Yeah, I'm back... ;) I've read a lot of different recommendations on the "optimum" or "correct" resolution your (photographic) pictures should be for inkjet printing. I've been using 300dpi (in the print), since that seemed like a good average judging by most things I've read. My printer is capable of something like 4800x1200 dpi according to its specification, but I gather that that is more or less irrelevant to my concern. The reason I'm asking is this: I downloaded a (digital capture) colour test target (sorry, OT ;) which was a file at 7x10" (for printing on 8.5x11" paper) at 360 dpi. I printed this on glossy pro quality photo paper and the result is absolutely astounding. Both resolution and tonal nuances blew me away. However, when I've printed my own (scanned film) B&W prints, I haven't been able to see much difference between 200 dpi or 300 dpi, and I've never tried more than 300 dpi. My questions are these: * Is there a way of calculating optimum print resolution (say 300dpi), given the printer's resolution (say 4800x1200)? I'm guessing that the dithering algorithms need something to work with. * Should I use a different print resolution (say, 250 dpi instead) if using black-only or greyscale printing? * Is there a difference when working with digital cameras vs. scanned film? * Is there a difference when working with matte papers vs. glossy papers? * Is the lack of difference between 200dpi and 300dpi in my own scanned film (400 ASA B&W negative or B&W C-41) poor technique on my part? * Who's right? ;) M.
Message
Another stupid newbie question: print resolution
2003-05-17 by Martin Howard
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.