Digital BW, The Print

if you are trying to insure the smallest dot sizes are used with the tightest patters, can't 
you just select 2880, or whatever the highest res setting your printer offers?
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> wrote:
>
> Yes. Thanks again. I think I see what you are saying and it would
> effectively be the same. I was looking for a way to have some control,
> however slight, over the dottiness factor with BO as well as achieving
> an enhanced d'max with uncoated papers. It's apparent that I still
> have a long way to go in learning the intricacies of a rip and it's use.
> 
> Regards
> Duane
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> <roy@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > I not sure I follow you exactly but I think what you want is already
> the way it works.
> > You always use the small dots first anyway so if you keep the amount
> of ink low i.e.
> > with low ink limits you will only use small dots.   In other words 3
> channels of
> > ink limit 25 is the same as 1 channel of ink limit 75 for how much
> ink is output.  But
> > its likely that you'll be using mostly small dots instead of the
> whole set of dots.
> > 
> > Roy
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus"
> <dlruckus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Roy. I guess I worded that badly. What I had in mind actually
> > > was fixing the dot size at only one, usually the smallest, as an
> > > option, rather than a set. Then would make up for lesser dot coverage
> > > with multiple channels of K to get d'max and fill in. Am I wrong in
> > > assuming that one could then put maximum ink down with 100% limits for
> > > papers that soak it up, like uncoated ones, while still limiting other
> > > channels and partitioning across the scale? Or would the mechanical
> > > aspects of that smaller dot end up being the equivalent of reducing
> > > limits anyway and counteract the effect?
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > Duane
> > > 
> > >