Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Mike Guilbault on February 28, 2013, 10:30:05 pm
-
A while ago there was a long thread about printing resolution with the outcome basically saying to uprez anything under 360ppi (for Epson) up to 360, and then up to 720ppi if above 360 but below 720. That seems to be working quite well and I've successfully printed images with native resolutions from about 180 and up.
My question is, if you have an image that is quite a bit less than 180ppi, what is the best method to bring it up to 360? Do you let LR do it all, or upsize it in PS or with something like Perfect Resize first?
-
A while ago there was a long thread about printing resolution with the outcome basically saying to uprez anything under 360ppi (for Epson) up to 360, and then up to 720ppi if above 360 but below 720. That seems to be working quite well and I've successfully printed images with native resolutions from about 180 and up.
My question is, if you have an image that is quite a bit less than 180ppi, what is the best method to bring it up to 360? Do you let LR do it all, or upsize it in PS or with something like Perfect Resize first?
Mike, one of the nice things about LR is that it will automatically add sharpening (PixelGenius PhotoKit based) as you uprez.
With PS, the interpolation routines are the same, but ou will need to add final sharpening.
I have not used Perfect Resize, but I understand that it's interpolation routines are similar to Qimage. Which is better depends on specific image.
I use Qimage. Did in the past because its interpolation routines were better than PS or LR. Plus, it automatically added superior smart sharpening to match the ice. Of the print and amount of interpolation. Recently, it added new sharpening routines which allow increased sharpening, if desired, without any haloing.
My normal approach is to leave the image without any resizing....sharpened until it looks correct on the screen. I will then export a TIFF (8bit, but 16bit if you choose). I can then print at any size I want, as interpolation and sharpening will automatically adjust. I almost always print at finest detail (720ppi), no matter what original.....file must be awfully small and print size, relatively, large to notice any problems.
John
-
Mike, I usually let LR do the upsizing for proofs, and pretty much anything that I don't sell or exhibit. It's not bad. Perfect Resize and QImage are better, and the difference between the two of them and LR grows as the upsizing ratio increases. But don't take my word for it. Look here (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=1896). If you want to see the results of a greater upsizing ratio, they're here (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=1907).
And finally, if you want to see what the upsizing algorithms do to the image before it hits the printer, look here (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=1913).
Jim
-
When I upsized an image in Perfect Resize recently, it appeared to me that some sharpening had been applied in the upsizing process, even though I had turned OFF sharpening. Does anyone know if my perception is correct, or not? This is important to me, because I very much like to apply my own sharpening, "to taste," which is often less, I think, than a program is likely to apply. --Barbara
-
...Mike, I usually let LR do the upsizing for proofs, and pretty much anything that I don't sell or exhibit. It's not bad. Perfect Resize and QImage are better, and the difference between the two of them and LR grows as the upsizing ratio increases...
They must be pretty good if they do a better job than Lightroom - I have got what I consider pretty spectacular results.
Maybe I should bite the bullet and buy the Suite including Perfect Resize.
Tony Jay
-
They must be pretty good if they do a better job than Lightroom - I have got what I consider pretty spectacular results.
Maybe I should bite the bullet and buy the Suite including Perfect Resize.
Hi Tony,
Give the trial version a go first. I did, and Perfect resize crashes on my computer. I use Benvista's Photozoom for upsampling, it's rock solid and produces superior results.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Give the trial version a go first. I did, and Perfect resize crashes on my computer. I use Benvista's Photozoom for upsampling, it's rock solid and produces superior results.
I will certainly have a look.
Thank you Bart.
Tony Jay
-
thanks guys - and Jim for those links to your blog - great info! I have Perfect Resize but haven't really used it much other than for creating mirror edges for gallery wraps. I would then bring the file back into LR and print from there. I just like the way LR Print Module works.
I do have a 12MP image that I wanted to print about 22x32 but after some cropping the res was only 129ppi. I'll give PR a try.
-
I just like the way LR Print Module works.
Mike, if you're not after the very ultimate quality, sometimes workflow trumps exotic resampling. I, too, am a fan of the LR print module. In the LR 3 days, when LR's resampling was distinctly sub-par, I used to feel terribly conflicted -- suffer the quality loss and gain the convenience, or bite the bullet and take the image to Photoshop/PR? LR is now good enough for many purposes.
