Jim Davis wrote: > > I just printed two photos on A4 paper with my Epson PM890C. > > One was a 240 meg TIF file from a 4 by 5 tranny scan. It was sent to > printer at around 1100 dpi. > > The other was a 21 meg TIF file from a 35mm negative scan. It went to > printer at 360 dpi. > > BIG HUGE FREAKING DIFFERENCE! Is that because of file size? Or format differences? Wouldn't you need to print scans of the same image? Or different resolutions of the same scan? Like send the 240 meg file to the printer at 360 dpi? > > Both were printed at 28800 on Photo Paper and both look real nice by > naked eye viewing at 2 feet. But even at this distance, one can easily > see much more detail in the larger file. Under a 10X loupe, the larger > file has incredible detail. Could be inherent to the larger format? > > Now if both are hung on a wall, most observers would likely notice a > quality difference, but most would say both are nice prints. > > So basically what I'm saying is there is way more than 360 dpi that > these printers can reproduce. Bigger is always better. I had always taken pride in that fact. Unfortunately, food has replaced sex in my life. Now I can't even get into my own pants. > > "take every day as a gift, > never get angry at the idiotic mass of humanity, > delight in the craftsmanship of BMW and nature" > Jim Davis, 2002 I'm guessing you don't drive a K-car. Just a guess. I think I need to check into what exactly the printer drivers are doing. Seems to me that all is for naught if it all gets pushed through sub standard printer drivers that simply do whatever they want to do in the end after all. r
