Originally posted by Jed
Here we flaming go again. I missed the first round of stuff because my fresh posts was reset during the Games. Now I've seen the lot, and here we go again.
[1] KamWeng, I assume from your postings throughout that in referring to 300dpi and 600dpi you are referring to detail resolution input into the printer. Now forget all this "people can tell the difference between two CDs even if they are not playing the same music" thing. Comparing two different things, whether CDs or prints, is just shoddy work ethic. Didn't you get in taught round about in Primary 4 or possibly earlier that in order to conduct a good experiment you must have a good control setup? Secondly, it doesn't matter if you had compared similar prints. The human eye is only able to resolve approximately 300dpi of detail, varying from sample to sample (as in person to person). So if your eye can resolve 600dpi of detail, all power to you. Thirdly, it doesn't matter if you had compared similar prints and you had superpower vision that could distinguish 600dpi of detail, commercial inkjet prints only print at 300dpi of detail resolution anyway, or just maybe up to 360 (I have heard conflicting reports for some printers between 240/360). As in, because I'd better spell this out for you, if you took a 600dpi image and fed it through your printer, it'd throw away the extra resolution and only print at 300dpi or whatever it prints at.
[2] Pardon me, but this is in no way looking down at your equipment or expertise, but from using a sharpening setting of 9 in Camedia, that suggests to my an Olympus P&S digital with very basic and uniform unsharpmasking applied. Now compared that to calendars is not exactly fair play. I'd certainly consider examining [1] the camera's limitations [2] the software's limitations, especially in the face of what people have already been telling you. And no, maximum unsharp masking is not a bright idea, especially not with basic software and a P&S digital.
[3] Midnight, the problem with laser printers is that they have funny resolution terms. You can't get anywhere near to a decent photo quality print with a 300dpi laser printer, or even a 600dpi laser printer for that matter. Furthermore they are printing with only one shade and cannot bleed.
[4] Tsdh has already explained the difference between 6 and 4 colour inksets in inkjets. Roy as we were discussing, the current state of inkjet technology is already just about grasping the required quality, and any further sacrifice in colour resolution can be done without. Furthermore, bear in mind that there is a limit to how small your dots can go for the lighter shades as well. It is far preferable to print, say, 20 light dots in a grid of 100 dots (6 empty), as opposed to 10 darker, smaller dots in a grid of 100 small dots (covering the same area).
[5] Well the only interpolation that does some magic is the SuperCCD of Fujifilm, because it's hardware interpolation. You know, for the rest of the paragraph until that point, you were making sense. Sorry, but interpolation is interpolation. A Fuji 3.3mp Super CCD still sees only 3.3mp of detail. No amount of marketing smooze, which obviously you've bought, will make it 6mp.
[6] Regarding 4 colors vs 6 colors, I'd say that higher resolution plus smaller droplet size, for example maybe 5760dpi @ 1pl (the highest currently is 2880dpi @ 2pl) will compensate the lack of light cyan and light magenta and produce the same tone as 6 colors can. See above (pt. 4) on why that's not necessarily true. And more importantly, assuming you are right, why cut from 6 to 4 colours when you can have 6 colours @ 5760dpi @ 1pl. Thereby increasing your colour resolution.
[7] Yes, you are right about print stability, light cyan and light magenta inks are more noticeable when they fade.
[8] Do you understand colour spaces, and CMYK specifically? There has already been a discussion on gamut.
[9] Why don't we have light yellow? Because people like you are already campaigning against light magenta and light cyan, what for you want light yellow?
[10] At the risk of repeating myself, with 5760dpi @ 1pl, light magenta and light cyan will not be rendered useless simply because of what was discussed in the early part of this thread.
[11] Dyesub v Inkjet. Tsdh has made his opinon clear, fair play to him, I'm stating mine. In terms of visual output, inkjet is there. I don't care what technology they use, inkjet is there. There are still major problems centering around other facets of the print, in particular light fastness, gas fastness, water fastness, and print speed. Again, my opinion.
[12] Even the once famous Epson 6 color 870/1270 which claimed 10 years of light fastness received complaints on fading. It was once the hottest topic at dpreview.com. 4 color was well known more stable. Now Epson don't dare to anyhow claim already. For the new 890, they just claim 'achieve high light fastness IF printed on matte paper AND framed under glass'.
This is (was) not a greatly known fact but I was fairly involved in this issue at the first hand. I was in contact with Epson UK at several stages of the situation and I have a good idea of what was going on. You sound like this is something you read about off hand. So listen to me. The Epson xx70 series, as the later ones such as the xx90 series, do not at all suffer from lightfastness problems, at least not more than was originally claimed and confirmed by Wilheim. The problem is gas fading. Which is why Epson ask for the prints to be framed under glass or in sleeves or laminates, to protect the print from exposure to the atmosphere. As far as dye based printers go, the Epson is still as good as it gets.
Also, what Epson has done is to bring their pigment based range into reach of serious amateur photographers. The 2100 is arguably a much better printer than its predecessor (and one that I'd own as a former owner of the 2000p just for its speed alone), yet comes in at a pricepoint about 30% less than what its ancestor retailed at. And offhand, only about 25% more expensive than the 1290. Now assuming we avoid problems with atmospheric fading, these prints outlast RA4 prints, dyesub prints, Ilfochrome prints, and quite possibly even conventional black and white prints.
Now if you think I'm pro-Epson, figure this one. Of the entire UK, I was the person worst hit by the 870/1270 situation. Which is why I was in contact with them. But at least as a person directly involved in this situation I can comfortably throw in my $0.02. But frankly what I've heard from you just typifies the problem of the Internet. People hearing things third hand and then speaking as an authority on the situation at hand.
