R
Ron Cohen
GP said:
Nope, you didn't ruin my day. I rather enjoy the comic relief of reading
your postings. Just for your benefit, I didn't top post this reply.
Nope, you didn't ruin my day. I rather enjoy the comic relief of reading
your postings. Just for your benefit, I didn't top post this reply.
M
mpx
The argument about using paper in office is not valid for the discussion
about printing color photos. Offices are often legally required to use paper
documents. In other cases of printing it's about the quality difference
between a print and a screeen and comfort of use. ~100dpi screen is no match
for 1200 dpi print. And you have a choice of a lot of comfortable positions
and places for reading a paper print vs. watching straight in one direction
when using a computer. Also there's little cost problem with printing text -
paper for printing text is cheap, toner for printing text is cheap, laser
printing text is very fast - with real speed of office printers usually
above 20 pages per minute. It's different with photos, with extraorbitant
prices of paper and ink, and slow printing you just waste your money and
time as compared with using electronic version.
about printing color photos. Offices are often legally required to use paper
documents. In other cases of printing it's about the quality difference
between a print and a screeen and comfort of use. ~100dpi screen is no match
for 1200 dpi print. And you have a choice of a lot of comfortable positions
and places for reading a paper print vs. watching straight in one direction
when using a computer. Also there's little cost problem with printing text -
paper for printing text is cheap, toner for printing text is cheap, laser
printing text is very fast - with real speed of office printers usually
above 20 pages per minute. It's different with photos, with extraorbitant
prices of paper and ink, and slow printing you just waste your money and
time as compared with using electronic version.
A
Arthur Entlich
It's interesting... we just had our first major snowfall here, and our
home just lost the electricity for about 1 second, but it was enough to
reset my computer, so I lost my reply to this message. (Actually, this
was yesterday, and after 4 outages, I gave up. We now seem to have a
more stable power situation (Famous last words ;-))
Now, had I been using a typewriter or pen and paper, it would have been
there when the lights went back on. Yes, I know I could buy a battery
back up UPS, and spend more money on toxic battery components, but I
don't own one.
So, were was I...
Certainly not from me, you aren't. I have absolutely no affiliation
with any printer, paper or ink manufacturer, other than that they get
my money to use the stuff and I sell my intellectual property to people
via ink and paper, (it used to be via photo paper, but I no longer can
work in that media due to allergies). So, you are not getting that bias
from me. People do buy my images in many formats, including digital
electronically, in fact, I imagine quite a few people have in their
possession some of my images on CDs and don't know it, if they own just
about any Corel product.
Hardly, in fact CD and DVD are some of the main culprits. You obviously
have not been keeping up on the reporting and tests. Besides all the
older CDs that won't read in newer equipment and vice versa, the medium
itself is unreliable. I don't know if you are aware that one time write
CDs and DVDs use organic dyes not dissimilar from that used in color
photo emulsions.
The problem is color photos are not subjected to laser beam lighting
typically, and small microscopic changes in the photo media do not cause
the whole image to become non-viewable. While commercially produced
"stamped" DVDs and CDs are relatively secure, now that "laser rot has
been dealt with (it was never "laser rot", it was corrosion of the
aluminized reflective surface due to poor bonding and sealing and bad
lacquers), home burned optical media are a whole other kettle of fish.
The lasers in burner and readers have changed numerous times, both in
intensity and wavelength. The dye formulas used in the disks have
changed HUNDREDS of times, because they found some simply didn't hold up
as expected. Some fade or fail from being used and read by the laser
beam itself, some fail in dark keeping and some fail in regular room light.
Some fail due to bad bonding, bad reflective coatings (which have also
changed from aluminum to silver to gold and silver alloys to sputtered
gold (which is the most reliable, but is hard to come by, because it is
way too costly, when most people expect to pay $.20 cents for a CD-R
these days.)
Hard to keep that 19" monitor (let alone the computer it's attached too)
in an easy to carry, inexpensive format yet.
If people make choices based upon industry's desires, then they get what
industry wants. I give (most) people more credit, and hope they dictate
what they wish, rather than the other way around. This battle of
consumer rights versus corporate sales models is far from over.
