Digital BW, The Print

>> And that also means that the ppi/dpi relation
>> is of another order than the ppi/lpi relation.
> 
> The essential point is that the true resolution of an inkjet printer is
> nowhere near the machine-dot resolution.  You don't get 2880 pixels in one
> inch on an inkjet printer advertised as 2880-dpi.

Of course you don't. You cannot exchange ppi and dpi like that. they are not
the same thing. That is why a file can be various ppi numbers and print well
using the same dpi setting of the printer. I don't know why scanners and
image app's use the dpi measure as a standard, it just adds to the
confusion. They use pixels, not dots. Printers use dots to create the pixels
the image holds. No?

> 
>> Easiest method is getting a loupe and examples
>> of different printing systems.
> 
> I have, and it supports my previous explanation.  While inkjet printing is
> excellent, I've not seen inkjet prints that exceed what is achieved by
> high-end offset in terms of resolution.  I haven't examined any high-end,
> small-sized inkjet prints, though (I've looked at large, high-end prints,
> but perhaps their resolution is deliberately lower).

Even a high screen stochastic offset print shows the pattern, in my opinion.
However random, it's visible, it's not cont tone. The ink jet quad prints I
have and have seen from others show varying degrees of pattern/dither or
dot, depends on the print process and knowledge of the printer, and from my
experience also on the actual Epson printer used. My color inkjet prints
from various epson ink-jets far exceed the look of any offset job I've had
done. (with or without loupe)  I'm referring to
screening/dither/pattern/dot/you name it.


Carolyn Frayn