Re: filmscanners: Printdpi
Tony Sleep wrote: Yes, I agree. The Epson driver is broken, and they haven't fixed it, which kind-of suggests to me that they cannot fix it without revealing some deeper flaw. I would summarise the problems I see as:- 1. Broken colour management - the driver cannot do a profile transformation adequately They seem afraid of greens, have you noticed? 2. Poor profiling. The canned profile is way off the mark, as can be proved by comparing 1. with doing a profile-profile within PS and then bypassing the printer driver CM. 3. Variability/inconsistency of output. As you mention, different carts or paper batches affect consistency, though IME this is a minor problem One thing they don't like to talk about is that after the carts are about 1/2 empty the amount of ink flow changes, making delicate color management impossible. Constant ink systems or systems like the 3000, which don't use the above head cartridge system might be better. 4. Metamerism. I see massive amounts in vanilla 1200 prints on Epson Photo Paper. It's a joke, you need a calibrated daylight reference to be able to view prints! A $1 daylight tungsten artists bulb works fine for conventional darkroom prints. 5. Dry-down colour shifts. I see excess red which calms down within a couple of hours. You can't rebalance a print before that, except by guesstimation. Now, come on... are you telling me wet color prints come out looking color balanced? Some papers look very blue until they dry, Ciba looks magenta brown. At least they did when I used to do color darkroom work. 6. The gamut is wide, but has some sharp discontinuities and weaknesses. This plays havoc with trying to get a precise match in some colours/tones - grass/foliage can be especially impossible, and pale European skin tones will drive you stark staring mad. Tell your models to get a tan or eat more carrots! See my response to #1 regarding greens. I think this characteristic alone limits the opportunity for custom profiling, at least any attempt to DIY using a flatbed. A precision spectrophotometer might stand a better chance, but I suspect that the printers are so twitchy that 3, inconsistency, would scupper even that - unless you were able to reprofile for every image. 7. Archival longevity I am not even going to mention. I think you just did ;-) Overall - and I am being picky - these are adequate tools for casual use, but I doubt the aftermarket industry borne of discontent with the OE product, can really conquer many of the issues. But I have no experience of either CIS inkset or Cone's new colour kit. Maybe they have fixed things, the trouble is it is lots of $$ to find out. Approaching perfection is always costly. What does a really good enlarger and lens cost? What does temperature and time controlled darkroom equipment set you back? I should also say that I don't think $100,000 Iris printers do any better, but for different reasons. As for HP etc, forget it. Epson's are the best, so far, but not there yet. The new Canon S800 looked very promising indeed, largely because the test print I saw was subtle and looked 'right' - Epson demo prints are always high contrast, high saturation, and gloss over the weaknesses. leben.com to see that people are really struggling with these printers. They are good, tantalisingly so, since it is easy to produce a print which is *almost* right. But I despair of producing one which *is* right, that sooner or later I don't go back to and think 'urgh, that sucks'. You're either too hard on yourself, or the printer, or both. I'm not trying to be unkind here, but if you cannot afford the tools necessary to make the result you are after, either go back to an earlier method that works (chemical) or accept the flaws and recognize that 99% of the people looking at it will not see it the way you do. Only you have the internal vision of what your expectations are, and although I'm not suggesting you toss those goals away, you need to recognize the limitations of the tools you have to work with now, and that you will improve them as they become more affordable to you. I am getting to the point that I will be taking my disk to my friendly Noritsu/Fuji printer lab. Hopefully we we can come up with the adjustments needed to get the print to match the disk image as I see it on my screen. I sold many people on PCD when film scanners and CD-R burners were either vastly expensive or totally unreliable. Now, I recommend they do it themselves if possible. The market changed. If the Noritsu/Fuji silver paper machines can get you where you want to be, it make be cheaper than a $7500 5000 with RIP, and it is certainly cheaper than 5 years of therapy ;-). Hm, well. My test Noritsu print was closer to the screen/scan than I'd have got from the Epson after much struggling, and with no tweaking at all - the Noritsu seems to
