Re: Kodak digital vs. 6x7 prints

[Ryan K. Brooks]

T Rittenhouse wrote:

Uhhh? Adobe doesn't have a printer driver. It uses whatever is setup in
Windows (maybe those kiddy computers you are used to using are different,
HAR!). I used an Epson 820 with the latest driver available on the Epson
site. One print was on Epson's Premium Photo Glossy paper, the other on
their Heavyweight Matt paper.

Tell you what, Mike, if you don't like my results why don't you go rent a
studio, hire a model, buy a 6x7, buy an 11 to 14mp digital, and do the
definitive test for us. Me? I am a poor boy who had to sell one of his
primary cameras last summer just to eat, and that was only an ME Super.

I'm near Milwaukee, I'll bring the 67II and 1Ds- Mike will have to supply to studio.

R

You did note the 6x7 was a D&P 8x10, not a custom print? I think they were
of comparable quality.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 5:10 PM
Subject: Kodak digital vs. 6x7 prints

Tom Graywolf,

Sorry to start a new thread, but given my temporary enforced absence from
the PDML Digest I've literally lost the old one.

When you compared the 14-mp Kodak print to one of your chemical prints,

what

printer and printer driver were you using to make the digital print?

Not trying to ambush you here, so I'll just make my point straight up: all

I

wanted to add was that if you're not using a 6-ink printer and a good
printer driver, you can't really make a sensible comparison.

People don't pay enough attention to printer drivers. I have Canon
ImageBrowser, Olympus Camedia, and Adobe Photoshop Elements, and if I

print

the same file in all three programs, the Elements print is _much_ sharper
and more detailed, because the Adobe printer driver is so superior.

--Mike