If your printer is not on this list, or you think you can do better, please send me a print so I can add it to the ratings (address at end of post).
Even prints from your older printer are useful.. I, for one, would like to know if better quality is possible from my existing printer than I am getting. I would bet that others of you would like to know that also. Please use the word "challenge" in your posts on this subject so it will be sorted into the appropriate folder where I won't miss it. Maybe we can come up with prizes for 2002 (our friendly Pentax Rep has indicated and interest in seeing this challenge continue), maybe not; but many of you have indicated that you think these ratings are useful. Without your participation there can be no ratings. If we do have prizes same rules will apply: has to be your original photo, and has to be printed by you to be considered for a prize. All prints received will be used in rating printers. Please do not send photo prints, because I don't want to have to return them. PRINTER RATINGS: (only the highest rating for a given printer is listed, based on the assumption that you want to know what the hardware is capable of ) : Canon BJC-620. C- (A poor thing, but my own) Canon S800 F Epson Photo D Epson Photo EX E+ Epson Photo 1270 F Epson Photo 1200 F Epson C-80 E Xerox Tectonics Phaser 850 E HP 722C E Fuji Frontiera. (A ringer submitted by Pentax Rep. Not rated) Some observations: It should be noted that as far as I know, the Epson 800, 870, 890 all use the same technology as the 1200 series so should have similar performance. >From looking at the prints I have been sent, I can say that high-res down-sampled images make better prints than lower res images not re-sampled. Six color printers are far and away better photo printers than 4 color printers. Paper makes a very significant difference in the final appearance of the print. Meaning of ratings: A. Awful (Why did they bother to send this.) B. Better. (Comparable to a newspaper color photo. Common digital printer faults like banding clearly visible) C. Cool (A very nice print, but not photographic in appearance. Some banding visible. Comparable to a magazine photo.) D. Delightful (Nearly photographic quality. Visible halftoning. Slight banding Comparable to a glossy magazine photo.) E. Excellent (Equal to a mini-lab print. No visible banding. No halftoning visible to the naked eye.) F. Fantastic (Equal to a excellent machine print. No halftoning visible with a 4x loupe.) G. Gorgeous (Equal to a custom print) H. Heartwarming. (Equal to a Salon Print) I. Ilfordchrome. (Equal to a custom cibachrome print). In the interest of accuracy, based upon being shown some custom cibachromes by a fine art photographer, I have modified the descriptions for the ratings of F and above. The submitter's have shown me I set my sights too low to start. Ciao, graywolf Ciao, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] PDML Challenge c/o Tom Rittenhouse 4018 Hiddenbrook Dr. Charlotte, NC 28205 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
