Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: vjbelle on November 05, 2010, 01:35:31 pm
-
Is there any advantage to printing in Lightroom over CS5? I would think that the print engines would be identical - are they?
Thanks for any replies.....
-
Is there any advantage to printing in Lightroom over CS5? I would think that the print engines would be identical - are they?
Thanks for any replies.....
LR will automatically apply such output sharpening as is appropriate for the paper type (matt/glossy) and size of the print. CS5 won't. There may be other differences but that is, I believe, by far the most important.
Jeremy
-
A follow up to the original question. What is the benefit of image resizing(larger) with resampling in photoshop than creating a larger cell size and increasing the DPI in LR3 if the file is to be printed just out of LR3. Is there a significant improvement in image quality if this is done in CS5, if so then what about the need for fractal program. I am taking my images with a D3x and making prints up to 20x30 on Epson 7900?
-
LR will automatically apply such output sharpening as is appropriate for the paper type (matt/glossy) and size of the print. CS5 won't. There may be other differences but that is, I believe, by far the most important.
Jeremy
One more advantage to LR is the fact that you can define presets for specific papers and sizes and count on LR doing the right thing every time. In CS5 I always found that in about one print out of every ten I forgot to specify one little thing in either the printer driver or the Photoshop panel and I screwed something up and had to reprint. Since recently switching to LR for all printing I have saved lots of ink and paper just from the use of the presets alone.
Eric
-
Add to those output sharpening and resizing, and presets that include driver settings, some ability to do basic layouts (still limited though) in a simpler way than in PS.
-
Biggest drawback of printing from light room is the lack of soft proofing in light room. Have to jump into ps to soft proof so I print from it as well.
-
Biggest drawback of printing from light room is the lack of soft proofing in light room. Have to jump into ps to soft proof so I print from it as well.
Another minor issue in LR (which I hope gets attention next version). Its darn difficult to print a document at 100% scale. The template has to be exactly configured to do this. So for those of us having to print, say a target to build a profile, where the patches have to be an exact size, its super easy in Photoshop’s Print dialog, just ensure the 100% check box is on, no scaling. Not so easy in LR. But otherwise, I love the LR print module.
-
Another minor issue in LR (which I hope gets attention next version).
Should be resolved before that, when Adobe unleashes its target printing app... Seems like we had never been so close to that moment as now. ;)
-
Should be resolved before that, when Adobe unleashes its target printing app... Seems like we had never been so close to that moment as now. ;)
True, but there still should be an easy way to print any document out at 100% in the Print Module. A simple check box would do the trick for existing rendered (and thus doc’s with a “size” specified) images.
-
Is it possible to define a LR present that will adjust roll paper length to fit the image? I almost always print with the short dimension of the image at 15" (because I use 16" roll paper and want a 1/2" white border). But the long dimension of my images varies depending on the camera and cropping. I'd love a preset that looks at the image size and automatically cuts the roll paper 1" longer than the image's long dimension and prints the image centered.
-
Is it possible to define a LR preset that will adjust roll paper length to fit the image?
Sounds neat, but... Such an automation (plugin rather than preset?) would have to talk with the driver to set the page length (which has to be set anyway). Not that simple I'd guess.
Nevertheless, that goes without saying it would be warmly welcome!
-
Its darn difficult to print a document at 100% scale.
That's not a minor issue to me. I'm glad to see someone else point it out. I love printing out of Lightroom except for this glitch. I frequently want to print images that have been sized precisely to odd sizes. I would love to be able to do it in Lightroom without having to spend considerable time building a precise custom template for each one. Just as there is a "zoom to fit" check box, there needs to be a "Leave this already sized image alone PLEASE!" check box. Such an option would also make it easy to print test sections of large images to smaller template. All of these things are dead simple in Photoshop.
I'm guessing that part of the problem is that Lightroom is designed primarily to work with various raw format files. Such a file doesn't have a "size" until its rendered. I'm sure it would complicate the print interface a bit to designate different handling for rendered files (tiff, jpeg) versus raw (DNG, CR2, NEF etc).
Bob Smith
-
As much as I love LightRoom, I have found its printing module to be pretty worthless. It seems to be designed for professional wedding photographers and the like who need to crank out large, repetitive print jobs. Nothing wrong with that, but it is not what I need. I may make only 1 or 2 prints a week, but they are precisely crafted and I need complete control over everything. LR does not provide this, so I print from Photoshop. I am not in such a rush that the extra 30 or 60 seconds required to set print options in PS is a problem.
