Re: National Geographic vs. Canon print paper

sheepdog 2007 added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

For high-end printing (on a conventional press) the resolution
was typically 300-400 dpi at the imagesetter. Exactly
equivalent to 300-400 pixels per inch in a TIFF file. My
(Canon) 6-color inkjet printer produces a similar look from an
image file whose resolution is as low as 144 ppi, and in fact
higher res than that simply increases file size (slows down
printing) w/o any increase in quality.

I have a Canon Pixma 6600 which I find to produce superb images
on all the glossy Canon papers I've tried. Since my primary
subject is cars and other subjects that look "sharper" on glossy
paper, I've not done very much with the semi-glass and matte
papers other than just run a few tests.

It's refreshing to hear that I am not the only one who is happy
with relatively low PPI. I normally create my finished images at
1400 x 1050, no larger than 1600 x 1200 unless I know in advance
I will be printing for max quality. So, for a borderless 8.5 x 11
print, the PPI is pretty dismal - under 130. Yes, or course I can
see aliasing, especially on the near-horizontal or vertical
character lines and chrome moldings on my cars. But, since I
print so rarely and view from a distance where the aliasing is
not bothersome to me (it would be clearly unacceptable to most
people based on what I've read on this NG), I am happy as the
proverbial clam.

YMMV. To test your own set-up, output images at 72, 144 and
300 ppi, with the highest quality settings and the best paper
you intend to use. My iP6700D does a really nice job with
International Paper products branded "National Geographic." I
buy it when it's on sale at the same price as Epson papers.
For uncoated I like Hammermill Great White.

I already "rang in" with my views on the differences between
"DPI" and "PPI", so please excuse my hyjacking this thread. I
changed the subject so that no one would read my post thinking it
was a continuation of the DPI/PPI debate.

My question for you, sheepdog, is what exactly is "National
Geographic" paper? I can see that you said it is manufactured by
International Paper but I cannot recall seeing NG as a brand of
their paper. Is it ultra-glossy, glossy, semi-gloss, matte, or
what? Most importantly, how is the price/sheet compared to
Canon's brand and how would you compare quality?

When I am printing test prints or photos where I don't need the
higher cost of glossy paper, I have also found Hammermill to be
about the finest non-photo paper, although it is pricier than
normal "copier" paper.

One other question: Do you use the High or Standard print quality
setting in the driver? Or, have you created your own custom
settings? My 6600 just drinks ink like it was water, as do most
high-quality photo printers, so I also tested both driver
settings on the same paper with the same car. Besides the paper
being wetter and the print time much higher, I could scarcely see
any difference so I have gone to Normal as my "normal" (couldn't
resist the pun!) setting. Besides, it seems to make no sense to
waste so much expensive ink on a print coming from an image with
only 1/2-2/3 the PPI that ordinarily be needed for a "good"
print.

Your comments would be appreciated, and again, I apologize to
those who may be upset that I hyjacked this thread, it's just
that so much of what you talk about I find to be equally true.

Have a great day!

--
HP, aka Jerry
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: National Geographic vs. Canon print paper
    ... Since my primary subject is cars and other subjects that look "sharper" on glossy paper, I've not done very much with the semi-glass and matte papers other than just run a few tests. ... It's refreshing to hear that I am not the only one who is happy with relatively low PPI. ... I normally create my finished images at 1400 x 1050, no larger than 1600 x 1200 unless I know in advance I will be printing for max quality. ... I'm using high quality settings for everything except text. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Scanning Film with HP 3210
    ... differences at various settings below 4800ppi. ... My software lets me set both the ppi and scaling. ... surprised to find that I could not see any quality differences between the ...
    (comp.periphs.scanners)
  • Re: What size prints can I get?
    ... called controlled tests claiming that the human eye can resolve the equivalent of up to 660 PPI, based on arc minutes of angle of resolution. ... I said what I said because there are so many people that believe, rightly or wrongly, that to get the same "quality" - which is qualitative/subjective as well as quantitative - from a digital image as a well-exposed properly developed 35mm negative takes on the order of 16 mega pixels. ... This seems to be borne out by the rush to that MP resolution of the upper end digitals these days. ... This would produce in the range of 12 MP and could exceed 16 if the scanner can produce enough DPI without interpolating. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Photoshop Elements Colour Management
    ... about the cost ratio, ... the quality settng. ... How do you set "no color management" in the Canon ... it has 5 numbered settings from "Fast" to ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Mega Pixel Myth
    ... if it were set to 1440 ppi. ... so I bought the Canon. ... "Standard" quality. ... I honestly don't care any more about the ...
    (rec.photo.digital)