|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
I agree with your assessment, Michael. For most applications, clients won't 'see' the effects of 'micro-banding.' Problems do arise with images scanned for reproduction, though. The banding is magnified resulting in unusable photos. I've had that problem with the 1160 which I purchased to replace a 900 with which the problem did not exist. However, returning to the enlarged images on the Inkjetart web page, it is clear that all but the 2000P have a consistent pattern of 'microbanding' in them. My question, which has yet to be answered is: is this normal for these printers or symptomatic of either transport or printhead problems? Michael > ** Original Message follows... > > Careful, what you see at an 8X magnification may not appear at normal > viewing distance (like naked eye at 3"<g>). I'd like to see examples posted > at actual size (which onscreen would be larger than real life). These > differences are getting REAL subtle. > | > | > |If you haven't already done so, check out the Inkjetart > |comparisons of the 13" printers. On three of the four images at > |http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/news/13_comp/8.html microbanding > |appears, especially noticeable in the blue portion of the image at > |the bottom. You don't see it on the 2000P, but that image appears > |out of focus....(the lack of sharpness may or may not be > |attributable to the printer...could be the sharpening on the > |reproduction of the printed image). > | > |If you saw this kind of banding, would you return your printer or > |accept it as normal? M e t r o P h o t o g r a p h i c Specializing in Artistic Portraiture and Digital Photo Restoration _____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______ http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users