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:35:08 -0500 Gordon Tassi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I believe that it is in the part of the work flow that deals with the transfer of the image to the printer. I bought an Epson Stylus Photo 700 about 2.5 years ago and it constantly changes its values, especially when I get a new cartridge and then has to get into the mood to do it right. Like you, I am frustrated by it, and I do not depend on it for a living. Yes, I agree. The Epson driver is broken, and they haven't fixed it, which kind-of suggests to me that they cannot fix it without revealing some deeper flaw. I would summarise the problems I see as:- 1. Broken colour management - the driver cannot do a profile transformation adequately 2. Poor profiling. The canned profile is way off the mark, as can be proved by comparing 1. with doing a profile-profile within PS and then bypassing the printer driver CM. 3. Variability/inconsistency of output. As you mention, different carts or paper batches affect consistency, though IME this is a minor problem 4. Metamerism. I see massive amounts in vanilla 1200 prints on Epson Photo Paper. It's a joke, you need a calibrated daylight reference to be able to view prints! A $1 daylight tungsten artists bulb works fine for conventional darkroom prints. 5. Dry-down colour shifts. I see excess red which calms down within a couple of hours. You can't rebalance a print before that, except by guesstimation. 6. The gamut is wide, but has some sharp discontinuities and weaknesses. This plays havoc with trying to get a precise match in some colours/tones - grass/foliage can be especially impossible, and pale European skin tones will drive you stark staring mad. I think this characteristic alone limits the opportunity for custom profiling, at least any attempt to DIY using a flatbed. A precision spectrophotometer might stand a better chance, but I suspect that the printers are so twitchy that 3, inconsistency, would scupper even that - unless you were able to reprofile for every image. 7. Archival longevity I am not even going to mention. Overall - and I am being picky - these are adequate tools for casual use, but I doubt the aftermarket industry borne of discontent with the OE product, can really conquer many of the issues. But I have no experience of either CIS inkset or Cone's new colour kit. Maybe they have fixed things, the trouble is it is lots of $$ to find out. I should also say that I don't think $100,000 Iris printers do any better, but for different reasons. As for HP etc, forget it. Epson's are the best, so far, but not there yet. The new Canon S800 looked very promising indeed, largely because the test print I saw was subtle and looked 'right' - Epson demo prints are always high contrast, high saturation, and gloss over the weaknesses. I think you only have to look at the huge volume of angst on leben.com to see that people are really struggling with these printers. They are good, tantalisingly so, since it is easy to produce a print which is *almost* right. But I despair of producing one which *is* right, that sooner or later I don't go back to and think 'urgh, that sucks'. I am getting to the point that I will be taking my disk to my friendly Noritsu/Fuji printer lab. Hopefully we we can come up with the adjustments needed to get the print to match the disk image as I see it on my screen. Hm, well. My test Noritsu print was closer to the screen/scan than I'd have got from the Epson after much struggling, and with no tweaking at all - the Noritsu seems to do CM properly! But there was an obvious posterisation in light, graduated tones, which looks to me like an aliasing issue. I tackled the lab about this and they said 'ah, yes - we've spotted that too'. They aren't pleased, having just bought the machine. I can see a need for hardass, objective reviews of printers too... Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Printdpi
--- You wrote: Also I am fed up with the truly vast waste of ink and paper, and especially time. In all my years of darkroom printing I have never come across such an unruly, infuriating and wasteful process with the exception of lith printing - my record there is 4 days to produce a single print I was happy with. Later, I decided it still wasn't quite right. --- end of quote --- Thanks for this, Tony. When I was printing from color negatives on Kodak paper, I went around and around but kept careful records of filtaration and dodging/burning protocols. The material was consistent and I could tweak a print months later if necessary. Epson prints, at least at my level using an older 600, are satisfying in that they exist at all and are a substitute for hot chemestry and hours in a dark room. My consolation for inconsistency and other limits of the technology is that the corrected print file exists on my disk waiting for the next affordable development in technology. At least hard drives and cd-roms are reasonably archival. That is, assuming our computer formats don't go totally obsolete in 30 years. The 'chromes I am printing from these days are indeed 30 years old and look like new. And are analog, so will always be accessible. (I still use an Amiga for a lot of my non-graphic, non-audio work since that's were the files are. Some of this stuff doesn't cross platforms easily, especially in bulk.) Rich