-
It seems to be designed for professional wedding photographers and the like who need to crank out large, repetitive print jobs.
No actually...it was designed for me. I also don't do tons of volumes of prints but what I do demand is absolute consistency and repeatability as well as an efficient workflow...so what exactly do you try to control that Lightroom limits you? The only limit I see is a slight difficulty in printing out images at exactly 100% but since I rarely worry about that anymore as I no longer have to build an image iteration for each and every print size I make (another benefit of LR printing) I really don't care about specific sizes at specific resolutions since the output sharpening can be applied automatically at the final resolution leaving only the actual print size to deal with.
I would suggest that if you have problems using the Lightroom Print module for high quality fine art printing, maybe you should learn how to use it.
-
LR does not let me control the output sharpening. Its output sharpening is quite good, but I would rather decide this myself than have some programmer do it for me.
LR makes it very difficult to control the paper and image size, particularly when using roll paper.
There's no soft-proofing (fatal!).
I think that LR is probably the best designed and executed program I have ever used, and given my 30 years of experience with computers that is saying a lot. That does not mean I will be silent about its few flaws.
-
LR does not let me control the output sharpening. Its output sharpening is quite good, but I would rather decide this myself than have some programmer do it for me.
Some programmer? You mean me? The output sharpening is based upon (and furthers) Bruce Fraser's PhotoKit Output Sharpening...and we (PixelGenius) worked with "the programers" to get it to work really well. Can you do it better personally? Nope, I don't think so...what you can to is modify both the captuer sharpeing and creative sharpening that will impact the output sharpening but I gotta tell you that combined with the adaptive resampling and the output output sharpening I seriously doubt Photoshop is the best place to print from. Yes, I process images out and bring them into Photoshop for soft proofing but I save the file and print from Lightroom after soft proofing.
As far as difficulty controlling paper and image size, exactly what do you mean, exactly?
-
Yes, the lack of soft proofing is an issue but I still feel the Print module is worth the price of admission. The idea of printing one image at a time, setting everything up each time out of Photoshop is positively so 20th century. Once you setup templates, printing out of LR is wonderful. Worth a trip to Photoshop for soft proofing just to end up back in LR.'s print module.
-
Yes, I mostly love the Lightoom print module. Output sharpening and resizing algorithms work like a charm. But the not being able to print a sized image to size is a major pain. I do a lot of large format printing to non standard sizes where i may allow varying amounts of bleed area that will be trimmed away upon mounting. I really don't want size altered one iota upon printing. I have usually sized the document without altering the rez up or down so that I can allow the print module or printer driver to do that part. I would love for Lightroom to do its thing and output to my defined size without having to reenter the parameters into a new Lightroom template all over again after I've already sized the image in Photoshop. It wouldn't be so bad except the resulting size is often some oddball fractional inch measurements in both dimensions so simply remembering what to enter into Lightroom isn't always easy.
Give me the ability to print sized images and I'll fully sing the praises of the Lightroom print module from the rooftops.
Bob Smith
-
LR makes it very difficult to control the paper and image size, particularly when using roll paper.
It justs uses the driver for that (as does PS), and yes it's really not fitted at all with roll paper use, where one should just specify a roll width and let the driver find the appropriate page length depending on image size and margins.
Alas, this valley of tears ain't no perfect world.
-
I am not doubting the excellence of LR's sharpening. The point I was making is that it is done automatically and I don't get any say in it. But, maybe I should play around with it some more. If it's really as good as you suggest, maybe I can relinquish control over this aspect of print making.
-
I am not doubting the excellence of LR's sharpening. The point I was making is that it is done automatically and I don't get any say in it. But, maybe I should play around with it some more. If it's really as good as you suggest, maybe I can relinquish control over this aspect of print making.
What I find slightly puzzling is that you get extensive and very complete control over capture sharpening in LR, but only three basic levels of output sharpening. Does this mean that capture sharpening is actually rather more significant in some way? Like Peter, I am not grumbling about the results, though.
John
-
I am not doubting the excellence of LR's sharpening. The point I was making is that it is done automatically and I don't get any say in it.
