do epson printers use 360/720 ppi no matter what you set in photoshop ?

[Aristoc]

I just wanted to know what to do with photoshop. not anything else.  It sounds like people feel upsampling or downsampling to 36 is better than not resampling at all. (for epson's that it).

[NikoJorj]

It sounds like people feel upsampling or downsampling to 36 is better than not resampling at all. (for epson's that it).

Some but not all...
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/more-on-printer-sharpness.html
Neither do I (I ran the experiment and saw the results - but I'm nowhere as good a source as Ctein).

[Ernst Dinkla]

Some but not all...
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/more-on-printer-sharpness.html
Neither do I (I ran the experiment and saw the results - but I'm nowhere as good a source as Ctein).

Much depends on the quality of the up- and downsampling algorithms + anti-aliasing with the last + the smart print sharpening possible given original image information and its dilution to larger print sizes. Drivers in general improved on the upsampling over the last decade. Several applications and plug-ins improved on more aspects. Photoshop isn't at the front of that development. Which sheds another light on Ctein's article as he wasn't interested in exploring this issue outside Photoshop's and the printer driver's capabilities. It is all less relevant when there is ample image resolution for the print size though even then it can be done wrong like heavy downsampling with inadequate algorithms where the better choice would have been to use a higher print quality setting that asks for a higher input resolution.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Spectral plots of +165 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[jheiser]

For lack of any better guideline, I leave the Lightroom print resolution set at 360PPI when sending images to my R2880.  Sometimes I get some banding, like a pattern of 1/8" checks, in light, relatively featureless areas of prints--both matte and glossy.

Thinking it might be some sort of moire that would still be there at 720, I just tried one of the problem prints at an intermediate value of 600, and it printed out very nicely. I can't see a bit of difference in fine details (hairs on closeup of butterfly), but it made a huge difference in the background, smoothing out the objectionable banding in the areas that have no detail.

[robb thurmond]

Your may be right ...but the difference is the user enabling the option - that's how the driver knows.

Basically according to Eric Chan and others, finest detail forces the printer driver/printer to operate at 720dpi, whereas the default is 360dpi.  While this might be beneficial for the sharp clean edges of vector graphics, it is not recommended for photographs and large images.  It most likely has more to do with longer rendering times and memory issues when printing the file and not actual image quality. I've tested it several times years ago, and I couldn't ever see any improvement from enabling finest detail.

The challenge with any output is understanding and correctly applying output sharpening, so using finest detail after sizing to 720dpi and correctly sharpening may indeed be beneficial for some images, but using it without those steps most likely will accomplish nothing.

I'm not sure that my answer is on topic, but as a graphic designer, I actually know something about this. That Finest quality selection is for text(most of which is vector) or any other vector object, and YES the printer does know the difference. Vector elements aren't rastorized until the final destination is known and allows the post script processor to raster the vector elements to optimize their curves. With the finest detail I can print 2 point type legibly, without it 8 point type is so aliased it looks muddy. It may also have some resolution influence, I am not as educated in that area, but I can tell you that if I am seeing aliasing its not a resolution issue. It's a post script issue. InDesign has an  option to "print as .bmp" which also turns off the post script processing, thus making text and vector images look muddy when there is fine detail.

I printed a page of business cards last night and forgot to make that selection, and the difference is night and day, no loupe needed.

My photography skills aren't sharp enough that printing at anything over  300dpi would display it, but I am fairly positive that the finest detail setting wouldn't touch your image. PostScript isn't a raster engine.