|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
At 10:22 PM 2/12/2000 -0600, Laurie Solomon wrote: > >What Gary, I think, said respecting the "Plain Paper" setting possibly being >appropriate because the additional ink might take into account dot gain and >be less than the Photo Paper setting is a problematic possibility. While I >have no argument with the rest of his post, I do have one with this point. >It is true plain paper has greater dot gain, absorbing ink easier than >coated papers; but they also dry faster giving the paper less time to >saturate with wet ink and cause waving than coated papers. Thus, plain >papers can take more ink without consequences than coated papers so the >Plain Paper setting probably puts out more ink to account for dot gain and >combat the sort of faded non rich appearance which results from it rather >than putting out less ink. You won't get any argument from me because I haven't tried it--I was just speculating as to some possible reason for the recommendation. However, it sounds as though you haven't actually tried it either. Maybe what we need is more data and fewer explanations (at least from me.) Has anyone ever made the same print multiple times (changing nothing but the media settings) and then measured the resulting ink densities? Would this be a meaningful test? (Unfortunately I don't have a reflection densitometer, or I would volunteer--I don't think my transmission densitometer would be up to the job.) Gary Hunt <email@example.com> - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users