Art
home just lost the electricity for about 1 second, but it was enough to
reset my computer, so I lost my reply to this message. (Actually, this
was yesterday, and after 4 outages, I gave up. We now seem to have a
more stable power situation (Famous last words ;-))
Now, had I been using a typewriter or pen and paper, it would have been
there when the lights went back on. Yes, I know I could buy a battery
back up UPS, and spend more money on toxic battery components, but I
don't own one.
So, were was I...
And I wonder if it doesn't have to do with some arguments we get here
Certainly not from me, you aren't. I have absolutely no affiliation
with any printer, paper or ink manufacturer, other than that they get
my money to use the stuff and I sell my intellectual property to people
via ink and paper, (it used to be via photo paper, but I no longer can
work in that media due to allergies). So, you are not getting that bias
from me. People do buy my images in many formats, including digital
electronically, in fact, I imagine quite a few people have in their
possession some of my images on CDs and don't know it, if they own just
about any Corel product.
Hardly, in fact CD and DVD are some of the main culprits. You obviously
have not been keeping up on the reporting and tests. Besides all the
older CDs that won't read in newer equipment and vice versa, the medium
itself is unreliable. I don't know if you are aware that one time write
CDs and DVDs use organic dyes not dissimilar from that used in color
photo emulsions.
The problem is color photos are not subjected to laser beam lighting
typically, and small microscopic changes in the photo media do not cause
the whole image to become non-viewable. While commercially produced
"stamped" DVDs and CDs are relatively secure, now that "laser rot has
been dealt with (it was never "laser rot", it was corrosion of the
aluminized reflective surface due to poor bonding and sealing and bad
lacquers), home burned optical media are a whole other kettle of fish.
The lasers in burner and readers have changed numerous times, both in
intensity and wavelength. The dye formulas used in the disks have
changed HUNDREDS of times, because they found some simply didn't hold up
as expected. Some fade or fail from being used and read by the laser
beam itself, some fail in dark keeping and some fail in regular room light.
Some fail due to bad bonding, bad reflective coatings (which have also
changed from aluminum to silver to gold and silver alloys to sputtered
gold (which is the most reliable, but is hard to come by, because it is
way too costly, when most people expect to pay $.20 cents for a CD-R
these days.)
Hard to keep that 19" monitor (let alone the computer it's attached too)
in an easy to carry, inexpensive format yet.
If my video card had 64MB ram instead of a measly 32 (My first computer
must have had 256k
and I would get better quality than what I have now. But I do find that
at 1280 x 1024, it's already pertty goood.
Don't worry! People from "the industry" will still be there to dictate
their desires.
If people make choices based upon industry's desires, then they get what
industry wants. I give (most) people more credit, and hope they dictate
what they wish, rather than the other way around. This battle of
consumer rights versus corporate sales models is far from over.
Art
R
Roy
It is even more simple.
In 1960, I took up photography as a hobby, pastime (or as S.W.M.B.O. would
describe it - an obsession), in order to make Prints.
In those days it was Black & White only, and for Competition work 20 x 16
inches. I have progressed (?) through printing from Col Neg using the wet
process to nowadays using a Digital Camera, Computer and Inkjet Printer. I
like to make big Prints, so use the Epson 1290.
There is still a sense of wonder when that print starts to come out of the
Printer, certainly not as much as when watching a Mono Print develop in a
tray of solution, but that Magic is still there.
People who want to make prints, are perfectly entitled to do so, because
that is what gives them pleasure. If the Prints produced give other people
pleasure, then so much the better.
If GP and others do not share that pleasure, then so be it. It is their
loss.
I would insist that anyone who wants to stick to Electronic Display Only,
should be allowed to do so, that is their choice.
Do not attempt to Force your Opinions on to others, and do not Insult anyone
who takes a different view to yourself.
You could, as the Posh Kelvinside People, say "Have your posterior furth of
the Casement". As an East End Glaswegian, I might have put it more plainly.
Roy
In 1960, I took up photography as a hobby, pastime (or as S.W.M.B.O. would
describe it - an obsession), in order to make Prints.
In those days it was Black & White only, and for Competition work 20 x 16
inches. I have progressed (?) through printing from Col Neg using the wet
process to nowadays using a Digital Camera, Computer and Inkjet Printer. I
like to make big Prints, so use the Epson 1290.
