> Did the prints include ovals and diagonals? If not, try adding some in > Photoshop and see if it highlights the difference.
Shangara, I have an observation here. You were looking for a punjabi saying and did not find it, but I did find a venezuelan one for you: You are looking for the fitfh paw of the cat!! In other words, we all know prety well final results are absolutely dependent on subject matter, and for example, architectural photographers may find indeed some difference between one downsampled file and the original, but if Johnathan is reporting his work is doing fine, why then suggesting him to add some diagonals in Photoshop to finally find a failure in the method? I told him privately that I usually run lots of Epsons when updating my portfolios and for that matter I burn CD�s with two folders, the HiRes Folder and the "Print" folder and run an action to get all my scans and files from camera to 180 dpi ( plus sharpening etc), and everytime I have to re-print a group of images or an entire folder, I just to load the CD's and print the corresponding pics. So far, and through the years, I have found no problem with my work at 180 dpi and that is why I suggested this procedure.and I would find no reason to add diagonal lines or elipses to my nudes in order to find out if the technique is good enough or not. There are many specific reasons to have printing problems at varying resolutions, all depending on subject matter and the combo of Printer/RIP,the capture method and even the sharpenning technique used, and all requiring some testing, but can't we be just positive on a sunday afternoon with a method that is proving to be working in practice?? Happy Sunday!! Jorge Parra =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
