Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (
More info?)
Owamanga wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:14:15 -0500, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:51:54 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What changes about image detail, jpeg artifacts, noise, etc when
>>>printing compared to what you see on a monitor? I would assume the basic
>>>effect is a burring and loss of quality/sharpness.
>>
>>1. Dmax - decreases
>>
>>2. Gamut - generally decreases
>
>
> ..and often colors shift within it.
Although inkjets have a pretty impressive gamut.
>
>>3. Resolution - hard to compare, but generally
>>can't improve going from screen to print
>>
>>4. Noise - hard to compare, but with an injet
>>print you've now got an error diffusion pattern
>>to contend with that doesn't exist on-screen.
>
>
> ..and if it's a good printer, can't be seen with the naked eye at any
> reasonable viewing distance.
>
>
>>5. JPG artifacts: What, you need yet
>>another superfluous and gratuitous
>>variable here?
>>
>>It's really an apples-to-oranges comparison.
>
>
> Hey, you didn't mention your 200% zoom you use to critique every image
> with becomes a mere 16.7% when printed at 6x4.
>
> That's a big one!
Hey I use 400% on-screen to see what's going on <grin>. I've got a very
powerful loupe and inkjet prints look awful at that scale. The obvious
thing is it's just these little random dots with lots of white paper
between. Black areas have little white grit every so often. Looks
horrible up close like that.
No doubt prints are much worse quality than on-screen. Noise and
posterization that are bothersome on screen are imperceptible on a print
simply because it's a poor reproduction. I know inkjet printing is very
impressive but maybe there is considerable room for improvement.
Although... looking through my loupe & back at an 800% view of the
original on screen... there are something like 5 or more dots to stretch
across a 2-pixel wide line (275 dpi print at 2800 dpi printer setting),
but still the on screen original has more definition & the print is
relatively muddy. Subtle details and tonal changes are just not visible
on the print.
So I wonder at what dpi printing, can you get all the detail and tones
of the original? Maybe 200 or 150 dpi? It seems a shame to throw o ut
information if it can be captured printing larger. Of course it's going
to look softer but you stand back looking at a larger print anyways. The
days of actually seeing pixels on a print are long gone. I don't know
that'd probably have to be below 72dpi before you could actually see
square pixels on a print. I've got a 100dpi print of the same image and
it looks really close to as much detail as the on-screen original. So
I'd say that's the best way to print, at 100dpi or so. That's a 30-inch
wide print for a 6MP image. That way you aren't throwing anything away.
>
> So:
>
> 6. It gets smaller.
>
>
>
> 7. Color casts - Ambient lighting introduces at the time of viewing
> play a bigger role on a print than they do on a screen.
>
> 8. Brightness - It gets darker at night, brighter in the day - the
> opposite of what happens to your screen.
>
> 9. Smelly/Fingers - It smells, and people like to stab their grubby
> fingers at it.
>
> It's a good idea to print a test target on any new media/printer
> combination (something similar to the one below, but either make your
> own or find a much higher resolution one online) and use it to
> cross-reference with your screen so you can learn the perception
> difference.
>
>
http://dima.pmai.org/images/DIMA_printer_Target.jpg
>
> --
> Owamanga!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram