Andrew Dacey wrote:
>On 7/22/05, Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>The way I understand it is that all printer hardware requires a
>>certain native resolution and that their drivers will resize the
>>image, automatically and unseen, to that resolution before sending to
>>the printer. It is separate from any adjustments in Photoshop. Low
>>resolution, and the driver upsizes and high resolution it downsizes.
>>If you are going to let the printer driver do this then the best
>>results are obtained if it receives an image with a resolution that
>>is an even factor of the native. For instance with an Epson printer
>>which is supposed to have a 360dpi native resolution what you should
>>give it is that or 180 dpi or 120 or 90, with the image dimensions
>>specified in the printer dialogue, for the driver to do its best job
>>preparing the file for the printer hardware.
>>
>>
I used to believe this to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth. In my case, this conclusion was a result of some of my
earliest scanning of film and printing on my Epson 1270. Some prints
came out very odd and I concluded it was due to the uneven multiples. So
I have a table of even divisions of the printer max resolution of 1440
dpi here on the desk. This was more than a little inconvenient, as it
limits my freedom of cropping and image sizes.
>>That said, a driver is a little program thrown in for free. Resizing
>>to its native resolution is best done in something more capable like
>>Photoshop before you print. All this stuff is a little like casting
>>runes though.
>>
>>
Continuing my story; on the recommendation of someone here, I bought
Harald Johnson's "Mastering Digital Printing" He disagreed with all the
above. First, as a matter of theory he contended that printer
manufacturers have both intimate knowledge of how the printer actually
works down at the pixel level and a huge stake in the quality of the
drivers. Without an excellent driver, the best printer hardware in the
world is no good. Second, he said he had made many, many prints
comparing the use of various resizing apps to match ppi of image to dpi
of printer, or even divisions of same, with simply sending the image as
capture/scanning/cropping/etc. create it, directly through printer
drivers. His conclusion was that the simple solution of trusting the
printer driver was always at least as good, and sometimes better, than
anything else he tried.
So I tried his recommendations, and darned if they don't work. At least
with the 1270 and the Epson driver, it doesn't seem to make any
difference at all what the ppi of the image is, as long as it's not very
low, the prints come out fine. So I find I can just set the crop tool to
the size of the print I want to make, size and move the crop box, which
is then locked to the proper proportion, to the best crop of the image
for the print format, and print away. So what if the ppi comes out to
357.731? If I change it to 360, which happens to be exactly 1440/4, it
looks just the same in a print as if I leave it at the odd, non-integer
setting. I'm pretty cure the driver is a lot smarter than I ma, in its
little specialty area.
Now that doesn't mean I don't have to get all the other details right,
choice of paper type in the driver, choice of icc profile color
management or printer driver color management (use both at once or
neither, and weird color can be yours!), choice of printer
"quality"/dpi, speed, microweave, etc. Those can make a real difference.
The Red River Paper 53lb. Premium Gloss works wonderfully at 1440 dpi
and the Photo Quality Glossy Film setting of the driver, as RRPaper say.
Kodak Premium Picture Paper doesn't work very well at 1440 dpi and high
speed, but fine at 720 dpi and low speed, again as Kodak says.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|