Digital BW, The Print

Seth wrote:

> BUT do you print and calibrate (densitometer check) the contrast 
> difference,
> however so slight, between the two resolutions?  Then, adjust so that both
> prints are exactly equal in contrast and tone before bringing in the
> neighbors?

No. I said it was an unscientific test. What I did was use the RIP for 
what it's good for. I linearized both 1440 output and 2880 output. This 
should take care of your slight contrast differences. I printed the same 
file from both print environments, that differed only in the print 
resolution, and the separate linearization.

What I did was show them to people under the same lighting. I asked two 
questions. First, which print to you like better? Second, why? This was 
a couple of years back and I didn't write it down (this was for my 
benefit and not for a journal paper).

And, it's easy enough to replicate the test. You have no need whatsoever 
to take my word for anything.

>
> Why would seven inks give no dots and four would create a problem?  
> Are you
> calculating --and controlling-- dot gain?  

The Ultratones have seven inks, yes. But it's a quadtone inkset, IIRC. 
It's a black, then three warm grays, and three cool grays. The two gray 
sets have the same densities. You mix them (curves) to create the 
"color" you want.

And who said anything about quadtones producing a problem???

> There is no mention of which
> paper, very much a factor in dot gain.

Yes there is. Read for it. It's in my third paragraph.

> In fact some papers blasted with
> seven inks would saturate so badly your friends and neighbors wouldn't 
> like
> them either.

I'm assuming you know a little something about how to print.

>
> What I am not understanding is why you have friends and neighbors 
> looking at
> the prints, then you are deciding why they see a difference (dots)?  At
> least, that's what I take from what you said.  Just doesn't seem 
> objective.

I didn't say it was objective. In fact, I said explicitly that it was 
unscientific.

It's not my job to prove anything to you. You asked a question, and I 
gave you an answer. You can, of course, replicate the test (or, better 
yet, make up your own test) and get your own results, and draw your own 
conclusions.

>
> I am not questioning all your calculations.  It just seems to be a 
> hard line
> approach --if you don't have this it won't work.

Why would you draw that conclusion? I didn't say that, or even imply it. 
You said you wanted to "get better prints." You asked "is this 
necessary" and I replied "I think it is, yes. Of course, YMMV." How in 
the world could you call that a hard line approach - I explicitly said 
that you might get different results.

>   Would you please explain a
> little more?

No. You don't want help, you just want an argument. Do your own 
research, and draw your own conclusions. I'm done with this thread.

>
> Seth
>