Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is the printer good enough for the camera?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
April 27, 2005 9:21:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?

Hoping for some guidance

Regards Brian

More about : printer good camera

Anonymous
April 27, 2005 9:21:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You will actually need a printer with much more resolution. I is
important to realize that the camera deal with pixels and the printer
deals with dots. The dots are either there or not, no level of
brightness. It takes many dots for each pixel if the photo is to print
with smooth looking colors and not either look grainy or have banding.
The good news is that photo quality printer are very cheap, the bad
news is that the cheap ones don't produce prints that last very long
(they fade). Most of the time I don't care if a print fades, I can
reprint it. If I am giving a print to someone else it is a different
matter, in that case I take my photos to Costco and have them print it,
the printer they use uses laser to expose photographic paper, the end
print is in fact a photograph and will last as long as other color
photos.

Scott
April 27, 2005 9:21:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian wrote:

> I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
> photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
> print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?
>

You're confused..


You need 300DPI to make a really good print so....at 300DPI you can print
10.24 X 6.83 with no upsampling. Most people will say you can make very
nice 8X10's with no upsampling from this camera (~250DPI) and with some
post processing and upsampling 11X14's that look good.

The printer DPI really has nothing to do with the camera used and it's
resolution. The canon's use 600 and the epson 720 (native) so either is
going to be processing the files for printing in the driver. But yes you
should get a good printer if you want good home prints.

--

Stacey
Related resources
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 9:21:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:k28u61ts8j8rnjtu6d52e8q1rr3nu0uj95@4ax.com...
>I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
> photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
> print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?
>
> Hoping for some guidance
>
> Regards Brian

Two different things. You printer will determine the max quality it can
print. The size of the print is not material here as the quality from the
printer point of view is the same for a small print as a large print. If
you are happy with the prints you now get from your printer you have no need
to change.

The camera resolution determines how large the print can be without
loosing quality. So assuming you are moving up from a camera with less
resolution, you now can make larger prints that look every bit as good as
the old camera did making smaller prints.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 9:21:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you want to print real large than go with a Canon i9900. If you want
to print up to 8.5x11 and also use the printer to do business documents
than go with the Canon IP4000. If your business printing is very light
and you want to match the quality of the i9900 than consider the Canon
IP8500.

After editing in Photo Shop you will be sending under 1200 PPI to the
printer. Somehow, and I do not understand exactly how, the printer
converts the pixels to DPI.

I have seen 13x19 prints done on a Canon i9900 that were shot with a
Canon 10D. They were stunning. Really Fantastic.

Now if you plan on selling your prints and longevity is primary, you
might want to consider a lesser result and look at the Epson R800/1800
Pigmented Ink Printers.

Brian wrote:

>I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
>photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
>print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?
>
>Hoping for some guidance
>
>Regards Brian
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 9:21:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:21:01 +1200, in rec.photo.digital , Brian
<bclark@es.co.nz> in <k28u61ts8j8rnjtu6d52e8q1rr3nu0uj95@4ax.com>
wrote:

>I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
>photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
>print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?

3072 x 2048 is size, not resolution. Resolution tells you how much
many things (dots of ink in the case of printers) you can get in a
row. You want lots of those dots for each camera pixel.





--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 9:21:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 26 Apr 2005 23:53:31 -0700, in rec.photo.digital RE: Re: Is the
printer good enough for the camera? "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>If I am giving a print to someone else it is a different
>matter, in that case I take my photos to Costco and have them print it,
>the printer they use uses laser to expose photographic paper, the end
>print is in fact a photograph and will last as long as other color
>photos.

Or you can use one of the on-line photo printers such as DotPhoto.com
(good value) or Ofoto.com (better b&w).

--
To reply to me directly, remove the XXX characters from my email address.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 9:21:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

If you are the same Stacey who accused me of not reading your link,
would you please have the courtesy to at least revisit the thread
(Eureka on Color Management) and answer me.

