Digital BW, The Print

Phil,

Thank you for an excellent answer - Im scanning 6x7s at 4000 spi and will do some tests 
at 720 at my desired print size tonight. 

The math makes sense, and Im not sure why it never occured to me before now.

_ Ben 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Rose" <pjrose@f...> wrote:
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ben_zlotkin"
> <ben@b...> wrote:
> > 
> > I know that we should generally print files (On the Epson) with a
> resolution at or near 350 
> > PPI.
> Not exactly true. The native resolution of the 2200 (and all Epson
> desktop models) is 720 ppi and the Epson printer driver will
> automatically interpolate incoming data to this value before printing.
> Hence, having your file at 720 ppi resolution (or a lower value
> derived froman integer divisor (e.g., 360 or 240 ppi) is where you
> should be aiming.
> 
> Many people will go to the trouble of interpolatiing "all the way" to
> 720 ppi _before_ sending the file to the printer under the assumption
> that their software algorithm (PS or Qimage, etc.) can do a better job
> than the (presumably inferior) method used by the Epson driver. That's
> what I generally do.
> 
> 
> >My question is what are the negative effects of using a higher
> >resolution? 
> 
> None, other than it might be a bit stressful (at least temporarily) on
> your hard drive and/or RAM capacity. Of course there's no need to
> archive your images at the higher resolutions.
> 
>  If I opt not to 
> > throw out any data when re-sizing an image and the resolution ends
> up around 450 PPI, 
> > will this give me a lesser image than if I down-sized to 350?
> 
> No, higher is better, but best not to work with such "odd" values (see
> above).
> 
> Phil
> > 
> > Thanks - Ben