There is still a sense of wonder when that print starts to come out of the
Printer, certainly not as much as when watching a Mono Print develop in a
tray of solution, but that Magic is still there.
People who want to make prints, are perfectly entitled to do so, because
that is what gives them pleasure. If the Prints produced give other people
pleasure, then so much the better.
If GP and others do not share that pleasure, then so be it. It is their
loss.
I would insist that anyone who wants to stick to Electronic Display Only,
should be allowed to do so, that is their choice.
Do not attempt to Force your Opinions on to others, and do not Insult anyone
who takes a different view to yourself.
You could, as the Posh Kelvinside People, say "Have your posterior furth of
the Casement". As an East End Glaswegian, I might have put it more plainly.
Roy
H
Hecate
Actually, it makes no sense at all, except in the specific case where
you aren't addressing the original posters comments but are just
adding some thoughts of your own. In all other cases you should post
below, directly under the point you addressing otherwise who in hell
knows what you're trying to say?
A
Arthur Entlich
So, why think small when you can think big for much cheaper?
There, now I've given you some compromise ... I'm "bottom posting" ;-)
As to your question...
Maybe we aren't all size queens? ;-)
Maybe our vision is better than yours?
Maybe some of us have a group of friends and like to give out our snaps
to friends and we aren't too cheap as to not pay for a couple dozen pics
every so often. Maybe we don't all have friends with 19" or 21" screens?
I think you will find a posting where I mention I do agree with you and
that my next major exhibition will be larger than your 19" monitor.
However, I do not plan on buying a few dozen 19" CRTs or LCD screens to
do the exhibit, so they will be prints. If I can get a nice government
grant, and the new OLED technology gets good enough, or other screen
technology becomes good enough and cheap enough, maybe I'll design a
gallery which is covered with a bunch of screens, and then the artist
will just have to bring in a burned CD and the exhibition will be
"electronically mounted".
Art
Art
There, now I've given you some compromise ... I'm "bottom posting" ;-)
As to your question...
Maybe we aren't all size queens? ;-)
Maybe our vision is better than yours?
Maybe some of us have a group of friends and like to give out our snaps
to friends and we aren't too cheap as to not pay for a couple dozen pics
every so often. Maybe we don't all have friends with 19" or 21" screens?
I think you will find a posting where I mention I do agree with you and
that my next major exhibition will be larger than your 19" monitor.
However, I do not plan on buying a few dozen 19" CRTs or LCD screens to
do the exhibit, so they will be prints. If I can get a nice government
grant, and the new OLED technology gets good enough, or other screen
technology becomes good enough and cheap enough, maybe I'll design a
gallery which is covered with a bunch of screens, and then the artist
will just have to bring in a burned CD and the exhibition will be
"electronically mounted".
Art
Art
G
GP
mpx said:
This a valid argument.
I'm not sure this argument is as valid. We are used to set our monitors to
have characters the same size as on paper. Since the definition is not as
good, some people find them harder to read.
But the horizontal size of a 19" monitor being 14 1/2 inches versus 6 1/2 for
a paper sheet with 1" margins, you can make characters size more than twice as
wide before they fit the screen. (The adjustment is simply made by pressing
CTRL - in Linux. There must be an equivalent for Windows.) Let's say the
matrix of a character is 2 x 3 (1), its surface will now be 4 x 6, four times
bigger!!
(1) I don't known the exact measurements, but I'm certainly not overstating.
Of course, the definition will still be only /equivalent/ to 200 dpi, but ask
somebody who's got eyesight problems if he wouldn't read characters four times
bigger with less resolution.
A monitor screen being wider than high, the whole page won't fit onscreen. But
you can make the taskbar disappear with a simple click and the toolbars at the
top of most softwares -- browsers, text editors, spreadsheets, etc. -- simply
by pressing F11 (in KDE Linux). Now, you've got a screen!
Then, who cares that you can't read the whole page at a glance? They even put
a scroll wheel on mice to help scrolling. OTOH, when you use a decent browser,
even with Windows, Firefox comes to mind, you can open fifteen documents
located all over the planet and compare them with a click by opening each into
a different tab. You can save a set of tabs for further reference and even
have them open by default when you open your browser.