Gary Eickmeier
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 9:21:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:21:01 +1200, in rec.photo.digital , Brian
> <bclark@es.co.nz> in <k28u61ts8j8rnjtu6d52e8q1rr3nu0uj95@4ax.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
>>photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
>>print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?
>
>
> 3072 x 2048 is size, not resolution. Resolution tells you how much
> many things (dots of ink in the case of printers) you can get in a
> row. You want lots of those dots for each camera pixel.

Agreed. Any printer can print at 200 to 300 ppi (pixels per inch). At
200 ppi, for example, your camera would make a 10 x 15 inch print. A
printer's dpi (dots per inch) is a totally separate subject and has
nothing to do with the resolution of your camera.

See Wayne Fulton's book at http://www.scantips.com/

Gary Eickmeier
April 27, 2005 10:52:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:48:57 GMT
In message <kt5v6198o8cbh2cudm25bpljbvccoom5gb@4ax.com>
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> 3072 x 2048 is size, not resolution.

According to Merriam-Webster that *is* resolution.
Size comes into play when using a DPI number to
determine dimensions for rendering on a specific device.

Jeff (was confused, looked it up, then remembered)
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 10:54:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

First use Qimage to make your prints and you are the judge of quality.

Purchase a dye sub printer and not worry about printer resolution.
April 27, 2005 10:56:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <OSLbe.1333$Gd7.597@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

>If you want to print real large than go with a Canon i9900. If you want
>to print up to 8.5x11 and also use the printer to do business documents
>than go with the Canon IP4000. If your business printing is very light
>and you want to match the quality of the i9900 than consider the Canon
>IP8500.

I'm thinking about the i9900. The printer itself is lower in actual
dollars than my first Epson line printer, in the 1970s, when I was
upgrading from a teletype.

Anyway, how's the ink economy on this?

Right now I have a HP All-in-One which is pretty good for word
processing and so forth, but I've been quite disappointed with it for
photo, even with 6-ink. I want something dedicated to photo that will
be cost-effective even with intermittent use (I don't want ink that
starts drying out just because I've loaded it in the printer. I can
understand this a little bit, such as sitting for months or whatever,
but I really don't want ink that dries out quickly just by being loaded
in the printer).

Also, one motivation is that as soon as I return from a location in May,
I expect to have some pretty good stitched panorams. So I want to try
to print and mount mosaic prints, and 13x19 sounds like a hell of a good
paper size for this. But if it requires $200 worth of ink to do that,
I wouldn't really be saving much compared to having a single large print
made by a pro, at least I don't think so.

So I'm wondering about ink economy and any other maintenance issues with
the i9900. My cameras are both Canons; I have a 20D and an A85, and I
also plan to do some film (to digital prints.)
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 1:22:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

>Brian wrote:
>
>
>
>>I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
>>photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
>>print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?
>>
>>
>>
>
>You're confused..
>
>
>You need 300DPI
>

Isn't that PPI. In Photoshop I took a scanned in 35mm image scanned at
3200 PPI. I then used the cropping tool for an 8.5x11. After changing
the Image size the resolution was about 300PPI. It did not say DPI.

>to make a really good print so....at 300DPI you can print
>10.24 X 6.83 with no upsampling. Most people will say you can make very
>nice 8X10's with no upsampling from this camera (~250DPI) and with some
>post processing and upsampling 11X14's that look good.
>
>The printer DPI really has nothing to do with the camera used and it's
>resolution. The canon's use 600 and the epson 720 (native) so either is
>going to be processing the files for printing in the driver. But yes you
>should get a good printer if you want good home prints.
>
>
>
April 28, 2005 2:09:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:22:41 GMT
In message <BoTbe.8679$J12.2834@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
Posted from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Isn't that PPI.
> ...
> It did not say DPI.
> ...

DPI / PPI same thing depending on the context. No need to mince
acronyms... pixels per inch, drops of ink per inch, and sometime drops
of ink per inch are discussed as "many drops of ink that make up the
equivalence of an original pixel".

