Re: Is this true? I read a post on this newsgroup to the effect that with either Windows Vista or OS-X Leopard, what you see is not what you get for print...
- From: R Davis <spamless@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:32:53 -0500
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:29:41 -0400, Scotius <yodasbud@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
It was claimed that since both use pixel smoothing, any
picture you're looking at, including in photo editing programs such as
Photoshop will look far better than it would if you were to print it
In effect, you are denied the information that it has rough
edges, for example, because pixel smoothing is automatic with these
systems, and therefore whatever 2-D graphics pros do to retouch a
photo won't work properly because they can't see the photo as it is.
Is this true? If so, what should I know before I get a program
to edit anything prior to taking it off to a printers'?
It depends on the application and if it has options to turn that on or off.
For example, in ACDSee you have the option of selecting the viewer's
Resampling Algorithm as Bicubic, Bilinear, or Nearest Neighbor. Set it to
the least invasive one ("nearest neighbor") and you reduce the amount of
smoothing to where you can see the individual pixels as you zoom in to
their level. In Opera browser, for another example, in opera:config, under
Multimedia options, you can turn on or off "Interpolate Images". Turning it
off allows you to view the individual pixels as you zoom in (not smoothed).
While some more simplistic applications will not alert you to this nor
provide an option to set the level of interpolation, most do. The easiest
way to tell is use your editor or viewer's zoom-in option. Zoom in to a
view of about 400% to 500% the original size. If you are not easily seeing
individual pixels as distinct small squares on your monitor, it's most
likely doing a bicubic (smoothing) interpolation for you without your
knowledge. Usually a bicubic algorithm because, while one of the sloppiest
and most detail-softening methods, it's also the fastest and tolerably
efficient for most people (who don't know better). It's also the main one
that PhotoSlop editor still use as its only best-option today, by the way.
There are far better algorithms than that in many editors. Even freeware
IrfanView has better interpolation algorithms than what exists in
You have to remember too that a printer and its drivers will also always
use its own downsampling and upsampling algorithms, as well as dithering
patterns for their inks. There's no such thing as a true WYSIWYG when it
comes to monitor views and printouts. One of the nice things about the
editor that I use, Photoline, is that is also includes quick preview button
options to show the printer's DPI level of detail and antialiasing on your
monitor before it is even printed. Handy when checking some details, for
example the fine-print on some sign in an image, and wanting it to still be
legible in the printout. This will be a close approximation to the print
but it still won't duplicate the ink-dot dithering patterns on the final
- Prev by Date: Re: How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro
- Next by Date: Re: KODAK EASYSHARE Z915: Good choice for a college student on TIGHT budget?
- Previous by thread: Is this true? I read a post on this newsgroup to the effect that with either Windows Vista or OS-X Leopard, what you see is not what you get for print...