Re: The 300dpi Myth Exploded !
- From: "Photo Critic" <critical2theend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:21:22 +1000
"Max Perl" <max_perl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4627a354$0$72891$edfadb0f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You did not "oversample" to reach 300 dpi to avoid visible pixels if you
look close at the print? .....maybe the printer software did something?
OK.....a print of this size has a viewing distance.
A 24" x 36" print is bigger than vi call A1 size here i Europe.
You need a larger frame than 24"x36" to get space for the passepartout?
Hand cut of course using a Logan 4000?
"Annika1980" <annika1980@xxxxxxx> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1176999603.085540.194250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Just the other day I decided to have one of my Steeplechase photos
printed at poster size (24" x 36"). The local Ritz Camera has an
Epson 7800 which they use for such things so I figured I'd give em a
try. They allow you to upload the pic to them online and then simply
go to pick it up.
They charge $39.95 for a 24" x 36" print.
Epson "Pro" series printer driver interpolates image data to the printer's
native resolution of 720 dpi, regardless of the density of the image fed to
it. You could feed it a 72 dpi image and it would have interpolated it to
720 dpi although the quality would have been somewhat degraded.
Large format printer specs and how they handle data is confusing for
newcomers. The printed resolution specifications are based on the makers own
interpretation of how the printer lays down dots, not a measured resolution
from the print. All Epson photo printers have a native input image
resolution of 720 dpi.
Some operators of wide format printers believe fractional files I.E. 360 dpi
or 180 dpi are easiest to deal with whilst other insist on using an
aftermarket product like Qimage to do the interpolation and feed the printer
720 dpi data instead of let the driver do the interpolation.
24" x 36" is not a very large print compared to what D-Mac gets from digital
files. I have one of his prints in my office that is six feet long from my
own 30D image. As long as you stand at a distance that allows you to see the
whole picture, it is excellent.
Close examination at about the distance of a 6"x4" print and it is not as
sharp as it looks when you see the whole print. I have a desk in front of so
no one gets to see it that close. Everyone who sees it remarks on the "wow"
factor. It must be the K3 inks or something.
I also have a photographic print 10 feet long on another wall from my
brother's 4"x5" field camera which blows away anything I've ever seen from
any digital camera. I scanned the negative with his Epson "wet bed" scanner
and sent the file to Rome (Italy) for printing. It was the only place I
could find to make a 6 feet x 10 feet print. You can tell the difference in
the type of print when you look closely. Not quite as brightly coloured as
the Inkjet but a truly stunning picture, the likes of which I've never seen
anywhere else except in the Hotel foyers where his photos hang.
Julian
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The 300dpi Myth Exploded !
- From: Max Perl
- Re: The 300dpi Myth Exploded !
- References:
- The 300dpi Myth Exploded !
- From: Annika1980
- Re: The 300dpi Myth Exploded !
- From: Max Perl
- The 300dpi Myth Exploded !
- Prev by Date: Canon Digital IXUS 65 features
- Next by Date: Re: Canon Digital IXUS 65 features
- Previous by thread: Re: The 300dpi Myth Exploded !
- Next by thread: Re: The 300dpi Myth Exploded !
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