Heck, Adobe spells "color" correctly but we don't argue about "colour"
very often... <vbg>

Jeff
April 28, 2005 5:12:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Stacey wrote:
>
>>Brian wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
>>>photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
>>>print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You're confused..
>>
>>
>>You need 300DPI
>>
>
> Isn't that PPI.

People use these two interchangeably even if they aren't precisely the same
thing, yes PPI is probably the correct term but I bet the manual for the
printer would call it DPI..

--

Stacey
April 28, 2005 5:13:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>
>
> Stacey wrote:
>
> If you are the same Stacey who accused me of not reading your link,
> would you please have the courtesy to at least revisit the thread
> (Eureka on Color Management) and answer me.
>


Why, you can be lazy and I can't? I posted a link that explained ALL the
questions you kept ansking yet YOU were too lazy to click on the link I
spent time searching FOR YOU!!!! Sorry I'm done...
--

Stacey
April 28, 2005 5:15:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

james wrote:

>
>
>
> I'm thinking about the i9900.

I'm happy with mine once I bought a custom printer profile for it..
--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 5:40:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian wrote:
> I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
> photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
> print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?
>
> Hoping for some guidance
>
> Regards Brian
>

Virtually any decent inkjet printer can print a 6 megapixel image.
Don't get caught up in the 3072 pixel notation. That is not the same as
printer resolution.
Printers print at a certain few native resolutions, regardless of the
number of pixels you send their way.
Pixels/inch is what determines the size and quality of the printed image.
For Example: If you have a 3072 x 2048 pixel image and you wish to make
an 8 x12 print, the print would have a resolution of 256 pixels/inch
(3072/12).That is just about right for high quality prints.
How finely those pixels are rendered with dots of ink is determined
entirely by the printer. You could print the same picture quick and
dirty at 360 dpi, very nice at 720 dpi or excellent at 1440 dpi. which
is just about optimum. Although many printers claim many thousands of
dpi resolution, that is largely advertising gimmicery. IMHO, there is
not a whole lot (any?) advantage to printing at 2880 dpi or higher.
Bob Williams
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 6:21:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Are you saying that 1 PPI on screen translates to 1 DPI at the printer?
So an Image in PS/Image Size that is 266 willprint at 266 DPI when the
printer is capable of printing at 1200 DPI?

Confused wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:22:41 GMT
>In message <BoTbe.8679$J12.2834@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
>Posted from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Isn't that PPI.
>>...
>>It did not say DPI.
>>...
>>
>>
>
>DPI / PPI same thing depending on the context. No need to mince
>acronyms... pixels per inch, drops of ink per inch, and sometime drops
>of ink per inch are discussed as "many drops of ink that make up the
>equivalence of an original pixel".
>
>Heck, Adobe spells "color" correctly but we don't argue about "colour"
>very often... <vbg>
>
>Jeff
>
>
April 28, 2005 9:04:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No, that's not what I wrote. Perhaps if you didn't
top post and write about something specific...

