Digital BW, The Print

Todd Flashner wrote:

>  on 2/13/02 6:00 PM, SKID Photography wrote:
>
> > David,
> > Interestingly, the stated dpi for the IXIA is only 300.  I tried going to
> the
> > 'specs list', and the page loaded as code.  IXIA is not very impressive,
> > despite
> > their statement that the 'perceived' dpi is much greater.  Sounds to me like
>
> > the
> > 'Emperor's New Clothes'.  ;-)
>
> If I'm not mistaken the Durst Lambda has a stated dpi of 300 (or 400?) and
> it's really continuous tone for all practical purposes, so I think "stated"
> dpi is one of those misleading specs (dare I say, marketing ploys ;-)) in
> this industry. Consider also that the stated dpi is the same for an Epson
> 3000 as it is for a 1270, but their output is miles apart.
>
> Todd
>

Todd,
Is the 'Durst Lambda' a photo output device, as compared to an inkjet device?

And if 300 dpi inkjet output was so great and 'invisible' why is it that
*nobody* prints out at that gross a (inkjet dot , not pixel) resolution?

And the fact that even you acknowledge that there is a difference in the output
quality of an Epson 3000 vs 1270 shows that a change in picoliter droplet size
can be perceived.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]