And you can *search* the documents for what you're intereted in. You can cut
and the paste a word in your dictionary tab and see the definition almost
instantly, you can search Google or EB, find a phone number, check if a parcel
was delivered, whatever, and finally, save documents for easy retrieval and
send it in an instant to other side of the world.
And, when you're not in a 1900 mindset, as Art Entlich is, you can easily
quote the text you're reading and exchange with the advantages of both speech
and writing.
Except for legal purposes or, maybe, reading a long book, paper is out. It's
out the same way typewriters were the day the first computer appeared.
Needless to say, I'm really pissed off that Canon once again refused to
provide the necessary information to fix my BJ-300 printer. I would have done
fine with it for years to come.
Oh, I almost forgot, everybody. Clean that screen! When you're away, your cat
puts it's nose on it to try to find out what your looking at all day. And even
the most antistatic screen gathers dirt like hell. (Antistatic is another
overstatement!) Bring the picture to the outer edges. Set the focus right,
adjust parallels and pincushing, clear the moiré, if you have this adjustment.
Maybe your monitor is better than you think! And clean those glasses too!
I know this sounds ridiculous but I've seen optometrists with their famous
antistatic plastic lenses so dirty it gave ME staggers!
I'm afraid you won't read your email and do searches on the internet looking
in all directions. If it's important to you to look in all direction while
reading your morning paper or your company's financial report, buy a laptop.
You can get a fairy decent one, even wireless, for $1300 CAN. If you calculate
your time at minimum wage, it will ne more than worth it.
It's much cheaper than it used to be. This often happens when a technology is
mature and... obsolete.
Once again, if you compare the surface of an 8 x 10" print to that of a 19"
screen, the latter is almost double (155, sq, inch.) And it's lighted from behind.
Now, about printers' dpi... Epson says, its Stylus C86 provides 5760 optimized
dpi printing. I tried to find the definition of "optimized dpi" on Epson's site:
<http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/...egory=&BV_UseBVCookie=yes&product=&technical=>
and it's nowhere to be found. Seems to me there's a lot of
extra-small-paul-ation here. Say "optimized dpi", I hear "bullshit dpi", even
on the most horrible glossiest of the glossy papers. (When I was a
photographer, I never printed anything on glossy paper that wasn't destined to
papers or magazines for ulterior reprinting.)
Take only 1200 dpi, that's 150 /different/ drops of ink in 1/8" or 3.2 mm.
Look at your ruler, try to figure what it means. Now, try to still figure 5
times smaller. Personaly, my mind-vernier has closed way before getting there.
Too bad uncle Wilheim isn't checking this too!
Thank you for bringing forward some very valid arguments, dear mpx, but IMO,
the case agains paper goes further. It's really out. Done. Finished. Kaput!
GP
G
GP
Roy said:
I most probably printed more pictures than you ever did, not so much as a
photographer, but when I was a laboratory technician at Man and his World. I
dodged and burned, heated here with the palm of my hand, stopped the reaction
there with a little stop bath, etc. I sometimes dropped negatives in wood
alcool to save a few minutes on drying time. No trick, in book or not, that I
didn't know of.
When I saw what's possible with an image manipulation program, I had no regret
for the golden era. Retouching was an art of it's own at the time and very few
people practiced it. Now, everybody can. Hurray, for the new technology! Check
photo.net.
Some journalists, I am told, felt there was a "sense of wonder", in pasting
little pieces of paper over their already typed article before they sent it to
typography, but I'm not one of those. The minute I saw a computer, I wanted
one, so badly it hurt.
But the darned thing was too expensive. Finally, I got an end of the line 286
and, at 37 years old, I was more exhilarated than when I got my first bicycle
at age 6.
If you have a "sense of wonder when that print starts to come out of the
Printer" and fell nothing when it appears all of a sudden on a monitor, I
suggest you see a psychiatrist.
GP
A
Arthur Entlich
Maybe I just live in a wonderfully multi-ethinic environment here. I
know more people who are immigrants to Canada than those born here, and
many come from countries which do not have highly evolved technology
environments. I am regularly asked to make prints for people I take
pictures of so they can send copies to family members.
