I couldn't (and probably didn't) say it better myself ;-) Art
Rob Geraghty wrote: > "SKID Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic dithering >> > pattern to represent pixels that film > >>grain and scan pixels (samples, whatever) are equivalent in regards to the >> > amount of information they impart > >>to an inkjet printer? >> > > I think Art was saying that the relationship between pixels in the file and > dots on the page isn't clear cut because the dither pattern used by the > printer driver is random and therefore undoes some of the regularity of the > pixels. The print ends up looking smoother than say a monitor image because > the printer shadings aren't constructed as rectilinear sharp edged objects > but random spots of colour. > > Rob > > > . > >
