On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:50:34 +1200, Colin.D wrote:
> Alan Browne, 9/16/2008 10:00 AM:
>
>> Colin.D wrote:
>>> Alan Browne, 9/15/2008 5:29 AM:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What printer are you using for photography?
>>>>
>>>> Pros/cons of it?
>>>>
>>>> Plans to upgrade, change approach, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> PS: I'm esp. interested in small pro printers such as the Epson 3800
>>>> and Canon iPF5100, but all comments are very welcome.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I use a canon i9950 - i9900 in USA - an A3+ printer with 8 cartridges,
>>> output is indistinguishable from wet prints except for a vibrance that
>>> is hard to match with a wet print. Dye inks, reputed to have a
>>> 30-year life approx., fast printing, a top quality A4 in under 2
>>> minutes, no clogging - I've had it for > 2 years, sometimes it sits
>>> for a month or more, then prints just fine.
>>
>> I believe from what I read that the high end printers have pretty much
>> gotten over clogging issues. While they claim 'reduced' clogging, the
>> feedback is that it is very rare indeed.
>>
>>> IMHO, regardless of printer, the biggest aid to printing is Qimage, no
>>> resampling in PS, Qimage resamples straight to the printer's native
>>> resolution with advanced algorithms from any image ppi, resulting in
>>> sharper prints than from PS. Pin-sharp images at A4 from a 300D.
>>
>> This is something I do need to look into for larger prints, although
>> from the MF scans it will mostly be downsampled; from the a900 (24 Mpix
>> camera) there will be some up sampling on the largest prints.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
> Let Qimage handle all the resampling, up or down, and only resample
> once. Resampling in PS and then having the printer driver do it again
> for the printer's native rez will take the edge off any image.
>
>
> Colin D.
One bad thing about Qimage is it does not run under Linux.
|
