> > >As has already been pointed out, printing with wet inks (the technology > >basis for home inkjet printers) is limited by the paper; ink spreads and > >merges before it dries. Even the 200-300 dpi figure above is generous > >when it comes to positioning acuracy (wet paper stretches significantly). > > > >A high clay content glossy photo paper is as resistant to ink spread > >as most things, although plastic film will do a little better. But > >you also run into the problem of adjacent droplets merging together > >before they have had time to dry, which constrains the final figure. > > > > > Mightn't that reduce the "pixelation" effect, i.e. produce an effect > somewhat similar to pixel interpolation?
You don't see pixelation effects on 600dpi (or even 300dpi) printing. Most artifacts like that are caused by upsizing from lower-resolution data, and can be pretty much avoided by smarter upsizing software. > > But how about real photo paper, i.e. the variant(s) used by labs and/or > traditional enlargers rather than the inkjet version? They don't print with wet inks, so there's no comparable problem. > Also, would laser printers give better results because the process (as I > understand it) is a lot "drier"? They don't have the problems caused by ink spreading. But, in turn, they don't get the benefit of inkdrop merging, either, so they often have a smaller number of discrete colour values at any given pixel (and it's much harder to get a uniform intensity ramp with dry toner).
