From: Peter Marshall (petermarshall@cix.co.uk)
Date: 02/18/03-05:21:07 AM Z
I'd agree with all Jack says, but also make a further suggestion which may
simplify and improve printing by getting away from some of the limitations
of the Epson print driver.
One word: QImage
Formerly called QImage Pro. http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/news.htm
This is cheap software that runs on Windows 95/98/NT/2000/ME/XP (or Macs
running Virtual PC) and both simplifies and improves printing. It will
take your file at any size and produce the best possible output at
whatever size you specify. It handles any interpolation needed rather
than leaving it to the printer driver. The latest versions have a "vector"
interpolation algorithm that is said to produce better results than
Lanzcos (also available.)
I've been pretty amazed at what it can do from smallish digital images -
printing poster size pictures without 'jaggies'. I've had to eat some of
my words and rewrite some of my features having seen what it can do.
Also handles things like several images on a sheet nicely. I find the
colour management easier to use than in most apps too.
Using this software for colour prints, so long as your images are sharp
the dpi needed is really determined not by the printer but by the ability
of the eye to resolve detail in the print. Probably you need around
200-250 dpi at output size. If you print larger the prints just lack
detail rather than any other problem.
For black and white printing the best results I've seen are still from the
Piezography software and inks, and the RIP used in this definitely shows
an improvement up to around 5-600 dpi, though I'm not convinced you really
need the 720 dpi they say is optimum.
>From the same people as QImage, Profile Prism is the only cheap solution
for ICC Profiling Software for Digital Cameras, Scanners, and Printers
that I've found worth looking at. If you can't afford several thousand
dollars for the pro kit, try this for 69 dollars.
Peter Marshall
Photography Guide at About http://photography.about.com/
email: photography.guide@about.com
_________________________________________________________________
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
and elsewhere......
> > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not
> > understand
> this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
> --Boundary_(ID_Mlzq7jdI5JCaOV0OFL/2kw)
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>
> Andrew . . this can become extremely complicated and I'm not the one to
> clarify things . . . but, take our Epson 7500 @ school. ALL of our
> images
> went through it are printed @ 360 dpi in resolution. Even if we scanned
> in @
> 4000 or 2700 or 1600 as is the case with our various scanning hardware,
> we
> work in Photoshop and convert the final image to 360 dpi. This is all
> the
> printer can handle. However, in your dialogue box for printing, it is
> wise
> to print at the highest resolution permitted there . . . in the 7500 we
> print there @ 1400. I know this sounds confusing but what we know is
> that
> the output file . . say, an 8x10 inch Photoshop TIFF file, needs only
> to be
> 360 dpi for maximum information to be sent to the printer. Another handy
> element I have noted is that if I want the image to print at a size
> larger
> than 8x10 inches, I can 'blow it up' in the printer dialogue box w/out
> incurring any noticeable loss of detail. The Epson driver is simply
> amazing.
>
> I do hope this might help you but most likely it'll just make things
> more
> confusing. My advice is to print files of the same image at different
> resolutions and then compare. That is simply the best thing to do:
> compare
> your own results and understand it via self experience rather than
> following
> by rote. empirical knowledge is the way to go.
> Jack
>
>
> A question about digital negative printing and printer resolution:
>
> I've been making digitally enlarged negatives for about a year and a
> half
> now with pretty good success, for a beginner that is. I've determined
> the
> final enlargement size by factoring the original scan resolution with
> what
> I've just assumed is a reasonable output resolution, usually about
> 600dpi on
> a good inkjet printer (I've been using an Epson 2000P). So, for
> example, in
> Photoshop, I enlarge a 2 1/4 square negative scanned at 3000dpi to 11
> 1/4
> square by changing the image resolution to 600dpi with the "resample
> image"
> box unchecked.
>
> A friend recently told me that the 2000P makes the best prints when an
> image
> is set at 720dpi. It seemed to make sense as the printer resolution is
> 1440
> x 720. But is this truly the case? If so, is this the rule with most
> inkjet
> printers?
>
> --Andrew
>
>
>
>
> --Boundary_(ID_Mlzq7jdI5JCaOV0OFL/2kw)
> Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>
> <HTML>
> <HEAD>
> <TITLE>Re: Optimum Printer Resolution</TITLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY>
> Andrew . . this can become extremely complicated and I'm not the one to
> clarify things . . . but, take our Epson 7500 @ school. ALL of our
> images went through it are printed @ 360 dpi in resolution. Even if we
> scanned in @ 4000 or 2700 or 1600 as is the case with our various
> scanning hardware, we work in Photoshop and convert the final image to
> 360 dpi. This is all the printer can handle. However, in your dialogue
> box for printing, it is wise to print at the highest resolution
> permitted there . . . in the 7500 we print there @ 1400. I know this
> sounds confusing but what we know is that the output file . . say, an
> 8x10 inch Photoshop TIFF file, needs only to be 360 dpi for maximum
> information to be sent to the printer. Another handy element I have
> noted is that if I want the image to print at a size larger than 8x10
> inches, I can 'blow it up' in the printer dialogue box w/out incurring
> any noticeable loss of detail. The Epson driver is simply amazing.<BR>
> <BR>
> I do hope this might help you but most likely it'll just make things
> more confusing. My advice is to print files of the same image at
> different resolutions and then compare. That is simply the best thing
> to do: compare your own results and understand it via self experience
> rather than following by rote. empirical knowledge is the way to go.<BR>
> Jack<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="5"><FONT FACE="Times">A question about digital
> negative printing and printer resolution:<BR>
> <BR>
> I've been making digitally enlarged negatives for about a year and a
> half now with pretty good success, for a beginner that is. I've
> determined the final enlargement size by factoring the original scan
> resolution with what I've just assumed is a reasonable output
> resolution, usually about 600dpi on a good inkjet printer (I've been
> using an Epson 2000P). So, for example, in Photoshop, I enlarge a 2 1/4
> square negative scanned at 3000dpi to 11 1/4 square by changing the
> image resolution to 600dpi with the "resample image" box
> unchecked.<BR>
> <BR>
> A friend recently told me that the 2000P makes the best prints when an
> image is set at 720dpi. It seemed to make sense as the printer
> resolution is 1440 x 720. But is this truly the case? If so, is this
> the rule with most inkjet printers?<BR>
> <BR>
> --Andrew<BR>
> </FONT></FONT><BR>
> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
> </BODY>
> </HTML>
>
>
> --Boundary_(ID_Mlzq7jdI5JCaOV0OFL/2kw)--
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:09 AM Z CST