Canon IPf 5000 16bit print plugin

[marcmccalmont]

A year ago I received my iPF 5000 and did a lot of experimenting. I came to the conclusion that feeding the 16 bit plugin a file sized to 600 ppi (dpi) and letting the plug in resize to fit the paper size was sharper than sending the plug in the native resolution at a smaller ppi. After watching the first half of the "from camera to print" tutorial I decided to retest this. I found the most palpable, sharp and three dimensional print was from sending the plugin a 600 ppi file and letting the plugin up rez it. It seems the industry standard is to use a MAC, ACR, Lightroom, PS, Epson printer. Many of us use other tools (for me 5D w/aa filter removed, PC, DxO, PS, ipf5K print plugin). This morning with a quick test my best prints were created as follows (the differences were slight but!):
Dxo;
raw conversion sharpening .25
PS;
Unsharp mask 18,45,0
Focus fixer .9,0
resize 6"x9" 600 dpi, bicubic smoother
Focus fixer .9,0
export to plugin
Canon Plugin;
High accuracy 600 dpi, 16 bit, 2400x1200, uprez bi-linear method

I wonder if others have had similar results?
Marc

[thompsonkirk]

"I found the most palpable, sharp and three dimensional print was from sending the plugin a 600 ppi file [for a 6x9 image] and letting the plugin up rez it....  I wonder if others have had similar results?"

Maybe your question is clearer in the context of the tutorial; but otherwise, it looks like you need to clarify the steps & variables in your experiments.  

1.  First, res-ing up to what size?  Methods of res-ing up & of sharpening interact, & what comes out looking best depends to an important degree on how big a print you're making.  Optimal settings for smaller prints aren't going to be the same as for the 16x24s that your printer will make.  

2.  Say more about that second sharpening operation?  Looks more like 'local contrast enhancement' than conventional sharpening?  So -

3.  Did you choose not to do a final output sharpening?  Or did your variables include output sharpening before vs. after res-ing up?  Most folks won't want to do their output sharpening until the image has already been res-ed up.  The Photokit Sharpener, for example, asks you to come up with your full-sized print before you try to output-sharpen it.  

4.  But resing up before output sharpening would seem to rule out letting the printer do it?  - Or did you actually see results that suggest it's better to sharpen before up-resing??

[marcmccalmont]

Most of my prints are A3+ but I've run the tests A2 and A3 with similar results
(Fuji pro glossy paper).
Every test is better with the plugin fed a 600 ppi file (I don't understand why?) whether up-rezzed to say 13x19 600 ppi (no printer up rezzing) or native resolution 600 ppi w/printer up-rezzing. The best results are with a 2 step method (done not for quality but for a smaller archivable master file). Resize in PS using bicubic smoother to 6"x 9" 600 ppi then let the plugin resize to fit the paper.
Focusfixer recommends sharpening early in the workflow so that is what I do. I run it a second time after I uprez to 6"x9" 600 ppi. The first I would call capture sharpening even though DxO did a little. The unsharp mask would be my local contrast adjustment and the second focusfixer after up-rezzing would be my output sharpening.
This goes against everything that is published including the recent tutorial, that’s why I'm asking. I don't think I am nuts but you never know? Perhaps it is the way the plugin was engineered? I am wondering if other iPF5K owners have seen the same? It doesn’t make sense that a file up-rezzed in PS then again by the printer plugin would look the best but it does?
Marc

[John Hollenberg]

Did you compare your preferred method to up-rez in PS with bicubic smoother to 600 PPI at full output size?  Slower, but interested in whether there are any quality differences when PS does the final up-rez rather than using bilinear in the driver.

--John

[John Hollenberg]

I decided to do my own testing today to simplify my workflow with the plugin and make sure I am getting the best quality.

Test material:

1) Canon 5D image taken on a tripod with mirror lockup
2) Capture sharpen with Outback Photo EasyS Sharpening Toolkit using Low Sharpening, halo control, new layer with mask
3) Set sharpening layer opacity to 50% (sharpen to taste at 100% view) and flatten the image layers.

