Well said. Jack
--- Brendan MacRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps not. I just hope in the end that the added $'s > translate to something that will "wow" me and more > importantly, "wow" potential clients and anyone else. > > -Brendan > > --- Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Only problem is, I tend to examine even prints with > > a loupe, at least > > intelectually speaking. In a way, it's like having > > 500 hp under the > > hood but not needing it or using it. Still a rush > > knowing it's there. > > Does one "need" camera RAW, etc, etc..? > > > > Jack > > > > --- Brendan MacRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > --- 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 > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ 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
