Maybe I'm wrong, but from all I can see, the latest higher end printers and their drivers are better at rendering the correct and appropriate settings than I am. With earlier printers I used to figure all this stuff out like a fanatic to help the dumb printer and driver umpf out the "best" print. In the last year or so I haven't noticed any relevant difference whether I mess with it or leave it to the printer driver. I'm happy to have one less thing to mess with. Color management is enough, and even with that I am finding that less is more.
Jack, I like your camouflage trick, but don't you get the same thing by just dropping the "quality" setting in the printer dialog back a notch?
John_T. wrote:
Jack, I like your camouflage trick, but don't you get the same thing by just dropping the "quality" setting in the printer dialog back a notch?
It may generate a similar effect, but the process would be different to achieve the result -- In the printer "quality" dialogue you are changing the DPI of the printer lower thus using fewer dots to render the image's PIXEL. In my camouflaging scenario above, I am lowering the PIXEL count (PPI) of the image but keeping the DPI of the printer high, insuring very good pixel replication and tonality. Again, it is a difference between altering the image pixel count or PPI versus the printer output resolution or DPI.
