Digital BW, The Print

sorry, i'm not quite catching on to your response.  i know the 4000 is
the resolution of your scan.  but are you saying you then sent all
4000 to the printer rather than do any kind of resizing to your
typical 360 output?  that's just how i read the article.

"Original images were 4000ppi drum scans from very thin emulsion (long
discontinued and forgotten brand) 120 B&W negatives. All ink prints
were done at 100% full 4000ppi on Hahnemuhle PhotoRag 308..."


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, Bruce is right.
> There is another entire project involving native printer/driver
> resolution, the potential benifits of giving it info at that res, and
> if so how best to get there.
> Definitely beyond the scope of those tests. I chose to overwhelm the
> drivers with info so there could be no doubt about giving them enough,
> and also make the potential relevance of the file detail essentially
moot.
> Obvioulsy each driver has it's own methods, but I think letting each
> do it's thing in this case is also part of the evaluation. The intent
> of the testing was very specific, but implies many other issues beyond
> it's scope.
> Tyler
> http://www.custom-digital.com/
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson
> <bwyg@> wrote:
> >
> > c1asia wrote:
> > > tyler,
> > >
> > > your article says you printed at the full 4000ppi.  don't epson
> > > printers typically print at a native resolution of 360dpi (or is it
> > > 720dpi)?  i'm trying to understand the relationship of the
4000ppi to
> > > the 360dpi.  thanks.
> > >
> > >   
> > One is scanner resolution (4000 spi). One is output resolution to the 
> > printer (360ppi).
> > --
> > Bruce Watson
> >
>