Because you don’t need to IF you did an adequate job of capture sharpening of which the output sharpening is also based upon.
-
Does this mean that capture sharpening is actually rather more significant in some way?
Yes...capture sharpening depends on the image source and image content both of which may actually have conflicting aspects. There is no way of determining how to sharpen for both.
Output sharpening is determinate-meaning the optimal sharpening is only dependent on the proper capture sharpening and then the resolution and the media. Both the resolution and the media are known once set so the sharpening can be automatically applied.
-
Although it is not DIRECTLY related (i.e. to sharpening), may I nevertheless slip in a question please.
Is there any possibility to define presets for parts only of all the print options, leaving all the other print options unchanged to what they were set before applying the preset? Similar to “Synchronize” where you can select the options which shall be synchronized, the others remaining unchanged.
With different papers and different layouts I would find it useful to have one preset which only applies to the printer settings (basically the “Page setup” in the left panel and the “Print Job” in the right panel) and one preset which only applies to the layout (basically the remainder of the right panel). Like this you could very flexibly select a printer/paper and layout combination without needing to have a combined preset (which can of course be done, but errors might easily slip in and number of presets increase a lot).
Any ideas about this?
-
Is there any possibility to define presets for parts only of all the print options, leaving all the other print options unchanged to what they were set before applying the preset?
Not at this time...if you can made a compelling use case, write up a feature request in the Lightroom Feature Request Forum (http://forums.adobe.com/community/lightroom/lightroom_feature_requests?view=discussions).
-
Thanks for the quick answer, Jeff. Don't you think this would be a compelling feature?
-
Don't you think this would be a compelling feature?
Not really...I don't mind making lots of presets to handle my two printers and the paper sizes and types I print with.
You realize that you CAN create base presets for printer/paper size (the left panel controls) with "defaults" for the right panel and select the preset and modify the right size settings you need to modify for a given print? Selecting a preset will be an absolute set of parameters but you are free to alter those settings at will. Whether or not you choose to create a new preset will be dictated by whether or not you may want to use those same settings later.
I've got about 18 different presets to handle printer, page size, color or B&W, rendering intent and profile and resolution. Those handle 90% of the prints I do. The rest are custom prints that I set up as needed.
So, no, personally, your idea isn't compelling to me. It may be to others–can't speak for them. That's why I suggested posting on the feature request list to see if you can get the support of others...
-
... write up a feature request in the Lightroom Feature Request Forum (http://forums.adobe.com/community/lightroom/lightroom_feature_requests?view=discussions).
Thanks Jeff. I'll check into this the next days and will maybe try it.
-
Hi,
Output sharpening is a precompensation for the smearing in the printing process. So how and how much to sharpen depends on process and media.
Another issue is that you cannot previsualize output sharpening on screen, the only way to that is actually printing.
The third point is that Lightroom can resize the image for printing, and resizing almost always also demands sharpening.
When printing from Lightroom the program knows about image size and PPI and can select the best combination of sharpening methods. What Lightroom lacks is more options for non inkjet printing, like continuous tone. Durst Lambda and Lightjet are examples for contone.
I'd really recommend the Bruce Fraser/Jeff Schewe book on image sharpening.
Best regards
Erik
What I find slightly puzzling is that you get extensive and very complete control over capture sharpening in LR, but only three basic levels of output sharpening. Does this mean that capture sharpening is actually rather more significant in some way? Like Peter, I am not grumbling about the results, though.
John
-
Thank you, Jeff and Erik, for clarifying sharpening for me. That was most helpful.
I am afraid that I am somewhat lazy when it comes to these technicalities, just like I was in the darkroom. As long as I can get the thing to work and get a decent result in my print, I tend to stick with the method that I am comfortable with and I am not then terribly interested in the why. Poor attitude, I know.
John
-
Thanks to J.S. for contribution to thread. LR's print module is just brilliant...anything I could say would be understating it somewhat...but presets, and general simplicity of workflow/speed cannot be matched by PS or other. The thought of printing through PS again just causes my brain to go into pre-implosion...
-
... LR's print module is just brilliant...anything I could say would be understating it somewhat...but presets, and general simplicity of workflow/speed cannot be matched by PS or other. ...
Just curiosity, not trying to pick a fight ... What does LR's print module offer that Qimage has not done for years?
