Only problem is, I tend to examine even prints with a loupe, at least intelectually speaking. In a way, it's like having 500 hp under the hood but not needing it or using it. Still a rush knowing it's there. Does one "need" camera RAW, etc, etc..?
Jack --- Brendan MacRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Wouldn't detail be further compromised by larger > > droplets? > > Absolutely. Bigger droplets mean less detail. But, > once you get to a certain size, I think the issue > becomes a matter of complete subjectivity. > > Here's what I read recently over at PopPhoto (are > those groans I hear? :-P): > > "The smaller the droplet, the greater the resolution > of the print. Small droplets also let you produce > finer tonal gradations and highlight details with > fewer inks. > > But, unless you inspect printswith a loupe, you > probably dont need to worry much about droplet size > once you go below about 4 picoliters. Factors such as > paper type and image processing are more likely to > determine how smooth and detailed your prints look." > > > These are just rhetorical reactions to a series of > > curiosities. > > There has to be a definitive answer lurking > > somewhere. > > I think the answer is just dialing in a good printer > to your taste in the end. But, I have to say that I > agree that I don't want to start out with a printer > with a relatively "large" droplet size. Fortunately > both the Canon and the Epson are within the very tiny > range (4 for the Canon, 3.5 for the Epson). And yet, > printers with larger droplet sizes than these two > supposedly also produce amazing results. > > -Brendan > > > > > Jack > > > > --- Brendan MacRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > I read something one time about the way different > > > papers react to droplet size. The finish either > > repels > > > or absorbs the inks differently. So, smaller > > droplets > > > would spread reducing detail in some papers. > > > > > > -Brendan > > > > > > --- Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > I've always been curious as to whether there > > were a > > > > direct connection > > > > between droplet size and printer resolution. > > AEBE, > > > > it seems smaller ink > > > > droplets would equal finer printed detail.(?) > > > > What are the paper considerations? > > > > > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > --- Brendan MacRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hum, not sure that smaller droplets always > > > > translate > > > > > to print detail. The paper is a big variable > > here. > > > > > However, that's interesting, too. The 2400 has > > a > > > > huge > > > > > following, I know, but it's too small for what > > I > > > > want > > > > > to do. > > > > > > > > > > -Brendan > > > > > > > > > > --- Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In keeping with my severe resolution > > hang-up, > > > > I've > > > > > > noted that the R1800 > > > > > > advertises having the smallest ink droplets > > in > > > > the > > > > > > industry, 1.5 > > > > > > picoliters. The R2400, 3.5 picoliters, but > > > > produces > > > > > > "superior" B&W > > > > > > prints. > > > > > > This is my total offering on the subject. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Brendan MacRae > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm going to be putting my digital > > darkroom > > > > > > together > > > > > > > soon and I've decided on everything but > > the > > > > > > printer at > > > > > > > this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want a large format ink jet and have > > been > > > > > > looking at > > > > > > > Canon and Epson. Both of the 17" wide > > $1800 > > > > > > printers > > > > > > > have gotten good reviews. I'm leaning > > toward > > > > the > > > > > > Epson > > > > > > > since I know a designer who owns an older > > > > model > > > > > > that > > > > > > > produces amazing prints. I've never seen > > > > anything > > > > > > from > > > > > > > a Canon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, does anyone else use the ColorVision > > > > Print > > > > > > Fix > > > > > > > Pro suite? +'s? -'s? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Brendan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best > > spam > > > > > > protection around > > > > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best > > spam > > > > > > protection around > > > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > > > > protection around > > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > > > > protection around > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
