Re: Optical brightener
Re: Optical brightener
- Subject: Re: Optical brightener
- From: Roberto Michelena <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:16:55 -0500
>
>>The people I see having
>
>>trouble with these devices are the ones who insist on trying to drive
>
>>them through a RIP, occasionally for good reason, but mostly for bad
>
>>ones.
From a photographer's point of view, there might be little or no reason
to drive the printer through a RIP.
But for a designer that deals with a complete layout in different
programs (one of them, for example, being Quark), if he doesn't use a RIP
then he'll have to resort to more convoluted methods, such as exporting
to EPS and rasterizing in Photoshop (choice between large file or jagged
text).
And for a workgroup such as a design department, a RIP represents even
more advantages.
>
>I have some RIPs with which I can send CMYK directly to the Epson
>
>and I realize there are some advantages to being able to control the printer
>
>from an ink level including black.
>
>
I remain to be convinced of said advantages. Every RIP I've tried
>
seem to offer one of two things:
>
>
Control at the ink level, at the cost of screening that looks like
>
sandpaper, or
>
>
Epson's pretty screening, and a hidden CMYK to RGB conversion that
>
makes the appearance of ink control illusory.
I believe BestColor's screening is on par with Epson's; I've not tried
the Designer Edition on the 1270, but on the 5000 it is as good as Epson
Screening. And you don't have those hidden conversions.
And if we get out of EPSON for a while, try to colormanage an HP 1220c
through its quickdraw drivers. They could make a rodeo-style contest out
of it, who resists for more time before tossing the beast into a trash
can.
The fact that Epson makes great RGB drivers can't be generalized into
saying that for all printers, RGB printing is as good or better than a
Rip. For most non-Epson, it isn't.
-- Roberto Michelena
EOS S.A.
Lima, Peru