I'm a little confused by this thread and it makes me wonder if I'm doing
something wrong. When I make prints, all I do is feed my 4000 dpi scan into
the print dialog and tell it to spread the image to the margins (maintaining
correct aspect ratio of course, so there is white border along two parallel
edges unless the image precisely corresponds to the aspect ratio of the
paper). I just let the print drivers figure everything out. I'm using the
Epson 2000P, so can print to the edge of the paper.

Frank Paris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Julie, female Galah (3 1/2 years and going strong at the moment)
Little Birdie, male Splendid Parakeet (13 years)
Snowflake, male cockatiel (12 years)
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi
> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 6:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
>
>
> Guy:  I also am new at this, have an LS-30, and a system with
> much less capacity
> than yours.  I have found (through trial and error)  that the
> system handles the
> scan better if you scan at 2700 set at the original negative
> size, then play
> with it in a processing package like Photoshop.  When I print it
> from that file
> at around 300 ppi at the 7 x 10 size, Windows does not seem to
> get frustrated.
>
> Gordon
>
> Guy Prince wrote:
>
> >
> >         What stumped me was when I scanned that same slide at 2650 dpi
> >         and attempted to make a 5 x 7 size image suitable for
> >         printing.  (Within about 30 minutes of using the filmscanner it
> >         was clear that my old PIII 600 with ultra-wide scsi wasn't
> >         going to be enough).  Well, Win98 said I didn't have enough
> >         memory to make a 5 x 7 image.  I was actually shocked and did
> >         some digging around in my memory to see if any unnecessary
> >         programs were loaded.  No.
> >         I have 256mb of ram and 1.6 gigs free on my swap file drive
> >         (c:).
> >
> >         I guess I should knock it back down to 1350 or 1200, that
> >         seems to give me a 4 x 6 print and 5 x 7 okay.
> >
> > Guy
> >
>

Reply via email to