Also, when we travel, same thing. We use model releases and the people
we photograph casually get a couple of 4"x6" prints as their tangible
payment for the contract. That's a pretty standard method to deal with
travel model releases.
I will merrily be a "dimwit" if it will distinguish me from you ;-)
The link you supplied is being interpreted as an email address by one of
my web browsers and I get a "page cannot be displayed" on the other.
Art
know more people who are immigrants to Canada than those born here, and
many come from countries which do not have highly evolved technology
environments. I am regularly asked to make prints for people I take
pictures of so they can send copies to family members.
Also, when we travel, same thing. We use model releases and the people
we photograph casually get a couple of 4"x6" prints as their tangible
payment for the contract. That's a pretty standard method to deal with
travel model releases.
I will merrily be a "dimwit" if it will distinguish me from you ;-)
The link you supplied is being interpreted as an email address by one of
my web browsers and I get a "page cannot be displayed" on the other.
Art
A
Arthur Entlich
You have no idea what I look like. ;-) I may seem like a "senile dimwit"
to you, but I'm not the one repeating myself... If you think
continually lecturing me (or more to the point, trying to insult me)
about my posting style, will cause me to change it, you are mistaken.
And, if you keep it up, you will simply put an end to my top posting, in
fact to all my posting, regarding your messages.
Art
to you, but I'm not the one repeating myself... If you think
continually lecturing me (or more to the point, trying to insult me)
about my posting style, will cause me to change it, you are mistaken.
And, if you keep it up, you will simply put an end to my top posting, in
fact to all my posting, regarding your messages.
Art
A
Arthur Entlich
Except people do leave full messages quoted regularly, and I could
probably prove statistically that more people do so than edit. It is
one of the many reasons why I top post. I used to spend time editing
down quotes, but finding almost no one else bothered, I changed tact. In
using top posting, I can leave the full content of the thread (within
limits) intact so the "full story" is there for those who wish to read
it and jump in. This is even more important now that newsgroups tend to
skim older messages off threads after a limited time.
Top posting will become standard protocol within the next few years, for
this reason and the use of smaller and smaller portable and handheld
devices, some with rather slow scrolling speeds.
For people like myself, who reads many hundreds of postings and emails
daily and spends a lot of time answering queries, it saves a tremendous
amount of time, and makes me much more efficient. It is a minor
inconvenience for those who are reading the postings, and have poor
memories to the run of the thread.
Art
probably prove statistically that more people do so than edit. It is
one of the many reasons why I top post. I used to spend time editing
down quotes, but finding almost no one else bothered, I changed tact. In
using top posting, I can leave the full content of the thread (within
limits) intact so the "full story" is there for those who wish to read
it and jump in. This is even more important now that newsgroups tend to
skim older messages off threads after a limited time.
Top posting will become standard protocol within the next few years, for
this reason and the use of smaller and smaller portable and handheld
devices, some with rather slow scrolling speeds.
For people like myself, who reads many hundreds of postings and emails
daily and spends a lot of time answering queries, it saves a tremendous
amount of time, and makes me much more efficient. It is a minor
inconvenience for those who are reading the postings, and have poor
memories to the run of the thread.
Art
A
Arthur Entlich
Was that a reward for the comic relief? ;-)
Yes, this thread is getting old fast ;-)
Art
Ron Cohen wrote:
Yes, this thread is getting old fast ;-)
Art
Ron Cohen wrote:
G
GP
Arthur said:
Or, if your software doesn't have an autosave feature, you could do CTRL + S
more often.
Ok. I suppose you don't send prints to magazine these days since they can
print directly from the file. So you sell printed pictures to exhibit, at
home, in companies, in museums, etc. I've got no problem with this, but that's
nor what Joe Average is doing mainly doing with his printer. Joe Average
doesn't need small prints and should see people like you for larger ones. Or,
they should get together in a photo or a Linux club and get a printer for the
whole bunch. MUCH less trouble! The ink doesn't dry so often
I know many people use noname CD because they're the cheapest. Because I'm
very rich
for a few dollars more, I buy HP's CD. No problem yet.I've seen CD so bad that the surface would scratch off with a nail. The next
one in the pile was... ok, of course, and the guy kept using them. If you ask
for trouble, you get trouble.