John is a QImage fan. He uses it like I use the LR print module. Since he likes the Qimage workflow, he can have the best of both worlds: convenience and quality. QImage also offers a wide choice of resampling algorithms, if you want to take the time to see which one works best for each image; as far as I'm concerned, life's too short for that.
Some day, we may see third-party Lightroom plugins/helper apps that replace the LR resampling algorithm.
Jim
-
A while ago there was a long thread about printing resolution with the outcome basically saying to uprez anything under 360ppi (for Epson) up to 360, and then up to 720ppi if above 360 but below 720.
Mike, there's an important piece of information that often gets dropped. If you're going to send the Epson print driver a 720 ppi image, make sure the "Finest Detail" box is checked. If it's not, the printer driver will resample the image to 360 ppi using the "nearest neighbor" algorithm. I used to think that the trip from some resolution between 360 and 720 to 720 and back to 360 in the driver would damage the image over just taking the image to 360 and sending it ot the driver, but several experiments have convinced me that the two approaches produce virtually identical images. That's probably because the printer driver, seeing a 720 ppi image with the "Finest Detail" box unchecked, takes every other pixel in each direction, and those are the same pixels produced by a direct resizing to 360 ppi.
If you want proof that the Epson printer driver resamples an image to 360 ppi if the "Finest Detail" box is unchecked (and I would), it's here (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=581). Warning: you need to know a lttle about sampling theory to understand the details of the post.
Jim
-
I did know that Jim. I always make sure "Finest Detail" is checked if I'm going to 720. Not that my old eyes can see the difference, but I'm not the only one looking so I'd rather be safe.
What setting do you use if the native resolution is larger than 720? Happens mostly to smaller prints, but I'm never sure what to use.
-
What setting do you use if the native resolution is larger than 720? Happens mostly to smaller prints, but I'm never sure what to use.
I'd res it down to 720. Otherwise, the driver will, using nearest neighbor. By the way, I, too, can't see a difference between printing at 720 ppi and 360 ppi, except on special test images.
Jim
-
I'd res it down to 720. Otherwise, the driver will, using nearest neighbor. By the way, I, too, can't see a difference between printing at 720 ppi and 360 ppi, except on special test images.
Actually, there's a hidden feature in the Epson pro print drivers that can actually report a 1440 DPI rez to the OS pipeline, but it's not easy to do...first, you need to set the print rez to 2880, then check Finest Detail and then in the media settings, select one of the Proofing Paper media settings. I've tried it on Proofing Paper Commercial but I think it works with any of the proofing paper media settings...
As I understand it, this is done so 3rd party rips can send halftone screens to the printer to get a reasonably accurate CMYK proof based on halftone dots formed by the rip. But it's a very specific case...see the screenshot below: (note the High Speed is turned off)
(http://schewephoto.com/test/1440.png)
BTW, I can see the differences and benefits of using 720 when printing high rez images with high frequency texture not problem. But I tried to see and benefit to printing 1440 rez and could not (even though I was looking really hard :~).
-
My question is, if you have an image that is quite a bit less than 180ppi, what is the best method to bring it up to 360? Do you let LR do it all, or upsize it in PS or with something like Perfect Resize first?
I did a Webinar last year on sizing up and tested PR along with Photoshop and LR. The "winner" when viewed on a print was LR thanks to proper capture sharpening. Photoshop came in 2nd with PR dead last (along with the slowest processing by a mile). Everything was rendered out of LR of course. So considering LR can do this within it's own system if you will, and do it faster, I'd resize in the Print Module and be done. The upsize was 400% of native 5DMII.