Jeff

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 02:21:27 GMT
In message <HMXbe.8785$J12.7852@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
Posted from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Are you saying that 1 PPI on screen translates to 1 DPI at the printer?
> So an Image in PS/Image Size that is 266 willprint at 266 DPI when the
> printer is capable of printing at 1200 DPI?
>
> Confused wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:22:41 GMT
> >In message <BoTbe.8679$J12.2834@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
> >Posted from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
> >measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Isn't that PPI.
> >>...
> >>It did not say DPI.
> >>...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >DPI / PPI same thing depending on the context. No need to mince
> >acronyms... pixels per inch, drops of ink per inch, and sometime drops
> >of ink per inch are discussed as "many drops of ink that make up the
> >equivalence of an original pixel".
> >
> >Heck, Adobe spells "color" correctly but we don't argue about "colour"
> >very often... <vbg>
> >
> >Jeff
> >
> >
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 12:51:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Confused wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:22:41 GMT
> In message <BoTbe.8679$J12.2834@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
> Posted from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
> measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Isn't that PPI.
>>...
>>It did not say DPI.
>>...
>
>
> DPI / PPI same thing depending on the context. No need to mince
> acronyms... pixels per inch, drops of ink per inch, and sometime drops
> of ink per inch are discussed as "many drops of ink that make up the
> equivalence of an original pixel".
>
> Heck, Adobe spells "color" correctly but we don't argue about "colour"
> very often... <vbg>
>
> Jeff
That context IS important. Most computer printers CANNOT produce dots
of varying density. Only in line art (0ne bit drawings) is a printer
dot equal to a pixel. In other forms of image, such as photographs, the
computer/printer combination creates a mock "halftone" pattern, using
many dots.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 12:59:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>The printer DPI really has nothing to do with the camera used and it's
>>resolution. The canon's use 600 and the epson 720 (native) so either is
>>going to be processing the files for printing in the driver. But yes you
>>should get a good printer if you want good home prints.

This reminds me of a question I've been wondering about for a while. Canon
specs advertise that the ip4000's resolution is (I think) 4800 by 1200 and
the ip5000 is 9600x2400. Is this just marketing hype or does it actually
mean something?

I bought myself an ip5000 and the pictures are great. However I'm a
programmer so one of the first things I tried to do was write to the printer
myself. I was surprised, therefore, that the printing device context
returned by Canon's Windows device driver is only 600 dpi resolution in both
directions.

That means that however clever my software, I can only print 600 different
coloured dots in any direction so how does it help me that the resolution is
allegedly capable of up to 9600? As I said, the question is an academic one
because the prints are great - I'm just wondering what the advertised specs
actually mean.

Is there a different way to drive the printer other than just via a normal
windows DC, or maybe there's a command you can send the device driver to get
a higher resolution DC. Alternatively does the printer itself extrapolate
from from 600dpi to smooth out edges? Any advice from someone experienced
in programming Canons would be gratefully received. I have joined Canon's
developer program but haven't yet managed to make sense of the technical
docs.

Keith
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 1:09:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:09:29 GMT, Confused
<somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:22:41 GMT
>In message <BoTbe.8679$J12.2834@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
>Posted from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't that PPI.
>> ...
>> It did not say DPI.
>> ...
>
>DPI / PPI same thing depending on the context. No need to mince
>acronyms... pixels per inch, drops of ink per inch, and sometime drops
>of ink per inch are discussed as "many drops of ink that make up the
>equivalence of an original pixel".