My workflow is BreezeBrowser, Capture One and Qimage. I've tried to move to LR because I like the NR (and to a lesser extent the sharpening) so much better than C1's, but the workflow change has buffaloed me so far, and I'm only using it now for RAW conversion of certain critical high ISO images.
Nill
-
Hi,
What about:
- Works in a parametric workflow
- Works on Mac OS/X
I have nothing against QImage, I used it on Windows in my PC-days. I may still use it sometimes would it work on the Mac. On the other hand, Lightroom is a great workflow application that does also print and does it really well.
Best regards
Erik
Just curiosity, not trying to pick a fight ... What does LR's print module offer that Qimage has not done for years?
My workflow is BreezeBrowser, Capture One and Qimage. I've tried to move to LR because I like the NR (and to a lesser extent the sharpening) so much better than C1's, but the workflow change has buffaloed me so far, and I'm only using it now for RAW conversion of certain critical high ISO images.
Nill
-
My workflow is BreezeBrowser, Capture One and Qimage.
Three separate apps without an integrated workflow sounds like a inefficient workflow to me...
As far as the print output from Lightroom vs Qimage? Easy, I'm on Mac so there's no point in discussing differences, I've not used Qimage.
Well, actually I did test it out a couple of years back after Mike Chaney, Bruce Fraser and I had a debate on the merits of upsampling to 720PPI for Epson output. Ironically, I've actually come around to that way of thinking recently for high resolution images with lots of textural detail. Which is one reason that LR 3 can now upsample to 720 using it's adaptive upsample and then output sharpen.
The only shortcoming I still see in LR is the inability to soft proof so that requires a trip into Photoshop for serious prints. Hopefully that will change in a future version...
-
Three separate apps without an integrated workflow sounds like a inefficient workflow to me...
...
You might be surprised. If you guys ever give us proper configurable keyboard shortcuts, I might be able to match it in LR... ;-)
Nill
-
Here is a 'new' product to review. It is being sold in the US by dtgweb.com
http://www.dinax.de/mirage/
-
What does LR's print module offer that Qimage has not done for years?
UI understandability. ;D
-
UI understandability. ;D
+1!
-
Interesting. I find LR's UI generally to be most opaque I have encountered since I last slogged my way up Capture One's long steep learning curve. Different strokes. ;-)
Nill
p.s. Which is not to argue, mind you, that Qimage's UI is particularly straightforward. It definitely has its own learning curve — steep, yes, but short — and it certainly gets the job done.
-
Three separate apps without an integrated workflow sounds like a inefficient workflow to me...
Hi Jeff,
That's an interesting remark, but yet I wonder ...
How do people work in LR in practice? I've used earlier versions of Lightroom, and liked some parts, but not the integrated workflow. It's even different enough from Photoshop to make it less than intuitive to switch between the two of them. Maybe it's due to the way I work, and it makes me wonder how others do. Mind you, this all has nothing to do with shaking old habits, but efficiency!
When I open the results of a shoot, my first action (after making a backup of the Raws) is culling of the files based on general usability for the intended goal. Secondly I mark my shots based on technical quality, and thirdly I flag the best composition/potential wise. There are three iterations I go through almost all of the time. It makes no difference whether I do that in Capture One or Lightroom's Develop module. I most certainly do not do a full workflow run all the way to print as soon as I ingest the Raws into the workflow.
Based on the remaining list of candidates, I will do more postprocessing to strengthen the things I like, or reduce the things I don't. I can do that quite well in Photoshop, and some other tools I might need. I most certainly do not finish the workflow run all the way to print yet.
After all preliminary work, I revisit if I still agree with my earlier vision, maybe a tweak here and there is needed. I most certainly do not print yet.
After setting up the printer, check for cleanliness, check ink levels, perhaps do nozzle cleaning, what have you, only then I am ready to print in the most efficient way possible, including selecting different sizes per images nesting, grouping by paper type, other special requirements, and then send the files of to the printer. I have no problem doing that with Qimage, I can even print teststrips, and if need be tweak the output for that specific paper, even if I print to several paper types. The printjobs and settings get saved for future/repeat use automatically.
This is just as easily, perhaps more efficiently, done with separate applications that are individually the best suited for their part of the workflow.