And, whereas yon can put more than 3000 pictures on a CD, those people will
pay at least a dollar for paper and ink to print an 8 x 10. Are you trying to
prove MY point, now?
You don't carry the monitor. You send the picture via email.
When I bought my end of the line 19" Samsung monitor 3 years ago, I could have
got an LG 17" Flatron /beginning of the line/, advertised on TV and in
magazines all over the world for hardly 25$ more. The screen was flat, flat,
really flat, and that was apparently fabulous.
There was only a little problem that apparently only I noticed: the screen
seemed to cave in in the middle. The first time, I removed my glasses to see
if that was not the problem, but no. Glasses, no glasses made no difference.
I then really thought I had a serious eyesight problem and began asking
salesmen if, by any chance, they didn't notice the screen looked like it caved
in. Oh, maybe, yes, somehow, it looked like... but, after a while, you
apparently got "used to it."
Shit man! I did't want to buy a $375 monitor to get "used to it". I prefered
the other way around, that the monitor get used to me!
Sony monitors were flat too. They had those two little white lines running
horizontally, but I didn't care too much about it. But even 17" models were
too expensive.
So, there was this 19" end of the line monitor that the accountant of a shop
on Guy street was using that I thought looked pretty good. Vertically, only,
there was a curve, a bit less than 5/16 of an inch, maybe. But he image
stretched to he casing, the focus was perfect in the corners, the parallel
lines were really parallel and, for as much as I knew, the contrast ratio
seemed excellent. The screen didn't seem to cave in and I just luuuved those 2
extra inches.
So I asked the owner if he wasn't, by any chance, willing to sell it. He
seemed hesitant but finally gave his OK.
Even today, mainly when they see pictures fullscreen on it, people think I
paid a fortune for my monitor. So why were LG monitors selling like crazy and
Samsung monitors not selling so well? (There were also newer monitors from
Samsung selling for hardly more.) Because of publicity.
Exemples of this phenomenon are endless, but I prefer this one because it
shows that, given a proper brainwash, people come to not even trust their own
senses. They look, but they don't see.
Now, you'll understand that I can't provide a picture that would show you any
better that the ones you got how good a picture looks on a monitor. But, when
mpx writes:
«In other cases of printing it's about the quality difference between a print
and a screeen and comfort of use. ~100dpi screen is no match for 1200 dpi print.»
I can indeed show the contrary.
Maybe you've heard about the The Internet Engineering Task Force. I suppose
you might alsp know what an RFC is. You'll agree, I suppose that it's not he
kind of document written by loonies who had nothing to do on a given
afternoon. So the first paragraph on the gif you'll find here:
http://www.enter-net.com/~gpelleti/misc/fonts.jpg
might be of interest to you.
Notice that I could have made characters still larger, but I preferred to keep
an equivalent of 80 characters per line /with/ margins.
Yes, the taskbar has disappeared. So, I switch between applications the way it
should be done, with ALT-TAB and, if need be, I open new applications with ALT+F2.
You see all my tab. 1st for plain browsing, 2nd for advanced Google search,
3rd for advanced Group Google search, followings for french, english,
french-english dictionaries, then maporama, which is much better than
mapquest, french synonym dictionary, last for plain browsing again. F11 gives
me back my personal toolbar and my bookmarks.
Look at my jpg, it's uncompressed. So, it shouldn't look too bad. Tell me if
you believe it would be easier to read on paper, even with the famous 5760
optimized dpi
GP
G
GP
Arthur said:
Full bullshit.
GP
G
GP
Hecate said:
In which case you need to delete the text you're not answering to.
Check:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Top-posting is the most acurate way to trace dimwits. There's no way around it.
GP
G
GP
Arthur said:
Once again, no wonder the industry is thriving!
GP
G
GP
Arthur said:
You mean dimwits who say they've been on nntp service for ten years and
pretend that top posting is perfectly allright because their knowledge is so
precious, should go on unhampered? Sorry, you're setting a bad habit for the
people who are just joining in.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
GP
G
GP
Arthur said:
And of course, your friends are all in Third World countries and you can't
email them. How long will you repeat this stupidity. I'm getting fed up taking
notice of it.
GP
A
Arthur Entlich
Looks like it is time for another "top posted" lesson on the meaning of
terms.