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi
Berry, Sorry for the delay - my browser wasn't functioning right. It's at page http://www.scantips.com/basics3b.html and the previous page. His online article only discusses printers with resolution up to 600dpi, though, so the article is just the basics. Maris - Original Message - From: "Berry Ives" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 7:56 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Printdpi | on 3/29/01 7:58 AM, Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | The general consensus is printing in the range of 240-360dpi, and it will | depend on the paper - for a good explanation of why see | http://www.scantips.com/ | | The best thing to do is to experiment on *your* printer and find the optimal | dpi for each type of paper you generally use. I did that for my HP | PhotoSmart just the other day on HP glossy, and found that 240dpi appeared | the best. | | Maris | | - Original Message - | From: "Richard Starr" [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:27 AM | Subject: filmscanners: Printdpi | | | | The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson | | printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be. | | | | My habit is to correct an image at the scanned resolution then move it to | a | | default blank page for printing, using PhotoShop's free transformation for | | sizing. I save the 'print' version as well as the full resolution file. | The | | prints look good. | | | | I normally use a blank page set for 8.5 x11 inches and 110 dpi. I'm | wondering | | if I'd see better results at a higher dpi or faster results at a lower | dpi. | | Lower dpi would result in a smaller file for storage too. There must be | an | | ideal maximum resolution beyond which the image doesn't print better and a | | minimum resolution below which it is noticeably degraded. | | | | Comments? | | Rich | | So where are the scantips on that page? | | ~Berry | |
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi
Probably because this is a filmscanners list, I would think. Maris - Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 12:38 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Printdpi | I have been through so many cartridges on my Epson 2000P that I've lost | count. The images have been rock solid and consistent from the day I bought | it to the present. I calibrated it once soon after I got it and that has | been that. Why is it that we hardly hear anything of this amazing printer on | this list? | | Frank Paris | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 | | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi | Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 9:35 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: filmscanners: Printdpi | | | If there is a chink in the digital process, I | believe that it is | in the part of the work flow that deals with the transfer of the | image to the | printer. I bought an Epson Stylus Photo 700 about 2.5 years ago | and it constantly | changes its values, especially when I get a new cartridge and | then has to get into | the mood to do it right. |
RE: filmscanners: Printdpi
Maybe - just maybe - because it is Off Topic for starters Frank. :-) Another more substantive possibility might be that it really is not a photo printer as much as a printer for fine arts work in the sense that its pigmented inks do not have the gamut of the OEM dye based inks which may be more in the range of what those who are into film scanning are looking for. That is not to say that the 2000p is not a good printer or that it doesn't produce good prints; it is more to say that it does not produce the sorts of prints that many on this list may be looking for. Still another relevant reason might be something as simple as the price which might keep some from being interested in purchasing the printer or keep them from actually buying it. In short, I would suspect that many of the same reasons we hear little about the Epson 9500, 7500, or the Roland printers would apply. Price and appropriateness to the majority of user base on this list are two major reasons. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Paris Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 12:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Printdpi I have been through so many cartridges on my Epson 2000P that I've lost count. The images have been rock solid and consistent from the day I bought it to the present. I calibrated it once soon after I got it and that has been that. Why is it that we hardly hear anything of this amazing printer on this list? Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 9:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Printdpi If there is a chink in the digital process, I believe that it is in the part of the work flow that deals with the transfer of the image to the printer. I bought an Epson Stylus Photo 700 about 2.5 years ago and it constantly changes its values, especially when I get a new cartridge and then has to get into the mood to do it right.