Where is the benefit of a Leatherman tool with its inevitable Jack of all trades shortcomings in that, efficiency wise?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just for those who seems interested. There EXISTS since a few weeks a quite efficient Soft Proof plugin for Lightroom. You can find it here. The free version has some very annoying issues but the paid - cheap - is very useful in my eyes. You can find it --> HERE <-- (http://www.lightroom-plugins.com/ProofIndex.php)
-
Just for those who seems interested. There EXISTS since a few weeks a quite efficient Soft Proof plugin for Lightroom. You can find it here. The free version has some very annoying issues but the paid - cheap - is very useful in my eyes. You can find it --> HERE <-- (http://www.lightroom-plugins.com/ProofIndex.php)
This link was previously posted but I have not seen anyone review the full version yet.
-
I do not feel like making a special full review of it but it simply works. You decide that you want to print a selected picture with precise profile selected paper etc and the plugin shows you the effect of it on screen. Then you can choose 4 of your favorite choices for not loosing time selecting profiles next time. The result can be saved and seen apart :) For me at that moment it is sufficient or rather would I say this is the best you can get in Lightroom today. It is for me better than nothing :)
-
I have played around with Lightroom to see if there would be any benefit over my current workflow. I certainly like the idea of not having to save numerous iterations of my file but the final printed result is inferior to my current method.
I took a file shot with a 5DII and Zeiss 100 Macro lens live view focused with a loup. This file is in perfect focus. I processed it in lightroom and ACR the exact same way with sharpening 100, 0.5. My goal was to produce a 30 inch print. In CS5 I used Fractal to upsize to 30 inches with sharpening of radius 1 amount 75. I then view the image at 50% pixels and apply smart sharpen 200, 0.5. That is my CS5 workflow for most of my prints from 5DII files.
In lightroom I printed the image with standard and high sharpening to 30 inches. There is a distinct visual difference between Lightroom and CS5. The print in CS5 shows finer/more delicate detail that can easily be seen at 20 inches - in other words close inspection. I also printed the same file in Qimage with Hybrid and Lanczos sharpening. The distinction between Lightroom and Qimage is much more subtle but I would have to give the edge to Qimage.
I get the same results with files shot with my P45 - the sharper print always comes out of CS5 with Fractals upsampling. I'm always looking for a better workflow method and Lightroom is certainly simpler (unless there is a need for layers) but not better than printing out of CS5 with Fractal upsampling.
-
I get the same results with files shot with my P45 - the sharper print always comes out of CS5 with Fractals upsampling. I'm always looking for a better workflow method and Lightroom is certainly simpler (unless there is a need for layers) but not better than printing out of CS5 with Fractal upsampling.
What printer? If an Epson, try setting the resolution option to 720PPI (600PPI for HP or Canon) and then let Lightroom output sharpen. If your capture sharpening settings are correct for the image, you should get optimal output from Lightroom...
-
I'm printing with a 9900. In June of last year I posted a question regarding the Epson "finest detail" setting and that I had experimented printing at 720 vs 360 and that there was a visual difference - most responders thought I was nuts! However, I was upsampling in Fractals...... those files were really, really big!! Fractals may be the reason for this visual difference. Anyway, I'll do as you suggested and let you know what I see.
Victor
-
Jeff,
As you suggested I printed at 720 PPI from LR with my cropped original 5DII file. Now I realize that this file is smaller than optimal for 720 printing but from my past experience there should be some visual appreciation. I once again want to stress that this file, as others, are tack sharp and in absolute in focus. This is extremely important for any upsampling. The result out of LR was very disappointing..... soft, lack of fine detail - in fact worse than the 360 print.
I took the same cropped image and upsampled in Fractals - same sharp settings as before - to 720 PPI. As you know this is over 21000 pixels in the long direction from a file that originally had only 5616 pixels.....that's a lot of upsampling! I sharpened that file in smart sharpen 300, 1.0. I viewed at 25% and could barely see a difference but there was some....... That printed image was almost night and day compared to the LR image with the PS image showing much finer detail and better sharpening. It appears evident to me that its the upsampling techniques and subsequent sharpening that are directly affecting the printed image. I have always been unhappy with the standard PS upsampling which is most likely used in LR. I know that On One has integrated their Fractal program for use with LR so that may offer some alternatives.....I don't know if that file has to be saved or if LR will store that step or if PS has to also be integrated into the mix. All I know for sure is what my eyes see...... Fractals is very necessary for my workflow. I really suggest that you try all of this for yourself.
