Digital BW, The Print

I pretty much agree that you probably hard pressed to see the difference
of 360ppi versus 720ppi or more.  But its probably image dependent and
viewer dependent.  My usually method is to just print at whatever I have
unless its drastically too high or too low.  

I've done a little checking of the code and I'll probably be able to fix it=
 so
it'll most likely be a moot point.
But I'm a little surprised that exactly 720 doesn't work.  It is possible t=
hat
you are slightly over like 720.10?   

Roy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson Ricciardi" 
<nelson_@r...> wrote:
> Richard,
> 
> What you say is correct. For most uses, 360 ppi is just perfect.
> 
> Anyway, I was told that the native resolution of the 2100/2200 is 720 ppi=
.
> And for the 7600/9600, the native res is 360 ppi.
> 
> I´m just trying to get the best quality I can out of my printer> I always=

> believed that the right way to do was to send the file in the final res,
> ready to print. 
> 
> Michael Tapes, designer of Qimage, belongs to the group of people that
> believe the best approach is to send the file in the native resolution. T=
hat
> is the only reason I use this approach. 
> 
> I never did any test myself. I was just following a recipe that seems to
> work fine.
> 
> But your points are all valid.
> 
> Again, thank you for your input.
> 
> Nelson
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: richard_h95050 [mailto:richardh@j...] 
> Sent: sábado, 7 de agosto de 2004 22:04
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Announcement: QuadToneRIP for Windows XP
> 
> 
> Hi Nelson,
> 
> I just ran an 8X10 @ 360 ppi, and the tonal transitions are still "smooth=
 as
> a baby's bottom" -- I guess I can safely say that because the print is a
> studio shot of a newborn and mother, and that's the main subject matter ;=
>)
> 
> Don't know what would happen over 8X10 or at 720 ppi, but since my machin=
e
> has a stack of letter-size EEM in it, that's what I'm playing with. The o=
nly
> other question I have is regarding the need for the 720 ppi setting, and
> it's purely a theoretical question:
> 
> I haven't tested 720 PPI with QTR to see if it causes any problems for me=
,
> but I also haven't found any reason to go to the higher res for my own wo=
rk
> (admittedly a subjective choice). I'm also running other RIPs; Imageprint=
 on
> my 9600, PiezoBW/Pro or Imageprint/Quad drivers on my 7000 and Paul Roark=
's
> UT-2 (both EZ and w/curves) on my 1280. All are fed at 360 ppi, and the
> output pleases my eye. 
> 
> John Cone used to suggest pushing as much resolution down the pipe as
> possible, but others present some interesting counterpoints about just ho=
w
> much of that information actually impacts the print, depending on how the=

> RIP and/or driver handles the data, etc. -- and they're all a bit differe=
nt.
> Roy would be able to answer that for us about QTR, I'm sure, and you as a=
n
> artist are the best judge of your own results.
> 
> Speaking subjectively, I've can't pragmatically differentiate between pri=
nts
> made using the additional ppi, and some of the RIP makers even suggest
> letting their software do the work and not adding to the file size
> unnecessarily. However, those are some of the ongoing technical
> conversations that cycle continuously through the forums, and I'm not try=
ing
> to rekindle that flame (pun intended). The bottom line to me is
> -- "be happy, make your clients happy and make beautiful prints". 
> 
> Hope you get everything tweaked to meet your own personal workflow. It wo=
uld
> be interesting to know if the difference in ppi is really evident in your=

> prints -- I'm always interesting in taking a second look at things and
> questioning my own assumptions... ;>)
> 
> Most of all, thanks to Roy for all his hard work, endless generousity, an=
d
> giving us all an exciting reason to be even having these dialogs!
> 
> Kind regards,
> Richard
> 
>