Digital BW, The Print

Martin,


>> ... [1280] updated curves files.

>... I printed out 21-step wedges of all
>five. The neutral, nc4, and the cool, c16, look to be the smoothest.
>The cold, cc5, may have a flat spot between 50% and 60%. The medium-
>warm and warm have some flat areas in the %65 to 75% range. ...
> Improved over the previous curve so you are moving it
>in the right direction. The neutral print looks very good.

If you could send me some test strips, I'll be able to compare them to
Jerry's and see if we have a Mac v. PC problem or settings problem.   So,
far the Mac and PC seem to print the test files with the same curves in the
same manner.  Usually if there is a difference, it's in the paper type of
other printer settings.

>
>> I also often print at any resolution and let the driver resample.
However,
>> I've been told by people I respect that it is better to so the
resampling in
>> Photoshop.  And when it's an image I really care about and the
original scan
>> is not at a final print resolution of 360 I resample with Genuine
Fractals.

>I will give the 360 a try.
>Are you using Genuine Fractals for rezzing down and well as rezzing up?

Usually not.  If I really care about the ultimate quality I've done it, but
I'm not sure one can see the difference.  Actually, even the company that
sells the software says the differences between GF and Photoshop resampling
mostly show up where the file is expanded substantially -- like doubled.
But for perfectionists, it feels better to use GF to increase file size if
it's an important image with lots of sharp edges.  After all, even if others
can't tell the difference, YOU will know you used the best.  ;-)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com