RE: filmscanners: Printdpi
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:15:38 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: It's all just smoke and mirrors - "this setting works for me". Advice from a manufacturer would save a lot of wastage in test prints. The dither pattern makes such hard figures genuinely elusive. About as much as anyone can say is to nail a DPI beyond which no further detail becomes apparent, and another lower DPI at which diminishing returns set in. These seem to be ~300dpi and ~240dpi respectively for 1440dpi Epsons, and probably 240dpi and 200dpi for 720dpi models. But certain pics will look OK at lower values, and Epsons tend to fail gracefully where dpi is concerned. Getting the bl**dy colour spot-on is another matter... Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi A3 from 2720
Mark wrote: by crikey your original needs to be spot on!) That always works best in *all* scanning situations, IMHO. :-) The problem remains: what to do about the many otherwise-good pics that *aren't* "Spot On?" (and in my case, there're quite a few! ;-) ) Skill and Time are required of course, but "knowing where to start" is a prerequisite! That's why this List is so good. Best regards--LRA +++ Having just experimented with print resolutions using a very sharp Kodachrome 25 with lots of fine detail, I would agree with Bob's figures. I found that I could push the print resolution down to 140 dpi before I began to detect a noticeable difference in the prints when viewed at about 30cm (12"). (That indicates a good 25" x 17" print! is quite possible from a 2720 dpi scanner :), but by crikey your original needs to be spot on!) If you want the images to stand closer inspection, then 200 dpi is usually enough. There is very little difference (for naked eye viewing) above this, but it *does* depend on the subject, and I guess, your eyesight! Try it yourself.. And to answer the other enquiry - print times are dependent on your *printer* resolution setting, eg a 1440 dpi printout will take much longer than a 720 dpi one. Changing the image resolution will not help here. I suggest you stick to the highest printer resolution for the paper in use - at lower figures you get much worse dithering effects, esp. on a 4-colour inkjet printer.. Mark T. At 10:46 AM 29/03/01 -0800, Bob wrote: If the resulting resolution is greater than 240ppi, print it. Generally the minimum resolution for printing might be 150ppi, but many would disagree and a good number would recommend at least 200ppi. --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: Printdpi
--- Tony wrote: Getting the bl**dy colour spot-on is another matter... --- end of quote --- So how do you approach this important issue? I am constantly tweaking the color settings in the printer driver, trying to match my screen colors and tonal values. Rich
RE: filmscanners: Printdpi
Here is a link to Epson's recommendation http://support.epson.com/webadvice/wa0216.html I don't know why they made it so hard to find. Jon It would be nice if we could get definitive responses from the manufacturers on this sort of issue. I haven't seen any such response even on the leben list. It's all just smoke and mirrors - "this setting works for me". Advice from a manufacturer would save a lot of wastage in test prints. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
RE: filmscanners: Printdpi
That's really useful: "If you are going to increase the size of the printed image then you should scan at a higher dpi resolution." Here is a link to Epson's recommendation http://support.epson.com/webadvice/wa0216.html I don't know why they made it so hard to find. Jon It would be nice if we could get definitive responses from the manufacturers on this sort of issue. I haven't seen any such response even on the leben list. It's all just smoke and mirrors - "this setting works for me". Advice from a manufacturer would save a lot of wastage in test prints. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi
on 3/29/01 7:58 AM, Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The general consensus is printing in the range of 240-360dpi, and it will depend on the paper - for a good explanation of why see http://www.scantips.com/ The best thing to do is to experiment on *your* printer and find the optimal dpi for each type of paper you generally use. I did that for my HP PhotoSmart just the other day on HP glossy, and found that 240dpi appeared the best. Maris - Original Message - From: "Richard Starr" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:27 AM Subject: filmscanners: Printdpi | The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson | printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be. | | My habit is to correct an image at the scanned resolution then move it to a | default blank page for printing, using PhotoShop's free transformation for | sizing. I save the 'print' version as well as the full resolution file. The | prints look good. | | I normally use a blank page set for 8.5 x11 inches and 110 dpi. I'm wondering | if I'd see better results at a higher dpi or faster results at a lower dpi. | Lower dpi would result in a smaller file for storage too. There must be an | ideal maximum resolution beyond which the image doesn't print better and a | minimum resolution below which it is noticeably degraded. | | Comments? | Rich So where are the scantips on that page? ~Berry
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi
on 3/30/01 11:20 AM, Jon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is a link to Epson's recommendation http://support.epson.com/webadvice/wa0216.html I don't know why they made it so hard to find. Jon It would be nice if we could get definitive responses from the manufacturers on this sort of issue. I haven't seen any such response even on the leben list. It's all just smoke and mirrors - "this setting works for me". Advice from a manufacturer would save a lot of wastage in test prints. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text Here it is: Troubleshooting Tip #0216 Scanner resolution for printing The Line Screen Frequency for EPSON Stylus printers can be calculated using the following formula: Printing Resolution 1 X = Line Screen Frequency 3 2 You should set the MINIMUM scan resolution at 1/3rd of the desired print resolution. For example, for a print resolution of 720dpi, you will need to set the scan resolution to 240dpi or higher. If you are going to increase the size of the printed image then you should scan at a higher dpi resolution.