sorry but this viewpoint is exactly where all the confusion misery
comes from ...
assumed print size using PPI has NOTHING to do with printer resolution
in DPI .. I really wish that people would knot it in their ears once
and for all .. it is not even "depending on the context" !
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 1:30:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Williams wrote:
>
>
> Brian wrote:
>
>> I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
>> photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
>> print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?
>>
>> Hoping for some guidance
>>
>> Regards Brian
>>
>
>
> Virtually any decent inkjet printer can print a 6 megapixel image.
> Don't get caught up in the 3072 pixel notation. That is not the same as
> printer resolution.
> Printers print at a certain few native resolutions, regardless of the
> number of pixels you send their way.
> Pixels/inch is what determines the size and quality of the printed image.
> For Example: If you have a 3072 x 2048 pixel image and you wish to make
> an 8 x12 print, the print would have a resolution of 256 pixels/inch
> (3072/12).That is just about right for high quality prints.
> How finely those pixels are rendered with dots of ink is determined
> entirely by the printer. You could print the same picture quick and
> dirty at 360 dpi, very nice at 720 dpi or excellent at 1440 dpi. which
> is just about optimum. Although many printers claim many thousands of
> dpi resolution, that is largely advertising gimmicery. IMHO, there is
> not a whole lot (any?) advantage to printing at 2880 dpi or higher.
> Bob Williams
>
Given that it takes from 1 to as many as 8 colors for a printer to print
a pixel, the number of actual dots/inch a printer can print depends on a
lot of imponderables. I guess there IS no real answer, just print the
picture, and decide for yourself if it is good enough.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 1:32:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Keith Sheppard wrote:
>>>The printer DPI really has nothing to do with the camera used and it's
>>>resolution. The canon's use 600 and the epson 720 (native) so either is
>>>going to be processing the files for printing in the driver. But yes you
>>>should get a good printer if you want good home prints.
>
>
> This reminds me of a question I've been wondering about for a while. Canon
> specs advertise that the ip4000's resolution is (I think) 4800 by 1200 and
> the ip5000 is 9600x2400. Is this just marketing hype or does it actually
> mean something?
>
> I bought myself an ip5000 and the pictures are great. However I'm a
> programmer so one of the first things I tried to do was write to the printer
> myself. I was surprised, therefore, that the printing device context
> returned by Canon's Windows device driver is only 600 dpi resolution in both
> directions.
>
> That means that however clever my software, I can only print 600 different
> coloured dots in any direction so how does it help me that the resolution is
> allegedly capable of up to 9600? As I said, the question is an academic one
> because the prints are great - I'm just wondering what the advertised specs
> actually mean.
>
> Is there a different way to drive the printer other than just via a normal
> windows DC, or maybe there's a command you can send the device driver to get
> a higher resolution DC. Alternatively does the printer itself extrapolate
> from from 600dpi to smooth out edges? Any advice from someone experienced
> in programming Canons would be gratefully received. I have joined Canon's
> developer program but haven't yet managed to make sense of the technical
> docs.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
It means, simply that the printer can fire tiny droplets of ink on the
paper at 4800/inch. Since it may take up to 6 or even 8 droplets of ink
on the paper, and these often merge together, a 'dot' can be somewhat
larger, or smaller, depending on how may droplets are sprayed to get the
desired color. Add to that the ability of some printers to spray
droplets of different sizes, and the matter becomes indefinable by any
consistent system.
More is better, but the equation is NOT linear.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 1:40:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:

> I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
> photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
> print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?

Any of the current photo-quality printers can make better 8x10 or A4 prints
than the Canon 300D can create. You can see this by downloading and printing
the review samples for cameras like the Canon 1Ds and Kodak 14/n.

If you want small prints (4x6 or 5x7) that render all the detail captured by
the camera, that's somewhat harder. IMHO, wet chemistry projection printing
papers can provide more resolution than inkjet (or most other digital)
printing.

On the other hand, my experience with the Epson R800 is that it really does
render a _lot_ of detail, and Roger Clark reports that certain of the HP
printers do very well on rendering detail as well. That Canon isn't
mentioned in the above is probably more due to none of the detail freaks
here happening to own a Canon printer than anything being wrong with Canon.

I'll second the recommendation for Qimage. Great program.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 3:17:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Stacey wrote:
>>
>>If you are the same Stacey who accused me of not reading your link,
>>would you please have the courtesy to at least revisit the thread
>>(Eureka on Color Management) and answer me.
>>
>
>
>
> Why, you can be lazy and I can't? I posted a link that explained ALL the
> questions you kept ansking yet YOU were too lazy to click on the link I
> spent time searching FOR YOU!!!! Sorry I'm done...

Now who is lazy?

Sorry, but the entire point of my question was that it wasn't answered
in your link. That is what is frustrating about it. Then you accuse me
of not reading it, when it is you who do not know what is in it and what
is not. Go back and read my last post in that thread. It won't take that
long, and you might learn something.

Gary Eickmeier
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 6:18:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In short, yes it is.

The camera can print to letter sized pages as well as up to about a
11x17" printer without trouble (ie. fine on wide-body inkjet printers).

You're printer should, preferably, use at least 6 color ink sets to
produce the best photographic inkjet prints, but most modern inkjets
will do a very good job at this even with 4 colors due to the small
picolitre dots they use nowadays.

