On 4/12/05, David Oswald, discombobulated, unleashed: >If people can't tell the difference between a print at 200, 300, or >360ppi, that says something about the printer, doesn't it?
For my own part, I wrote: > Forgive me, I tried printing at 200, 250, 300, 360, 388, 391.56756575 > and anything else you care to mention. > > In my book, the proof is in the pudding - I look at my prints > (unbelievably) and at 300 they are as good as they are at anything > else > over 300. To be honest I couldn't fault them at 250 but hey, 300's a > cool number. There's only one expert I listen to and I'm looking > through > his eyes right now. If you read the line where it says: 'at 300 they are as good as they are at anything else over 300' and 'To be honest I couldn't fault them at 250' and so by default, I actually could fault them below 250 ppi. I would not print at 200 as on my printer setup I can see the quality is not as good as at 300. I can see no difference at all between 300 and 360. In fact this is all moot anyway - you can set your resolution to anything you like but if the printer isn't doing it's bit, then it's all academic, right? I think David alluded to this by writing: >If people can't tell the difference between a print at 200, 300, or >360ppi, that says something about the printer, doesn't it? It sounds >like the printer in question has failed to produce discernibly better >results at resolutions over 200ppi. But I'm certain that there are >affordable printers out there that will produce better results if fed >documents at greater than 200ppi. My printer is working perfectly well and delivers top-notch quality (I regularly check it for all it can be checked for, which is a lot) and it still compares alongside anything produced today. <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/s9000.shtml> Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
