+1 :thumbup:And like many who do their own printing, your results likely aren't as good as they could be. Just sayin'.
Joe
Victor
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
+1 :thumbup:And like many who do their own printing, your results likely aren't as good as they could be. Just sayin'.
Joe
I've just about read it all, tried it all, and I've found nothing better, as 288 ppi is apparently the true resolution of Epson printers that are 1440 dpi, and printing out of LR has come a long way.And like many who do their own printing, your results likely aren't as good as they could be. Just sayin'.
Joe
What's the source of this information?...as 288 ppi is apparently the true resolution of Epson printers that are 1440 dpi
There is plenty on the web about it. Here's one pretty comprehensive explantation from Rich that I read a few years back. Second and third post in particular:First time I've ever heard of this..... maybe you could point me to that source.
Victor
Thanks. That reference cites tests that were conducted in 2004 and updated in 2007. Maybe we've seen improvements since then from both Adobe and Epson. Adobe Lightroom wasn't even introduced until 2007, for example. And Epson's current printer line is far superior to the Epson Stylus Photo 2200 that was used in the tests.There is plenty on the web about it. Here's one pretty comprehensive explantation from Rich that I read a few years back. Second and third post in particular:
dpi and ppi confusion' - Leica User Forum
Just a little. I fondly remember bronzing madness and metameric anguish...And Epson's current printer line is far superior to the Epson Stylus Photo 2200 that was used in the tests.
So do I and if I recall correctly, the 2200 was the poster child for these two issues in particular as was the 7600 printers when printing with photo black ink. Of course there are other good examples that could be cited.Just a little. I fondly remember bronzing madness and metameric anguish...
Rich's summary was from 2009, but I'll also leave this alone, because I don't believe there has ever been a thread about this subject that has ended in agreement, including the zillions of LuLa threads about it over the years. I may give 360 ppi another shot.Thanks. That reference cites tests that were conducted in 2004 and updated in 2007. Maybe we've seen improvements since then from both Adobe and Epson. Adobe Lightroom wasn't even introduced until 2007, for example. And Epson's current printer line is far superior to the Epson Stylus Photo 2200 that was used in the tests.
Here's a recent thread on LuLa discussing a similar topic, with Schewe chiming in.
I'm sure there are different ways to skin a cat (my apologies to PETA), and I will now bid this topic (and thread) a fond adieu.
Joe
...and in my experience Epsons will resolve more detail up to 720 PPI if you have enough resolution to send!Ever since the X600 series, Epson printers have favored 360ppi.