp focus w/patterns, texture, moderate detail rather than empty color looks best). Still, despite my suspicion that the print resolution is the same, I can't shake the sense the large looks a little better.
Which is too bad in a way, as I think the medium has a lot going for it: it's cheaper than the large, and I actually much prefer to have a series of single, full-bleed images at 6x8 than two or three or more cluttered together on a bigger page for the same price. Plus I find the peek-a-boo cutout on the cover of the large book a bit cheesy.
So if you're going to go medium, I would definitely stay away from those six-photos-a-page layouts, especially if you have people in your small photos: their features will be degraded enough they start to look a little funny/unrecognizable. Bigger is better.
And if anyone has the same photo at the same size in two differently sized books to compare, that would settle things.
Also, I had a number of grayscale scans that I converted to rgb before adding to iPhoto, and the b&w photos printed in the book look great. While I would describe them as 'cool', I don't detect a noticeable color cast, and the blacks are decent.
Overall, as an amateur whose expectations were aimed a bit low, I'm pleased with both for the price, and will look to large for special occasions, medium for everyday photosets.

Answer 1

You're confusing two similar though technically different things.
You have the dpi (dot's per inch in the raster file) resolution of the images (assuming the image will not be reduced or enlarged) of 300 dpi - that is a static resolution and it one of two resolution settings that affect the quality of a printed image.
I was told the books are printed cmyk with screening so the other resolution that you have no control over is the "LPI" or "Lines per Inch" of the printing process. The CMYK separations are each printed at a different angle to achieve the full color effect.
The soft cover books appear to be printed at a lesser lpi than the hard cover books which would give the images a courser look to them.
I have not compared the books under a loop so this is going on what I was told.