Digital BW, The Print

yes, you have it exactly.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "c1asia"
<c1asia@...> wrote:
>
> sorry, i'm not quite catching on to your response.  i know the 4000 is
> the resolution of your scan.  but are you saying you then sent all
> 4000 to the printer rather than do any kind of resizing to your
> typical 360 output?  that's just how i read the article.
> 
> "Original images were 4000ppi drum scans from very thin emulsion (long
> discontinued and forgotten brand) 120 B&W negatives. All ink prints
> were done at 100% full 4000ppi on Hahnemuhle PhotoRag 308..."
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, Bruce is right.
> > There is another entire project involving native printer/driver
> > resolution, the potential benifits of giving it info at that res, and
> > if so how best to get there.
> > Definitely beyond the scope of those tests. I chose to overwhelm the
> > drivers with info so there could be no doubt about giving them enough,
> > and also make the potential relevance of the file detail essentially
> moot.
> > Obvioulsy each driver has it's own methods, but I think letting each
> > do it's thing in this case is also part of the evaluation. The intent
> > of the testing was very specific, but implies many other issues beyond
> > it's scope.
> > Tyler
> > http://www.custom-digital.com/
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson
> > <bwyg@> wrote:
> > >
> > > c1asia wrote:
> > > > tyler,
> > > >
> > > > your article says you printed at the full 4000ppi.  don't epson
> > > > printers typically print at a native resolution of 360dpi (or
is it
> > > > 720dpi)?  i'm trying to understand the relationship of the
> 4000ppi to
> > > > the 360dpi.  thanks.
> > > >
> > > >   
> > > One is scanner resolution (4000 spi). One is output resolution
to the 
> > > printer (360ppi).
> > > --
> > > Bruce Watson
> > >
> >
>