RE: filmscanners: Printdpi
On 30 Mar 2001 10:43:35 EST Richard Starr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Getting the bl**dy colour spot-on is another matter... --- end of quote --- So how do you approach this important issue? I am constantly tweaking the color settings in the printer driver, trying to match my screen colors and tonal values. Same as you, right now, but profiling s/w is looking expensively inevitable. TBH I have not often needed terribly accurate colour from the Epson previously, so was content to struggle whenever I did. But the occasional problems with repro from scans suggest I'm going to have to produce reference prints which match the screen image precisely. Also I am fed up with the truly vast waste of ink and paper, and especially time. In all my years of darkroom printing I have never come across such an unruly, infuriating and wasteful process with the exception of lith printing - my record there is 4 days to produce a single print I was happy with. Later, I decided it still wasn't quite right. This is the case with Epson: in a year or so with the 1200, I have not once produced a print I was all that satisfied with. Even CIBA wasn't as bloody-minded, so long as you didn't tax its contrast range. What is so galling is that having spent ages getting a scan 'just right' on screen, and all the ICM stuff sussed, this final stage is really broken. I am not even confident that custom profiling will help, as there are things I just don't like about Epson prints. I'm hopeful the Canon S800 will be an improvement, as the samples I saw were much closer to where I want to be, but I need A3. Doubtless there's an S8000 on the way. I'm idiotically hopeful it'll be properly profiled out of the box, and just work, then I can relegate the 1200 to Cone BW, or chuck it in the canal. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi
Tony: I am also concerned that the final stage is really broken. I have seen the Epson prints that the company uses and they look great, of course. When I finally get my scan to look the way I want it to look in PS, the print may come close but not close enough. If there is a chink in the digital process, I believe that it is in the part of the work flow that deals with the transfer of the image to the printer. I bought an Epson Stylus Photo 700 about 2.5 years ago and it constantly changes its values, especially when I get a new cartridge and then has to get into the mood to do it right. Like you, I am frustrated by it, and I do not depend on it for a living. I am getting to the point that I will be taking my disk to my friendly Noritsu/Fuji printer lab. Hopefully we we can come up with the adjustments needed to get the print to match the disk image as I see it on my screen. Tony Sleep wrote: On 30 Mar 2001 10:43:35 EST Richard Starr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: What is so galling is that having spent ages getting a scan 'just right' on screen, and all the ICM stuff sussed, this final stage is really broken.
RE: filmscanners: Printdpi
I have been through so many cartridges on my Epson 2000P that I've lost count. The images have been rock solid and consistent from the day I bought it to the present. I calibrated it once soon after I got it and that has been that. Why is it that we hardly hear anything of this amazing printer on this list? Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 9:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Printdpi If there is a chink in the digital process, I believe that it is in the part of the work flow that deals with the transfer of the image to the printer. I bought an Epson Stylus Photo 700 about 2.5 years ago and it constantly changes its values, especially when I get a new cartridge and then has to get into the mood to do it right.
