> Therefore, the actual resolution on the paper is only 150 dpi. Although
> it needed to be produced with a 300 ppi input file, whether that 300 ppi
> file was actually resolving that amount of detail is a separate question.
>
Chuck ,
That's right! As most of you have heard to excess, most of my professional
work is for print, and I work with printers regularly.
The 300d/ppi file is on paper the equivelent of what we used to order as a
133 line screen. I don't know if that is what it really figure out to, or if
it was made standard because 266 was thought to be confusing. The 133 line
screen was the standard for good quality reproduction, as in a book or
magazine. (newspapers were 80 line) Anything bigger than that didn't print
well in a single color, as the photo would be very very flat. The highest
quality work, on fine paper using the highest quality presses could support
finer screens, but that was expensive, as in fine art books.
Using a finer screen often called for a duotone, or duoblack. That's in
essence what is used for Lenswork, which presents high quality reproduction.
As I have often repeated, the act of upresing is subject dependant. Weddings
and portraits can tolerate a lot, where detailed catalog and other product
photography may tolerate very little. It all depends on the amount of fine
detail that is required.
I will say that I wouldn't want to go to press without something very close
to native 300ppi.
Photo printers (not inkjets) have different resolutions. The Dursts print at
240 ppi, and I believe so does Fuji. Durst has better rip's than Fuji, in my
opinion. Earlier konica printers, quite good by the way, did print at 300,
and their final machine, of which they only made about a dozen, printed at
400 dpi, but that was probably mainly for marketing.
For inkjet printers, ask someone that knows about them.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|