For the larger 11x17" prints, you may prefer to add a touch of
Sharpening filter in a paint program to increase the perceived sharpness
of the print, but otherwise, you're fine.
April 30, 2005 3:09:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:

>
>
>Brian wrote:
>> I recently brought a Canon EOS 300D camera that takes good quality
>> photos of 3072 x 2048 resolution. Do I need to buy a printer that can
>> print at this resolution to avoid losing picture quality?
>>
>> Hoping for some guidance
>>
>> Regards Brian
>>
>
>Virtually any decent inkjet printer can print a 6 megapixel image.
>Don't get caught up in the 3072 pixel notation. That is not the same as
>printer resolution.
>Printers print at a certain few native resolutions, regardless of the
>number of pixels you send their way.
>Pixels/inch is what determines the size and quality of the printed image.
>For Example: If you have a 3072 x 2048 pixel image and you wish to make
> an 8 x12 print, the print would have a resolution of 256 pixels/inch
>(3072/12).That is just about right for high quality prints.
>How finely those pixels are rendered with dots of ink is determined
>entirely by the printer. You could print the same picture quick and
>dirty at 360 dpi, very nice at 720 dpi or excellent at 1440 dpi. which
>is just about optimum. Although many printers claim many thousands of
>dpi resolution, that is largely advertising gimmicery. IMHO, there is
>not a whole lot (any?) advantage to printing at 2880 dpi or higher.
>Bob Williams

Thanks Bob and others for your comments.
If I printed an image taken by a 1.3 megapixel camera and printed an
image taken with a 6.3 megapixel camera would I notice any difference
when printing a 6 x 4 inch photo?

Regards Brian
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 4:18:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ba5471hcg00d9ibn4hdr7btco5jtjiicno@4ax.com...
....
> Thanks Bob and others for your comments.
> If I printed an image taken by a 1.3 megapixel camera and printed an
> image taken with a 6.3 megapixel camera would I notice any difference
> when printing a 6 x 4 inch photo?
>
> Regards Brian
....
Brian:

That specific answer depends to varying degrees on your printer, your
camera, and your eyes. }:) 

Manny people use 300 ppi as the goal for "great" photos.
Some demand 600 ppi, others are happy with 200 ppi, but for the sake
of argument let's go with 300 ppi. You can do the math any other cases.

To print a 6 x 4 photo at 300 ppi would require (obviously) 6 x 300 x 4 x 300
= 2160000 pixels or 2.1 MP. Remember that the shape of the picture from
the camera is different from the shape of a 6 x 4 photo, so some of the original
will have to be cropped if you want an edge to edge print. Ignoring that, you
want 2.1MP. One camera provides 1.3 MP, less than you want. One camera
provides 6 MP, more than you need.

Next, of what pixel resolution is the printer capable? Not the "dots per inch"
spec of the printer; it takes a lot of dots to actually represent pixels of the
correct colors. A cheap 4 ink inkjet might be capable of 150 ppi. A good
6 color inkjet might be capable of 300 ppi, or more. A 300 dpi dye sub
printer can produce 300 ppi. So, depending on your printer, you might not
be able to actually produce any more pixels than the 1.3 MP camera produced.

Finally, how good is your vision and how closely are you looking at your print?
Under a magnifying glass, you will probably see the differences between any
printers up to 600 ppi. For a 6 x 4: At arms length, you probably can't
tell the difference between a 300 ppi picture and a 600 ppi picture. On the
wall across a small room, you won't see the difference between a 150 ppi
print and a 600 ppi print.

Now tell me whether you will see any difference. }:) 


--
Dan (Woj...) [dmaster](no space)[at](no space)[lucent](no space)[dot](no
space)[com]
===============================
"The sky turned to black / Would he ever come back?
They would climb a high dune / They would pray to the moon
But he'd never return / So the sisters would burn
As their eyes searched the land / With their cups full of sand"
!