Digital BW, The Print

I just made two gradients ( a linear and a radial) with same length,
specs, etc. I did them at 360ppi and if you zoom all the way in at
1600% the area around 47-48 L is quited interesting. This is where I
saw a noticeable band when I printed the radial out via QTR, K7 inks,
on my 2200.
If you look at the two gradients at that magnification you can see a
bigger shift than other spots. However, the radial seems to be more
prominent. This is most likely because of how square pixels have to
achieve an 'arc'. Those pointed edges may be visually more
distinguishable than a flat edge.  But does it matter in a real image?
I'd be interested in what others think. 

Scott


> 
> I think you may have nailed down the problem in your post. I went 
> back and looked at the targets more critically on-screen, and when i 
> zoomed to Actual Pixels i could see the banding quite clearly. 
> (Pretty much as clearly as i could see it in my prints.) 
> 
> Although it was less obvious, unlike you i thought i could see some 
> banding in the linear ramp when it was also viewed at 100%. Thinking 
> it might be less obvious simply because my linear ramp was narrower, 
> i quickly made a full-page linear ramp, and on this image the banding 
> was as clear as it was on the circular ones.
> 
> So it does seem as if the banding problem is something inherent in 
> the way PS creates gradients. And in my view it occurs in both Radial 
> and Linear Gradients. I'm surprised i never noticed this before, but 
> i guess i just never inspected PS gradients on-screen at that 
> magnification until now.
> 
> In fact, when i zoomed to 500%, i realised that the banding also 
> occurs at a smaller scale as well, though this is not really obvious 
> to the naked eye because the steps are only about half a millimeter 
> wide.
> 
> Like you, i'd be interested to know if other people confirm what we 
> think. I'd also be interested to know what people feel about the 
> usefulness (or otherwise) of my test images, given this (fairly 
> significant) drawback. If the test-files encourage people to see 
> problems where there aren't any, it would probably be best to remove 
> them from the site. (Who's going to remember this explanation in five 
> year's time?)
> 
> Thanks for passing on the explanation, Robert. For the record, i'm 
> using a calibrated LaCie Electron Blue IV CRT monitor.
> 
> Best.
> 
> graham
>