the Epson limits you to 360dpi but does basically the same thing. it micropositions the dots too. the newest Epsons might work higher than 360 dpi, but i doubt it. 720 dpi is the next step up and that is far higher than the best photo paper they produce can handle. 600 dpi is already above what even very smooth coated paper can do reliably. that is why i think the 600dpi addressable of the HPs is of questionable benefit. OTOH, the new HP ink and paper combinations have much better fade resistance.
BTW, the November Shutterbug has an interview with Henry Wilhelm about archival inks and fade resistance. a couple of interesting comments. first thing he said was that if you can drag your finger across the unprinted coated surface and it sticks slightly, it is microporous media and it produces a lower print life rating than the swellable gel surface papers. second is that there is a very strong interaction between the ink and the paper's coating for fade resistance. just about any paper that is designed to work with a variety of printer brands will produce significantly lower print fade resistance than the vendor's own papers. about the only exceptions are the 3rd party ink vendors with their own inks. so all of you who use papers not from your printer vendor, i hope you aren't expecting your prints to last very long. Herb... ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 6:49 PM Subject: Re: Printer resolution (was: Re: posted *istD Samples) > That matches my interpretation. It's a genuine 600 ppi photo printer, > (using PhotoRet IV to get around 8 bits of colour resolution per pixel), > and the standard HP-supplied software driver also offers a 1200ppi mode > (which presumably still has access to the 4800 dpi horizontal positioning, > and some way of controlling the number of ink droplets being deposited), > but all the calculations have to be done in software by the driver.
