--- Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn't detail be further compromised by larger > droplets? Absolutely. Bigger droplets mean less detail. But, once you get to a certain size, I think the issue becomes a matter of complete subjectivity. Here's what I read recently over at PopPhoto (are those groans I hear? :-P): "The smaller the droplet, the greater the resolution of the print. Small droplets also let you produce finer tonal gradations and highlight details with fewer inks. But, unless you inspect printswith a loupe, you probably dont need to worry much about droplet size once you go below about 4 picoliters. Factors such as paper type and image processing are more likely to determine how smooth and detailed your prints look." > These are just rhetorical reactions to a series of > curiosities. > There has to be a definitive answer lurking > somewhere. I think the answer is just dialing in a good printer to your taste in the end. But, I have to say that I agree that I don't want to start out with a printer with a relatively "large" droplet size. Fortunately both the Canon and the Epson are within the very tiny range (4 for the Canon, 3.5 for the Epson). And yet, printers with larger droplet sizes than these two supposedly also produce amazing results. -Brendan > > Jack > > --- Brendan MacRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > I read something one time about the way different > > papers react to droplet size. The finish either > repels > > or absorbs the inks differently. So, smaller > droplets > > would spread reducing detail in some papers. > > > > -Brendan > > > > --- Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I've always been curious as to whether there > were a > > > direct connection > > > between droplet size and printer resolution. > AEBE, > > > it seems smaller ink > > > droplets would equal finer printed detail.(?) > > > What are the paper considerations? > > > > > > Jack > > > > > > --- Brendan MacRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hum, not sure that smaller droplets always > > > translate > > > > to print detail. The paper is a big variable > here. > > > > However, that's interesting, too. The 2400 has > a > > > huge > > > > following, I know, but it's too small for what > I > > > want > > > > to do. > > > > > > > > -Brendan > > > > > > > > --- Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In keeping with my severe resolution > hang-up, > > > I've > > > > > noted that the R1800 > > > > > advertises having the smallest ink droplets > in > > > the > > > > > industry, 1.5 > > > > > picoliters. The R2400, 3.5 picoliters, but > > > produces > > > > > "superior" B&W > > > > > prints. > > > > > This is my total offering on the subject. > > > > > > > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > > > --- Brendan MacRae > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm going to be putting my digital > darkroom > > > > > together > > > > > > soon and I've decided on everything but > the > > > > > printer at > > > > > > this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > I want a large format ink jet and have > been > > > > > looking at > > > > > > Canon and Epson. Both of the 17" wide > $1800 > > > > > printers > > > > > > have gotten good reviews. I'm leaning > toward > > > the > > > > > Epson > > > > > > since I know a designer who owns an older > > > model > > > > > that > > > > > > produces amazing prints. I've never seen > > > anything > > > > > from > > > > > > a Canon. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, does anyone else use the ColorVision > > > Print > > > > > Fix > > > > > > Pro suite? +'s? -'s? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Brendan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best > spam > > > > > protection around > > > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > > > > PDML@pdml.net > > > > > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best > spam > > > > > protection around > > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > > > PDML@pdml.net > > > > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > > > protection around > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > -- > > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > > PDML@pdml.net > > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > > > protection around > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > PDML@pdml.net > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
