Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:

> > My understanding is that inkjets do indeed dither to create 
colors,
> > but that the pixels are so small . . .
> 
> Dots...not pixels...printers don't print pixels, and there is 
really no
> relationship between the pixels and the dots, that you will be able 
to see
> after a (decent) dither.

Yes, of course, I should have been more careful to distinguish 
between the pixels of the digital image and the dots the printer uses 
to reproduce each pixel.

> 
> > that for all practical purposes we
> > can consider them to be "continuous tone" printers
> 
> The Piezo system is technically considered "continuous tone", even 
according
> to Jon Cone, who has been in this very business for many many 
years.  The
> accepted term "continuous tone" really means gives the "appearance" 
of
> continuous tone...and I would also add, uses multiple inks, not 
just black.

Hmm, well I guess if the experts use "continuous tone" to mean "gives 
the appearance of continuous tone" then I can't quibble.  

But what terms are we then to use to differentiate between half-tone 
printers (those that create a colored pixel by breaking the color 
down into a bunch of differently colored spots) and continous tone 
printers (like dye-sub printers, which are able to lay down pixels of 
specific colors "by building up varying densities of primary colors 
in the same spot". (from Blatner and Fraser, Real World Photoshop).

I realize that inkjet spots may now be so small that their prints 
appear to be continous tone, but they still seem to fit the 
definition of "half-tone" printers that compose specific single-color 
pixels out of differently colored dots.  And, at least by the meaning 
of the terms as I learned them (from Blatner and Fraser), the classes 
of half-tone printers and continuous-tone printers are mutually 
exclusive.

-- Herb