First off, a disclaimer. To all those "nitpickers" out there, this is a
simplified explanation of how inkjet printers lay down color. I am
fully aware there are much more subtle and sophisticated methods that
inkjet printer drivers use to create gradients and images edges, but
this posting is for educational purposes and I do not want to further
complicate the process.
=========================
When a printer company indicates a dpi number, it is not translatable to
a ppi rating. A ppi number is "pixel(s) per inch", and it is indeed
what your monitor shows. Each pixel is made up of one luminosity level
(lightness) and one hue (color).
In most cases today, the video card in your computer can create 256
levels of brightness for each of three colors, Red, Green and Blue.
Each pixel on your screen is comprised of a brightness number from 0 to
255 in each of these colors. So, pure black is 0,0,0 and pure white is
255, 255, 255.
A pure red is XXX, 0, 0
A pure green is 0, XXX, 0
A pure Blue is 0, 0, XXX
XXX equals a number from 1 to 254
If every color under this system could be represented, there would be
over 16 million colors.
So, one pixel on most monitors, at least theoretically, can be one of
16 million colors. This is called continuous tone.
The problem is, the same cannot be accomplished with inkjet printers,
not even close. For simplicity, let's discuss a 4 color printer (CMYK),
and since black isn't a real color, but the absence of color, let's cut
it out of the equation for now also.
How many colors can those three inks make in any one "dot" of ink if
only one dot is allowed per ink color?
C=Cyan (Turquoise)
M=Magenta (Hot pink)
Y=Yellow
R=Red
G=Green
B=Blue
K=Black
C = C
C + M = B
M = M
M + Y = R
Y = Y
C + Y = G
C + M + Y = K (Proceed Black)
OK, now what to do about Orange, Purple, Brown, and all those colors in
between?
The only way to accomplish this, is to mix a variety of the base colors
in different quantities, plus use the white of the paper.
So, an orange, for instance, is going to be a mixture of magenta and
yellow, with more yellow dots than magenta ones. And a purple is cyan
and magenta with either more magenta for a red-purple, or more cyan, for
a bluer purple. Most browns are made by differing amounts of all three
(C, M and Y). The main purpose of the true black ink is to add
contrast. and darken the process black which tends to be muddy. It can
also save ink, since one drop of black can substitute for a drop of all
three.
Ah, suddenly we see that to create one pixel representation on paper, we
need quite a few drops, like maybe 12 or 16.
Printers with more ink colors, or variations of droplet size and ink
densities need less dots to create the same amount of colors. However,
if the printer is fast enough and the dots small enough, the effect can
look quite similar with just the 3 colors plus black ink. Even so, most
inkjet printers probably cannot produce more than about 64,000 colors.
However, our eyes don't really distinguish the 16 million a monitor can
theoretically produce. That's in part why we can get away with using
Jpeg Compression on a photographic image and not notice the losses.
Back to printers: When a printer states it can offer 1200, or 2400 or
even 5600 dpi, that doesn't mean that every dot is created. In fact, if
every drop was, the paper would be saturated with ink, since the dots
are not small enough to fit. Instead, dots are laid down in a manner to
represent a color pixel. The number used by inkjet companies is the
number of addressable locations. This may take the head going over an
area several times to create that many locations.
Truthfully, most people see little different at viewing distance between
a print printed at 5600 as one printed about 1200 dpi. But the printers
can truly address those locations, however, rarely, if ever will they be
addresses right next to one another, instead dots are moved to make as
accurate a dot pattern as possible.
The best inkjet printers formulate their dot pattern positions at about
1400 dpi, however, in terms of how our eyes operate, this translates to
at best a 400 dpi full color image, which is about equal to a well made
custom 4" x 6" color print made using wet photographic techniques from a
35mm neg. Most "drugstore" prints are about half that.
With proper use of unsharp masking and other techniques, an quality
inkjet printer can surpass a wet photography print, equating similar
source image size.
Art
GP wrote:
terms.
First off, a disclaimer. To all those "nitpickers" out there, this is a
simplified explanation of how inkjet printers lay down color. I am
fully aware there are much more subtle and sophisticated methods that
inkjet printer drivers use to create gradients and images edges, but
this posting is for educational purposes and I do not want to further
complicate the process.