-
Maybe I should have posted my question in another forum, but as sharpening coincident with upsizing was being discussed here as a factor in choosing an upsizing program, I thought someone might be able to help me. The question was whether PerfectResize automatically adds some sharpening as it upsizes, even if sharpening is turned off. Anyone? --Barbara
-
The question was whether PerfectResize automatically adds some sharpening as it upsizes, even if sharpening is turned off. Anyone? --Barbara
Barbara, even though the question seems simple, I'm not sure there's a definitive answer. You can view the work of a resampling program as taking place in two steps: first, from the input samples, create a model for an unsampled (continuous) image; second, sample that image. If the modeling emphasizes (or creates, it's hard to say which) high-spatial-frequency content in the modeled continuous image, some of that content will appear in the resampled image, especially if the resampling frequency is higher than the input sampling frequency, as is the case with upsizing. Thus, the image could look sharper even though there's no explicit sharpening step.
The situation is even murkier with PR, since it resizes in an iterative process, at least some of the time.
Jim
-
Barbara, even though the question seems simple, I'm not sure there's a definitive answer.
I agree. Unless the manufacturer tells us, I don't know how we'd know. I didn't find the default sharpening to be very good either. And where is it applied? Before, after resizing or both (IOW, a capture sharpening prior to or after the sizing)? Using LR or Photoshop, pretty clear what's going on. When ink hit the paper, it was pretty clear which was doing a better job IMHO.
-
I did a Webinar last year on sizing up and tested PR along with Photoshop and LR. The "winner" when viewed on a print was LR thanks to proper capture sharpening. Photoshop came in 2nd with PR dead last (along with the slowest processing by a mile). Everything was rendered out of LR of course. So considering LR can do this within it's own system if you will, and do it faster, I'd resize in the Print Module and be done. The upsize was 400% of native 5DMII.
Andrew, was the image capture sharpening performed in LR? If so, can you offer tips on doing it "properly"? Thanks.
Sal
-
Andrew, was the image capture sharpening performed in LR? If so, can you offer tips on doing it "properly"? Thanks.
Yes and to keep things simple, I think I just used defaults.
-
As I generally print my better images in two paper sizes - 13x19 and 17x22-25 - I have followed Schewe's past advice of upsampling first in ACR (don't use LR), taking it to the max. of ~28mp/16-bit PPrgb for my 16mp files, and de-convolution capture sharpening. I output the 300ppi TIF's to PS6 perfectly sized for my ~15.5x20.5 uncropped images, finishing with customized Smart Sharpen, often first with small radius, then wide radius-low level for local contrast enhancement.
Lately I've been in the habit of simply resizing without downsampling for my 13x19 (12x16) output, ending up printing these at around 380ppi. Heresy, I know, but I'll be hanged if I can see any IQ difference from my iPF5100 output with the suggested 300ppi downsampling. Printing in highest accuracy 600dpi mode, through the excellent 16-bit Canon plug-in. I've compared at my very myopic 6" focal point without glasses, but not loupe, and haven't compared upsampling to 600ppi for the 13x19's.
Anyone else with experience using this "one file fits all sizes" approach, particularly with newer printers?
Pete
-
I did a Webinar last year on sizing up and tested PR along with Photoshop and LR. The "winner" when viewed on a print was LR thanks to proper capture sharpening. Photoshop came in 2nd with PR dead last (along with the slowest processing by a mile). Everything was rendered out of LR of course. So considering LR can do this within it's own system if you will, and do it faster, I'd resize in the Print Module and be done. The upsize was 400% of native 5DMII.
Andrew...
I am not quite sure the steps of the testing you did.
If you used RAW out of the 5dII, how was the default capture sharpening in LR different from ACR in PS? Or did you turn it off when you "rendered" the PS & PR....why?
WHile I like the improvemnets in LR's print sharpening, it does not compare to the quality and ease of use of Qimage's interpolation and print sharpening....easily seen wth side-by-side comprisons.
I do not have a vested interest in these products.
-
If you used RAW out of the 5dII, how was the default capture sharpening in LR different from ACR in PS? Or did you turn it off when you "rendered" the PS & PR....why?
The raw was exported out of LR with it's capture sharpening set to Default if memory serves me. Then upsized in Photoshop. In addition, a version was upsized in Lightroom itself (with the same capture sharpening). This was to illustrate apples to apples leaving just the upsizing in those two applications to a test. That was key to getting the best results on print. Then the Perfect Resize was fed a rendered image with the LR default sharpening on as well as one without any capture sharpening.