Test setup: Start with base image in Step #3 above. Output sharpening was done with PK Sharpener. All printing was done through the iPF5000 Export Plugin to Epson Premium Luster paper.

Print 1: Resize Bicubic smoother to 14 X 21 size at 600 PPI, output sharpen at 480 Glossy, flatten, print

Prints 2-4: Resize Bicubic smoother to 6 X 9 size at 600 PPI, output sharpen at 480 Glossy, flatten (this is used as the base image for remaining test prints), then:

Print 2: Resize Bilinear in PS to 14 X 21 at 600 PPI, print
Print 3: Resize Bicubic smoother in PS to 14 X 21 at 600 PPI, print
Print 4: Resize Bilinear in Export Plugin to 14 X 21 at 600 PPI while printing

Print 5: Resize Bicubic smoother to 6 X 9 size at 600 PPI, output sharpen at 480 Glossy, set opacity of output sharpening layer to 60%, flatten, Resize Bicubic Smoother in PS to 14 X 21 at 600 PPI, print

Notes: Prints 2-4 differ only in the second upsizing method used, and whether done by PS or Export plugin. Print 5 is the same as Print #3, except that the opacity of the output sharpening layer is set to 60% before proceeding with the rest of the sequence.

Results:

--Print 1 (my previous method) was judged to be the least sharp, and probably a bit under-sharpened. Note that the difference was subtle, but noticeable in a blind test.

--Prints 2 and 4 (both bilinear resize, one done in Export Plugin, the other in PS) were judged to be identical to my eye. The advantage of doing the resizing in Photoshop is that you can specify an exact size in PS, but have to work with percentages in the plugin.

--Print 5 was a bit sharper than Prints 2 and 4.

--Print 3 was the sharpest, but to me had a subtle artificial or "digital" look.

Winner (to my eye): Print 2, although could go with Print 5. Print 2 looked more natural to me, with Print 5 having a very slight "digital" look. Either could be the best, depending on your taste.

Conclusion: I have verified that to my eye, the procedure recommended by Marcalmont produces the best result (and also takes about the least computing resources). However, I prefer to do the final bilinear up-rez in Photoshop.

--John

[marcmccalmont]

John
I'm glad you took the time to verify that what I was seeing is correct and not an anomaly I wonder if it applies to other printers?
Marc

PS I see almost no difference in the plugins final up rez (bi linear) or Photoshop’s final uprez (bi cubic smoother) If I had to pick one I would favor the plugins final up rez.

[John Hollenberg]

I reviewed the prints again this morning with a fresh eye, and added in one more technique:

Print 6: Start with Capture Sharpened and flattened base image described at beginning of first post. Uprez to 14 X 21 at 600 PPI using the automated sharpening action developed by Jack Flesher for Outback Photo:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_60/essay.html

His automated Photoshop action uses uprez to 20% over intended size using Bicubic Smoother, some additional Unsharp Mask, then downsizing to intended size using Bicubic Sharper. He calls it a form of fractal sharpening. Free automated action for both PC and Mac.

Results of second look:

Print #1 was too soft. The rest were a matter of taste, with increasing perceived sharpness in this order:

#2 = #4
#5
#3
#6

The "artifical digital look" was less prominent than I saw previously, and I had a hard time distinguishing some of the choices. I found that what I objected to in the "sharpest" prints was the apparent slight over-sharpening of fine detail. However, there was a tiny bit more detail perceivable, so perhaps not really over-sharpened.

I also noticed that while #6 may have been a bit over-sharpened for my taste for very fine detail (bushes near the horizon of the test image), it did the best job for medium and large detail in the foreground and mid-ground, making the poppies "pop" in a very realistic way and appearing to bring the small yellow flowers at mid-distance into sharper focus in a way which also looked very good.

To see the test image and download small sections of the images (in a layered TIFF file for easy comparison), see this thread:

http://canonipf5000.wikispaces.com/message/view/FAQ/820899

Please only download the comparison TIFF files if you intend to study them--my bandwidth is limited.

--John