Mike Russell wrote:
> "gecko" <alpha@olympus.net> wrote in message
> news:b2qis31ifcv44sm9a5dt9p28ang9o9hhds@4ax.com...
> ...
>> dots will be huge. Anyone who doesn't recognize 234 dpi as a serious
>> quality problem doesn't deserve to have Photoshop CS.
> ...
> LOL - doubly undeserving I, then, with CS2? In any case, I'll leave
> further responses to more qualified individuals.

Heh, thank the ghods you don't use CS3, we'd have to send the image police
to work you over.

Somehow, I have a sneaky suspicion that those "more qualified individuals"
are all extremely busy right this minute, though, despite the impeccable
manners of gecko's "friend".

--
dvus

"dvus" <dven1@adelphia.invalid> wrote in message
news:638vt1F25q6h0U1@mid.individual.net...
> Mike Russell wrote:
>> "gecko" <alpha@olympus.net> wrote in message
>> news:b2qis31ifcv44sm9a5dt9p28ang9o9hhds@4ax.com...
>> ...
>>> dots will be huge. Anyone who doesn't recognize 234 dpi as a serious
>>> quality problem doesn't deserve to have Photoshop CS.
>> ...
>> LOL - doubly undeserving I, then, with CS2? In any case, I'll leave
>> further responses to more qualified individuals.
>
> Heh, thank the ghods you don't use CS3, we'd have to send the image police
> to work you over.

I gotta fess up - I do have CS3, though when the cops arrive, I would plead
that at least it's not the extended version.

> Somehow, I have a sneaky suspicion that those "more qualified individuals"
> are all extremely busy right this minute, though, despite the impeccable
> manners of gecko's "friend".

I have a friend who's cranky that way - "not suffering fools gladly, and
just about everyone is a fool". Hopefully, as is the case with my friend,
there are mitigating qualities in addition to his impeccable manners, such
as being a genius. Anyway, I like geckos.
--
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com

Mike Russell wrote:
> "dvus" <dven1@adelphia.invalid> wrote in message
> news:638vt1F25q6h0U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Mike Russell wrote:
>>> "gecko" <alpha@olympus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:b2qis31ifcv44sm9a5dt9p28ang9o9hhds@4ax.com...
>>> ...
>>>> dots will be huge. Anyone who doesn't recognize 234 dpi as a
>>>> serious quality problem doesn't deserve to have Photoshop CS.
>>> ...
>>> LOL - doubly undeserving I, then, with CS2? In any case, I'll leave
>>> further responses to more qualified individuals.
>>
>> Heh, thank the ghods you don't use CS3, we'd have to send the image
>> police to work you over.
>
> I gotta fess up - I do have CS3, though when the cops arrive, I would
> plead that at least it's not the extended version.

Well then, perhaps you'll only suffer the abbreviated cudgelling.

>> Somehow, I have a sneaky suspicion that those "more qualified
>> individuals" are all extremely busy right this minute, though,
>> despite the impeccable manners of gecko's "friend".
>
> I have a friend who's cranky that way - "not suffering fools gladly,
> and just about everyone is a fool". Hopefully, as is the case with
> my friend, there are mitigating qualities in addition to his
> impeccable manners, such as being a genius. Anyway, I like geckos.

Don't know as I'm a genius, but I don't see 234 dpi as a "serious" quality
problem in all printing instances either.

--
dvus

"dvus" <dven1@adelphia.invalid> wrote in message
news:639ch2F260vbhU1@mid.individual.net...
....
> Don't know as I'm a genius,

That's what I like, humility :-)

> but I don't see 234 dpi as a "serious" quality
> problem in all printing instances either.

Nor an inkjet printing at 1200 ppi. I think we've seen the limitations of a
well-meaning person, gecko, trying to intermediate for a prima donna friend,
and getting caught in the middle again. No good deed goes unpunished.

I forgot someone smarter than me already did respond - hi Katwoman!
--
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com

"Mike Russell" <RE-MOVEmike@Curvemeister.comRE-MOVE> wrote in message
news:8lNzj.15039$Ej5.2919@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
> "dvus" <dven1@adelphia.invalid> wrote in message
> news:639ch2F260vbhU1@mid.individual.net...
> ...
>> Don't know as I'm a genius,
>
> That's what I like, humility :-)
>
>> but I don't see 234 dpi as a "serious" quality
>> problem in all printing instances either.
>
> Nor an inkjet printing at 1200 ppi. I think we've seen the limitations of
> a well-meaning person, gecko, trying to intermediate for a prima donna
> friend, and getting caught in the middle again. No good deed goes
> unpunished.
>
> I forgot someone smarter than me already did respond - hi Katwoman!
> --
> Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
>
I am not smarter than you in the techie knowledge and programming or curves
stuff for sure Mr. Mike
I have learned much from you
but thanks for the compliment

Thanks, all you guys. My friend seems to making some progress, and
now says:

After working so hard to get the Alps working, I've been working on
the project for which it was intended. I kept running test prints
until I could accurately judge the difference between what I saw on
the monitor and what I got from the printer. Fortunately, the color
was quite close. But the density from the printer was much lighter
than the monitor, which also affected color saturation. I made 20 4x6
of the game for an album and a large one for the frame with his
jersey. I made a deep frame and sandwiched the jersey between glass
with the big team photo across the bottom of the jersey. Held it
together with a bunch of glaziers points. Came out rather nice.