RE: filmscanners: Printdpi
The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be. My habit is to correct an image at the scanned resolution then move it to a default blank page for printing, using PhotoShop's free transformation for sizing. I save the 'print' version as well as the full resolution file. The prints look good. I normally use a blank page set for 8.5 x11 inches and 110 dpi. I'm wondering if I'd see better results at a higher dpi or faster results at a lower dpi. Lower dpi would result in a smaller file for storage too. There must be an ideal maximum resolution beyond which the image doesn't print better and a minimum resolution below which it is noticeably degraded. Well, it depends on really what your needs are. If your output size is limited, then perhaps you can scan at a lower DPI and you will not see a difference in output. I believe you should always acan at the scanner optical resolution, as this will give you the best image your scanner can give you. I do not re-sample in PS, unless the output resolution falls below 180DPI or so...I uncheck the resample box, and just re-size and let the DPI fall where it may. It has been shown time and time again that there is no magic DPI. Now, your comment on file sizes is completely valid, and that is something I would suggest you experiment with to see what gives you the best results with that compromise, since making a scan at other than the scanner optical resolution will degrade the image. You will always get image degradation scanning at other than the optical DPI of the scanner. In small enough printouts, you will not see this degradation though, so if your requirements are such, that may work fine for you.
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi
The general consensus is printing in the range of 240-360dpi, and it will depend on the paper - for a good explanation of why see http://www.scantips.com/ The best thing to do is to experiment on *your* printer and find the optimal dpi for each type of paper you generally use. I did that for my HP PhotoSmart just the other day on HP glossy, and found that 240dpi appeared the best. Maris - Original Message - From: "Richard Starr" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:27 AM Subject: filmscanners: Printdpi | The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson | printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be. | | My habit is to correct an image at the scanned resolution then move it to a | default blank page for printing, using PhotoShop's free transformation for | sizing. I save the 'print' version as well as the full resolution file. The | prints look good. | | I normally use a blank page set for 8.5 x11 inches and 110 dpi. I'm wondering | if I'd see better results at a higher dpi or faster results at a lower dpi. | Lower dpi would result in a smaller file for storage too. There must be an | ideal maximum resolution beyond which the image doesn't print better and a | minimum resolution below which it is noticeably degraded. | | Comments? | Rich
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi
- Original Message - From: Richard Starr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 5:27 AM Subject: filmscanners: Printdpi The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be. My habit is to correct an image at the scanned resolution then move it to a default blank page for printing, using PhotoShop's free transformation for sizing. I save the 'print' version as well as the full resolution file. The prints look good. You would do better to use imageduplicate and imagesize. Start by unchecking the resample box, and setting desired print size (actual print size, not paper size). If the resulting resolution is greater than 240ppi, print it. Generally the minimum resolution for printing might be 150ppi, but many would disagree and a good number would recommend at least 200ppi. Bob Wright I normally use a blank page set for 8.5 x11 inches and 110 dpi. I'm wondering if I'd see better results at a higher dpi or faster results at a lower dpi. Lower dpi would result in a smaller file for storage too. There must be an ideal maximum resolution beyond which the image doesn't print better and a minimum resolution below which it is noticeably degraded. Comments? Rich
RE: filmscanners: Printdpi
Richard wrote: The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be. It would be nice if we could get definitive responses from the manufacturers on this sort of issue. I haven't seen any such response even on the leben list. It's all just smoke and mirrors - "this setting works for me". Advice from a manufacturer would save a lot of wastage in test prints. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi A3 from 2720
Having just experimented with print resolutions using a very sharp Kodachrome 25 with lots of fine detail, I would agree with Bob's figures. I found that I could push the print resolution down to 140 dpi before I began to detect a noticeable difference in the prints when viewed at about 30cm (12"). (That indicates a good 25" x 17" print! is quite possible from a 2720 dpi scanner :), but by crikey your original needs to be spot on!) If you want the images to stand closer inspection, then 200 dpi is usually enough. There is very little difference (for naked eye viewing) above this, but it *does* depend on the subject, and I guess, your eyesight! Try it yourself.. And to answer the other enquiry - print times are dependent on your *printer* resolution setting, eg a 1440 dpi printout will take much longer than a 720 dpi one. Changing the image resolution will not help here. I suggest you stick to the highest printer resolution for the paper in use - at lower figures you get much worse dithering effects, esp. on a 4-colour inkjet printer.. Mark T. At 10:46 AM 29/03/01 -0800, Bob wrote: If the resulting resolution is greater than 240ppi, print it. Generally the minimum resolution for printing might be 150ppi, but many would disagree and a good number would recommend at least 200ppi.
