Digital BW, The Print

I experimented with 360/720 on and off for years, and when I got my beater 3000 I send it 180. Like many suggestions here, results may vary, but it gives you a place to experiment from. 

gar

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 6/3/08 at 12:04 AM Andre Moreau wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>Lately I have been exchanging emails with Ctein * on the subject of
>rezzing-up and upsampling and resolving what Jeff Schewe and the late
>Bruce Fraser have basically said: «If the native resolution of an
>image fall between 180 and 480ppi, just sent the file to the printer»
>
>After reading his emails a few times, I decided to share with you his
>observations, which, IMHO, may be of interest to the members this
>list. As for myself, I think I've learned a lot from his emails and
>will certainly review the way I print.
>
>"Dear Andre, 
>
>Broadly, I agree with Schewe and Fraser. 180 PPI is a bit low for my
>taste for smaller prints (up to 11 x 14). I've got pretty sharp eyes
>and I can see the pixelation at that resolution. 240 PPI and above
>really isn't a problem. If you're talking about larger prints, 180
>would be fine. As for the high end, there's really no reason to ever
>resample, unless your computer is choking on the size of the file. It
>doesn't matter whether you send the printer 500 PPI, 1000 PP or even
>2000 PPI; it'll simply print as much detail as it can and that's it. 
>
>Related to that is the "base resolution" issue. That term is something
>of a misnomer with modern printers. All of the "photo-quality"
>printers can reproduce considerably finer detail than 300/360 PPi.
>Even the Epson 2200, the least sharp printer I've tested in the past
>five years, reproduced 450 PPI; the best printers I've used can
>reproduce 800-1000 PPI worth of fine detail. If I have a higher
>resolution file, I would never down-sample it to a mere 360/300 PPI
>for output; I would just be throwing away detail. 
>
>There are VERY subtle artifacts that turn up with "non-native" PPI's,
>but I can only see them in carefully designed and very artificial test
>charts and they're down near the single-pixel level. They're
>completely invisible in a regular photograph. It's an entirely
>ignorable effect with modern printers. 
>
>~ pax \ Ctein" 
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>It's just Ctein, no "Mr." in front of it. We're all friends, here. 
>
>I'm glad I could be of help. Yes, there is a lot of old, obsolete
>"wisdom" out there. Plus there is some accurate yet misleading testing
>going on as well. Some folks use special test targets to determine the
>point where the printer starts introducing artifacts into the image
>and assert that that's limiting resolution of the printer. That's only
>true if you're using it for scientific purposes where you need 100%
>perfect fidelity of reproduction. From a photographer's point of view,
>the limiting resolution is the one where throwing finer detail at the
>printer doesn't give you any more detail in the print, and that's
>several times finer detail than the level at which no distortions at
>all occur. 
>
>~ pax \ Ctein 
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I don't believe I wrote anything particularly embarrassing [ smile ],
>so feel free to quote me. 
>
>I read Mike's column at the link you provided, and I think he gives a
>pretty good assessment of the situation. There is one important point
>he didn't mention; printing to a dye-sublimation printer is different
>from printing to an inkjet printer. There are good reasons to
>re-sample an image to the native resolution of a continuous tone
>printer like dye-sublimation, because they really do operate with a
>fixed pixel pitch. There is never an advantage that I can see to
>downsampling an image to the "native resolution" of an inkjet printer.
>Sending less detail to the printer just to match the native resolution
>will always produce a less detailed print and won't make a visible
>difference in terms of odd artifacts. 
>
>~ pax \ Ctein 
>
>
>* Ctein is a photographer, master printer and scientist. He has a
>double degree from Caltech in English and Physics.
>
>Mike's column refers to Mike Chaney.