-
Thank you, Jim and Andrew. I can tell I'm in for some more experimentation with my sharpening techniques. I've started printing some images larger on a new 8300, and sharpening has become an even more significant component of the final print. Although, I've always been picky about it, customizing it to the individual image. I'll add another question here, if everyone doesn't mind. An earlier poster noted that he did his low-level/high-radius sharpening as the last step in his sharpening workflow (for local constrast enhancement). When I have used a low-level/high radius step, I've done it before my final sharpening. What is the advice of you gurus? Comments are much appreciated. --Barbara
-
When I have used a low-level/high radius step, I've done it before my final sharpening.
Barbara, my advice is to do those image editing steps that don't change with the output device, resolution, size, paper finish, viewing distance, etc. early and let that image become your finished computer file. If you're printing from LR, let it apply the sharpening (you pick the amount) as it renders and resamples the image as part of the printing operation. If you're applying print-dependent resharpening yourself, wait until just before you print to do it. If I'm sharpening for printing in Photoshop, I always save the file first as temp.psd so I don't accidentally overwrite the finished computer file. After I print, I delete the file.
I consider the kind of contrast-adjustment unsharp masking (low amount, fuzzy "mask") you're talking about to usually (but not always) be independent of the output device, paper, etc. If you do too, do it early and make it part of your finished computer file (or virtual file, in a nondestructive editor like Lightroom). If you don't, do it at the end.
Does that make sense?
Jim
-
When I have used a low-level/high radius step, I've done it before my final sharpening. What is the advice...
Barbara, upon rereading your question, I think I may have answered a different one than the one you asked. If you are asking if you'll get different results if you perform the two unsharp masking operations in different order, I doubt if you will. If the images were quantized with infinite precision, there was no risk of the results clipping, and neither filter had a threshold or some "smart" component, I can assure you that it would not matter. The order of linear filter operations is immaterial to the result. It's like audio: if you want a bandpass filter, you can get it with a lowpass followed by a highpass, or a highpass followed by a lowpass.
So now you have two answers. I hope one of them is to your actual question.
Jim
-
Jim. thank you for your responses. Your second answer was actually the one that related to the question I had posed; however, I also appreciated your other comments. When I am inclined to use the low-amount/high-radius "sharpening" contrast adjustment, I have applied it just before my substantive sharpening, to a file that has been sized for print, and my sharpening settings are customized for that print size. You now have me thinking about applying it earlier, as part of my master file before I have sized it for print. For each photo file I work on, I save an unsized edited master, and also save a separate file sized and sharpened. For additional sizes, I go back to my master, sizing and sharpening from there, and save a new file sharpened to my liking for that size. After becoming comfortable with the settings in Unsharp Mask in Photoshop many years ago, I have continued to do my sharpening in PS, fine-tuning with adjustments among the three parameters. I like the control this gives me, and have been happy with the results. I've been using Canson Platine and similar papers for so long now that I haven't been driven to distraction by needing different sharpening settings for different media. I've begun to experiment with canvas, so that will be a new experience. Again, many thanks for your responses. --Barbara
-
A couple of Qimage points. You can choose the sharpening algorithm, the dpi, and the degree of sharpening before telling Qimage to print. Something else it allows is nesting of prints at various sizes on one sheet or roll. It also allows you to use a different profile for each of the nested prints. Finally, one of the most useful attributes is that you can choose to "Print-to-file", and then just see on screen how your choices have come out before using paper or canvas.
A close comparison between Qimage and Perfect Resize in my case had Qimage just ahead. No connection by me with any commercial printing software company.
-
Thanks for all the replies, they've helped me greatly.
-
Anyone else with experience using this "one file fits all sizes" approach, particularly with newer printers?
Pete
For almost a decade with Qimage.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
Many here are Mac users, so Qimage is unavailable to them.
-
Many here are Mac users, so Qimage is unavailable to them.
Hi,
Qimage apparently runs fine under Parallels or Fusion ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Many here are Mac users, so Qimage is unavailable to them.
Which is a shame as Qimage is that good.
If you do a lot of printing, it might just be worth it to have a small PC, just to do printing.