Proper cropping is the most critical element in a photo. I wasn't
using more than 20 percent of some of the photos.Resolution suffered
greatly from such heavy cropping. I won't understand why until I print
some I took under better control. 600 dpi isn't too bad when you're
utilizing the entire image. But 20 percent of the image yields 120
dpi.

The Alps still gives the best color of anything I've seen. It will
when I know what I'm doing. I've got to find out more about
dithering. A manual shows an example where dithering makes a
noticeable improvement in acuity. But dithering --- which prints
different colors close together to produce a different visual hue ---
is not something you need for 256 colors, which the Alps is supposed
to provide.

Maybe there's an Alps group out there somewhere dedicated to keeping
these abandoned marvels going and sharing information.

How about it? Anyone know of one?

Gecko

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:03:36 -0500, tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:


>
>Yes, you do need dithering for 256 colors. 256 colors is an
>extraordinarily limited amount; that's very poor color fidelity indeed.
>Remember that each shade of the same color counts as a different color.


My friend responds:

The thing about color --- particularly about fine differences between
hues of color --- is that it is completely subjective. Film --- and I
suppose CCDs as well --- is not subjective. Color depends entirely on
the color temperature of the light. Try taking a color photo with
fluorescent light to see the difference. The curious thing is that we
have color memory; if we know what color a thing should be, we will
see it that way whatever the color temperature of the light. Whites
look white to us because we know they are white. But white is made to
appear more white by tinting it most generally with blue, but also
with yellow and even black. When all the other colors were perfectly
balanced, Keeping bride's dresses from appearing blue in photos was a
challenge for me because of the optical whitening added to the fabric.

So, for purposes where actual color is not known or where critical
rendition of actual color is relatively unimportant, 256 colors will
suffice. For 4x6 snapshots, 256 is good enough. The toughest challenge
for film and CCDs is good skin tones. For a large print of a head
shot, 256 colors are inadequate. Dithering is a poor substitute for
the infinite modeling provided by film. But I shall need to learn to
apply the finest dithering the Alps is capable of to be happy with its
600 dpi resolution. I thought that my MD-4000 was capable of 1200 dpi,
but that may be for scanning only.

-Gecko

gecko wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:03:36 -0500, tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Yes, you do need dithering for 256 colors. 256 colors is an
>> extraordinarily limited amount; that's very poor color fidelity
>> indeed. Remember that each shade of the same color counts as a
>> different color.
>
>
> My friend responds:

Why the intermediary in this matter? Is it that you are actually your
"friend" or that your friend doesn't know how to use newsgroups?

> The thing about color --- particularly about fine differences between
> hues of color --- is that it is completely subjective. Film --- and I
> suppose CCDs as well --- is not subjective. Color depends entirely on
> the color temperature of the light. Try taking a color photo with
> fluorescent light to see the difference. The curious thing is that we
> have color memory; if we know what color a thing should be, we will
> see it that way whatever the color temperature of the light. Whites
> look white to us because we know they are white. But white is made to
> appear more white by tinting it most generally with blue, but also
> with yellow and even black. When all the other colors were perfectly
> balanced, Keeping bride's dresses from appearing blue in photos was a
> challenge for me because of the optical whitening added to the fabric.

Not sure how that's relevant, the eye can still discern the fine differences
in only 256 colors whether the hues are cool, warm or just right.

> So, for purposes where actual color is not known or where critical
> rendition of actual color is relatively unimportant, 256 colors will
> suffice. For 4x6 snapshots, 256 is good enough. The toughest challenge
> for film and CCDs is good skin tones. For a large print of a head
> shot, 256 colors are inadequate. Dithering is a poor substitute for
> the infinite modeling provided by film. But I shall need to learn to
> apply the finest dithering the Alps is capable of to be happy with its
> 600 dpi resolution. I thought that my MD-4000 was capable of 1200 dpi,
> but that may be for scanning only.

In my small experience, *any* image with large areas of similar color
suffers from the limitations of 256 colors. I'd venture that that has a more
negative effect than the limitations of 234 dpi. Of course, if you're
looking to output large format, both issues will doom you to some extent.

--
dvus