Uhhh? Adobe doesn't have a printer driver. It uses whatever is setup in Windows (maybe those kiddy computers you are used to using are different, HAR!). I used an Epson 820 with the latest driver available on the Epson site. One print was on Epson's Premium Photo Glossy paper, the other on their Heavyweight Matt paper.
Tell you what, Mike, if you don't like my results why don't you go rent a studio, hire a model, buy a 6x7, buy an 11 to 14mp digital, and do the definitive test for us. Me? I am a poor boy who had to sell one of his primary cameras last summer just to eat, and that was only an ME Super. You did note the 6x7 was a D&P 8x10, not a custom print? I think they were of comparable quality. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 5:10 PM Subject: Kodak digital vs. 6x7 prints > Tom Graywolf, > > Sorry to start a new thread, but given my temporary enforced absence from > the PDML Digest I've literally lost the old one. > > When you compared the 14-mp Kodak print to one of your chemical prints, what > printer and printer driver were you using to make the digital print? > > Not trying to ambush you here, so I'll just make my point straight up: all I > wanted to add was that if you're not using a 6-ink printer and a good > printer driver, you can't really make a sensible comparison. > > People don't pay enough attention to printer drivers. I have Canon > ImageBrowser, Olympus Camedia, and Adobe Photoshop Elements, and if I print > the same file in all three programs, the Elements print is _much_ sharper > and more detailed, because the Adobe printer driver is so superior. > > --Mike >
