I know you have made this point before. I guess we will just have to
agree to disagree. I find the quailty at 4x6 to be equivalent to
photographic paper prints of the same size. PopPhoto seems to agree,
giving home inkjet prints with current printers the same image quality
rating as 'wet' prints.
It may just come down to what I want from a print. I don't look at them
with a loupe, as that is not meaningful to me. Any detail beyond what I
can see at about 1' (30cm) is meaningless to me in a print. If I want to
see it, I'll look at the image on the screen or print it larger. My
right eye has 20/10 acuity, but is quite nearsighted, so at about 6"
(15cm) with my glasses off, it's quite a usefull close-up 'instrument'.
Looking at a couple of 5x7s sitting here on my desk that way, I can see
some lack of detail and digital 'stuff', but that's the first time I've
looked at them that close, it's just not what I use them for. Seen at
normal viewing distance, they are just beautiful images that I can enjoy.
I just pulled out a photo print of the one of the 5x7 inkjet prints that
predates my going to scan only. Viewed through a magnifier, I think it
has a bit more detail than the inkjet, and looks less 'digital'. It's a
bit hard to tell, both because they are different magnifications and
because the inkjet print is less contrasty, which gives the impression
of less sharpness. It is less contrasty on purpose to retain shadow
detail I considered important that is missing in the photo print.
Moose
C.H.Ling wrote:
I never like inkjet, the quality is BAD for small print, there is no
details, for 8x10 or over that is ok. I have my digital file output at Fuji
Frontier lab at $0.11 per 4x6 print, much higher resolution although it is
still lower than optical print. Even output a 8x12 is only $1.4, I bet it is
cheaper than inkjet.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|