Digital BW, The Print

> 
> Carolyn writes:
> 
>> You are confusing pixel and dot here.
> 
> No, I'm not.  

I read you differently, the poster was asking "aren't all inkjet printers
required to use a dither by definition." and you responded with pixels not
dots. That's why I said the above.


>Dithering involves the use of more than one pixel to create
> the impression of some color intermediate between those pixels.  A dithered
> image contains adjacent pixels of slightly different colors that can create
> the illusion of greater gamut when the image is examined at a distance.  In
> dithered digital images, you can expand the image until the individual
> pixels are readily visible, and you can see the dithering as alternating
> colors of adjacent pixels.  It looks like grain from intermediate distances.

I'm aware of what dithering is on screen, and in print. I was just saying
that as a response to the posted question you responded with pixels rather
than dots. and I found that to be confusing. no problem.

>> You don't need to be that far away ...
> 
> Dithering is much more noticeable than ordinary non-dithered printing,
> because dithers occupy several pixels, not just one pixel of several dots.
> The difference in size can be an order of magnitude.

Of course it's more noticeable, I didn't say otherwise. I responded to your
thoughts that you had to view epson prints from far away in order to not see
the dither. I was saying you don't need to be that far away from current
epson prints in order for your eye to percieve good tone and basically zero
dither (from the printer).  If the original file is done well and correctly,
then the dithering introduced by the epson print driver is not noticeable
from arms length IMO... oh what the hell, I'm not cut out for this....


Best, Carolyn