Effects of Epson printer's native resolution

[tim atherton]

And your point is Bill?

There are no such lists that I know of for LF photographers who have a mixed trad/digital workflow - of which there are many on this list

We even have a "Digital" topic heading.

This is no different from say a detailed thread on enlarger alignment (of which we have had a few I think...) or which contact preinting frame to use

If you aren't interested, then don't read it... simple as that

[Bill_1856]

There goes the neighborhood. I have no objection to digital, it's non-specific computer problems that I feel don't belong in a LF forum. Just expressing my opinion, which is surely worth at least a little something.

[Paul Kierstead]

I understand your frustration a little, Bill. I expressly read this forum to avoid all the digital madness, even though I do shoot some digital and print digitally. But I think there is a place for some and perhaps if you have a little patience for it, things can work out. Although not specific to large format, dealing with resolution areas is far from "non-specific computer problems" and extremely relevant to image quality, which many of us care deeply about. Now I will admit such a question could have been asked in any number of photography forums which are more digital oriented; why, you might ask, pollute LF Photography Forum with such stuff?

I can give you my answer why I like to see this question here: Because people here will definitely have a different view on *this* kind of question then many other forums. I have surfed many others where "I get ultra-high quality 20x30's from my 4 megapixel camera" is not only the common opinion, it is the respected opinion. Do you think I trust their opinion on rezz'ing up? I don't; obviously my priorities are quite different then theirs, other wise I would never be shooting 4x5 in order to get 16x20's that I like, I would just shoot a 3 MP digicam.

So, I for one, ask the traditional printers to be patient when quality-related questions come up about the digital darkroom; although the questions could be asked anywhere, the answer *will* vary with where it was asked.

[Robert Ludlow]

Hello. Some of these responses make me feel like I should apologize for intruding into this forum. Actually, the topic started with a question under the title "Epson 9600" in the Digital category. But when it looked as if that thread might have dropped of the radar, I reposted my question in this category, which now appears to have been a mistake. I don't even remember how I found this forum, and since I shoot digital with an 8mp Canon, this does not look like the appropriate forum for my questions. Truth is I don't even remember how I came upon this forum in the first place--I just saw that question, and since it was relevant to my work, I chimed in. Sorry about that--didn't mean to corrupt the neighborhood. :~)

Thanks to Hogarth and Chris for providing helpful information that enables me to move forward with more confidence. Making large prints--for me, that's 24 x 36--from 6 or 8 megapixel digital camera files is very much image dependent, as Hogarth said earlier. I have a few that stand up quite well after much Photoshop massaging. If I were going to try to sell lots of large-format prints, I would get a large-format film camera, but for a variety of reasons I'm not planning to take that step.

Thanks for the hospitality, and in the future I will ask my questions on a more appropriate forum.

[Bill_1856]

Hello, Robert. Well, it's a new day and thanks for making me feel like a total jerk which, apparently, I am. Sorry.

[Robert Ludlow]

Hey Bill, no intent to make you or anyone feel bad. I have tremendous admiration for large-format photography, and I certainly understand that it's different from what I do with my 8-megapixel digital camera. For better or for worse, I'm sticking to digital, so I meant it when I said there are more appropriate forums for my questions. Sorry if my reply made you uncomfortable.

By the way, I really like the way this forum is set up.

[chris jordan]

Bill, I don't know what "non-specific computer problems" you are complaining about, but what we're discussing here is the resolution of the Epson 9600, which is a large-format color printer that we use to make prints of our large-format photographs. For those of us who print digitally, this is no different that discussing the optimum aperture of an enlarging lens. Far as I can tell, the only non-specific problem going on here is your random complaints such as "what, huh?", which was your initial contribution to this thread. Maybe in the future if photographers here discuss details of their digital photographic printing practices, you could hold your eloquent tongue and maybe learn something in the process.

[Jim Rice]

I, frankly, don't see the issue with this post being here. The heading clearly defines it as "digital". And once one has the capture, printing questions and the answers to them enlighten those of us, like me, who are contemplating the digital darkroom. I'll be scanning 4x5 Velvias, and maybe 8x10s. The topic interests me.

[Brian Kennedy]

I print with an Epson 4000, and I can clearly see the difference between 300 DPI and 360 DPI. Anyone can see the difference given the right subject matter. According to the thread referred to above (on the Yahoo! Wide Format forum), the Epson 4000/7600/9600 native resolution is 360 DPI. With LF scans, since we're usually down-sampling to the printed resolution, it's important to know that for best quality, you should stick to 360 DPI for the Epson wide format printers. For the Epson 13x19 printers, I have been told that 300 DPI is the native resolution (I can confirm that seems to be correct for the 1270).

In my case, I first noticed the difference when printing pages for a homemade book from my trip to Italy last year. The pages have text and photos on them and are 11x17 in size. I printed the first two-thirds of the book on an Epson 1270 at 300 DPI. When I printed the next page on my 4000, using the same template as the first pages, the text look bad compared to the 1270 prints, not nearly as smooth. At first, I thought, "Gee, the Epson 4000 doesn't even print as well as the 1270." Eventually, I decided to try to reset the whole template to 360 DPI. It made all the difference in the world. The text is smooth again and the pages look exactly the same as the 1270 at 300 DPI.

Like much of what we do, a non-critical eye probably wouldn't notice any quality difference between the 300 DPI and 360 DPI print. However, I think anyone on this forum would easily notice what I noticed. The difference jumped right out at me when I wasn't even looking for it (when I assumed 300 DPI would work just as well on the 4000 as on the 1270).

The difference is not particularly noticeable in photos, but it is clear in the crisp, clean lines of black lettering on a light background. For most applications, I can't tell the difference, so I don't hesitate to print smaller digital files (like from my DSLR) at 240 DPI or 300 DPI if I need to. However, I know now that the printer is up-sizing to 360 DPI.

[Ken Lee]

Brian - Thanks for this info.

The Epson 2200 is not a wide-format printer per se, but it uses Ultrachrome inks, and was released concurrent with the 7600 and 9600. Nevertheless, do you suggest that its native resolution is 300, rather than 360 dpi ?