-
It appears evident to me that its the upsampling techniques and subsequent sharpening that are directly affecting the printed image. I have always been unhappy with the standard PS upsampling which is most likely used in LR.
Actually no...since you don't say how you upsampled in Photoshop I can't comment but Lightroom uses an adaptive upsampling that Photoshop doesn't have.
You also don't state how your capture sharpening is done in this case...
As far as "Fractal", it has a sharpening component built in so the pre-sharpening before upsampling and the after sharpening is being combined with the upsample sharpening...so what you are seeing is more sharpening overall. You can indeed match up the sharpening either in capture sharpening in Lightroom or sharpening in Photoshop.
All I can do is point to my considerable experience and indicate for my work, proper capture sharpening and LR's output sharpening produce optimal prints for me. YMMV...
-
Jeff,
Luckily there are numerous solutions for a given problem. Lightroom is a very compelling program - especially for its efficient use of hard drive assets. You should equally be very proud of your contributions to the program..... I intend to integrate it into my workflow, sometimes having to go back and forth to PS but that can't be avoided in certain circumstances.
Thanks for you input.....
Victor
-
Could some one please give a more detailed explanation of what people are talking about when they say LR won't print at 100%, and that it changes print size. I ask because almost every print of mine is an odd size and LR seems to print at that size, EXCEPT for one panorama which would not for love or money print at the size that was indicated in LR print module. I had to adjust the indicated size until I got it to print correctly. Normally I wouldn't really care, but in this case I had already had a mat cut for it. Maybe another thread, or maybe this is not at all what people are talking about?
-
LR can print at 100%, no question. Getting the template setup to do this is not so easy. It has to be exactly configured to do so. So its not impossible. But a check box that would automatically do this from rendered image that has a “size” specified (its resolution) would make this a lot easier. Look at the Photoshop Print dialog and you’ll see that you can easily tell it to print the image at 100% (or change it).
-
Could some one please give a more detailed explanation of what people are talking about when they say LR won't print at 100%, and that it changes print size. I ask because almost every print of mine is an odd size and LR seems to print at that size, EXCEPT for one panorama which would not for love or money print at the size that was indicated in LR print module. I had to adjust the indicated size until I got it to print correctly. Normally I wouldn't really care, but in this case I had already had a mat cut for it. Maybe another thread, or maybe this is not at all what people are talking about?
Basically 100% means the printsize on paper equals the size you get by dividing the pixel dimensions of the image file with the printer resolution , e.g. 300pixel/inch. Example: i made a image with pxel size 3000 x 2100 pixels. My printer resolutions s 300 p/inch, so 100% print is 10 x 7 inches.
In LR today you develop an image of given pixels, and when printing you specifiy the printsize, regardless of the pixel dimensions o f the image. In the printer part you specifiy the printresolution, such as 240p/inch, and leave it to LR to uprez or downrez the image to fit the effective number of pixels needed (printsize x printresolution).
The one thing LR is missing is an option to derive prinsize from pixels in image and prinresolution.
-
Thank-you. That is the explanation I was looking for. Doesn't tell me why LR refused to print my pano at the correct size, but that seems to be a fluke.
-
The thing to understand about LR's Print module is that it was designed for the common case of printing to a desired output size, specified in physical units (like inches, cm, etc.).
It is not clear to me why printing images at 100%, or being able to derive the physical dimensions from other units (e.g., # of pixels + print resolution) is desirable.
-
Because you don’t need to IF you did an adequate job of capture sharpening of which the output sharpening is also based upon.
What then is the recommended approach for files where capture and creative sharpening was applied exclusively in Photoshop (lets call them "legacy" files): apply capture sharpening in LR after the fact, or print from PS?
-
It is not clear to me why printing images at 100%, or being able to derive the physical dimensions from other units (e.g., # of pixels + print resolution) is desirable.
If one has prepped an image in Photoshop and wants to print out of Lightroom without ANY resampling, the current method is suboptimal. You have to know in advance exactly what the pixel destiny is at a given dimensions so you can work arounds Lightroom's lack of 100% output. It would be useful to have a control in Lightroom that allowed you to display the image's current dimensions and pixel density and allow the user to specify that Lightroom output the image without resampling...