From: Andrew Epstein (aiepstein@earthlink.net)
Date: 02/18/03-02:05:13 PM Z
Thanks all for the tips. Really helpful advice as usual. I'm just
getting the hang of the digital world as I'd been quite hesitant for
a while and have much catching up to do. I still don't own a digital
camera and don't foresee it anytime soon as I plan to have a life
long love affair with film.
Thus, the irony which I'm sure has been plowed through before on this
list is that digital technology has made alt. processes vastly more
accessible for me.
Cheers,
Andrew
>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