Rob Geraghty wrote: > "SKID Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic dithering > pattern to represent pixels that film > > grain and scan pixels (samples, whatever) are equivalent in regards to the > amount of information they impart > > to an inkjet printer? > > I think Art was saying that the relationship between pixels in the file and > dots on the page isn't clear cut because the dither pattern used by the > printer driver is random and therefore undoes some of the regularity of the > pixels. The print ends up looking smoother than say a monitor image because > the printer shadings aren't constructed as rectilinear sharp edged objects > but random spots of colour. > > Rob
While I agree that the pixels will be 'smoother' because of the inkjet dither pattern, film grain still contains/imparts more information (on a one to one basis) than a pixel, not matter how it is dithered by the printer. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