=========================
When a printer company indicates a dpi number, it is not translatable to
a ppi rating. A ppi number is "pixel(s) per inch", and it is indeed
what your monitor shows. Each pixel is made up of one luminosity level
(lightness) and one hue (color).
In most cases today, the video card in your computer can create 256
levels of brightness for each of three colors, Red, Green and Blue.
Each pixel on your screen is comprised of a brightness number from 0 to
255 in each of these colors. So, pure black is 0,0,0 and pure white is
255, 255, 255.
A pure red is XXX, 0, 0
A pure green is 0, XXX, 0
A pure Blue is 0, 0, XXX
XXX equals a number from 1 to 254
If every color under this system could be represented, there would be
over 16 million colors.
So, one pixel on most monitors, at least theoretically, can be one of
16 million colors. This is called continuous tone.
The problem is, the same cannot be accomplished with inkjet printers,
not even close. For simplicity, let's discuss a 4 color printer (CMYK),
and since black isn't a real color, but the absence of color, let's cut
it out of the equation for now also.
How many colors can those three inks make in any one "dot" of ink if
only one dot is allowed per ink color?
C=Cyan (Turquoise)
M=Magenta (Hot pink)
Y=Yellow
R=Red
G=Green
B=Blue
K=Black
C = C
C + M = B
M = M
M + Y = R
Y = Y
C + Y = G
C + M + Y = K (Proceed Black)
OK, now what to do about Orange, Purple, Brown, and all those colors in
between?
The only way to accomplish this, is to mix a variety of the base colors
in different quantities, plus use the white of the paper.
So, an orange, for instance, is going to be a mixture of magenta and
yellow, with more yellow dots than magenta ones. And a purple is cyan
and magenta with either more magenta for a red-purple, or more cyan, for
a bluer purple. Most browns are made by differing amounts of all three
(C, M and Y). The main purpose of the true black ink is to add
contrast. and darken the process black which tends to be muddy. It can
also save ink, since one drop of black can substitute for a drop of all
three.
Ah, suddenly we see that to create one pixel representation on paper, we
need quite a few drops, like maybe 12 or 16.
Printers with more ink colors, or variations of droplet size and ink
densities need less dots to create the same amount of colors. However,
if the printer is fast enough and the dots small enough, the effect can
look quite similar with just the 3 colors plus black ink. Even so, most
inkjet printers probably cannot produce more than about 64,000 colors.
However, our eyes don't really distinguish the 16 million a monitor can
theoretically produce. That's in part why we can get away with using
Jpeg Compression on a photographic image and not notice the losses.
Back to printers: When a printer states it can offer 1200, or 2400 or
even 5600 dpi, that doesn't mean that every dot is created. In fact, if
every drop was, the paper would be saturated with ink, since the dots
are not small enough to fit. Instead, dots are laid down in a manner to
represent a color pixel. The number used by inkjet companies is the
number of addressable locations. This may take the head going over an
area several times to create that many locations.
Truthfully, most people see little different at viewing distance between
a print printed at 5600 as one printed about 1200 dpi. But the printers
can truly address those locations, however, rarely, if ever will they be
addresses right next to one another, instead dots are moved to make as
accurate a dot pattern as possible.
The best inkjet printers formulate their dot pattern positions at about
1400 dpi, however, in terms of how our eyes operate, this translates to
at best a 400 dpi full color image, which is about equal to a well made
custom 4" x 6" color print made using wet photographic techniques from a
35mm neg. Most "drugstore" prints are about half that.
With proper use of unsharp masking and other techniques, an quality
inkjet printer can surpass a wet photography print, equating similar
source image size.
Art
GP wrote:
A
Arthur Entlich
I don't even know where to start.
I guess for you, sex is about "giclee" and nothing else; anything before
or after is what? Just a waste of time?
Art
For those who don't know french "Giclee" (I have no patience for
finding my alternative character chart for the accent) means "to spit,
spray or squirt"
Art
GP wrote:
I guess for you, sex is about "giclee" and nothing else; anything before
or after is what? Just a waste of time?
Art
For those who don't know french "Giclee" (I have no patience for
finding my alternative character chart for the accent) means "to spit,
spray or squirt"
Art
GP wrote: