Xref: utzoo comp.lang.postscript:1408 comp.text.desktop:648 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!amdahl!pacbell!ditka!qiclab!sopwith!snoopy From: snoopy@sopwith.UUCP (Snoopy) Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript,comp.text.desktop Subject: Publishing laserset material (was: Re: I need a finer setgray) Message-ID: <88@sopwith.UUCP> Date: 16 Jan 89 00:42:21 GMT References: <10322@gryphon.COM> Reply-To: snoopy@sopwith.UUCP (Snoopy) Distribution: na Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm Lines: 34 In article <10322@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: |Get it set on a 2650 dpi Linotronic ? | |/* mild personal nit to pick */ | |I'm getting real tired of seeing books, forms, and ad's in magazines |set with a laser printer instead of a phototypesetter. | |That 3 volume O'reilly series about X-Windows, for exmaple is laser typeset, |and it doesnt look like a real book somehow. More like a thick company |newsletter. | |I can't help but feel that we're making negative progress here. What is happening is that the range of reproduction quality is getting compressed towards the middle. I am happy to see less memeograph (sp?) and draft quality dot matrix output. I don't think the laserprinters themselves are necessarily to blame for the cases of lowered quality. Sometimes the software driving them doesn't take advantage of the resolution available. Sometimes an advertiser will *want* an obviously low resolution output to make it look more "computery" to an audience used to associating very low resolution with computers. (No one ever accused advertisers of having taste.) And I have to wonder if the reproduction stage(s) after the laserprinter retain what quality the laserprinter does generate. A friend of mine has a 300dpi laserprinter that generates beautiful output. Run this through a photocopy machine, (even a big Kodak one, which has been the best I've found) and it looks pretty sad. _____ /_____\ Snoopy /_______\ |___| tektronix!tekecs!sopwith!snoopy |___| sun!nosun!illian!sopwith!snoopy