3800, image size dimensions and ppi

[jjlphoto]

I have an Epson 3800, use the standard Epson driver on on OSX10.4.11 with custom made ICC profiles.

I'm going to make a series 17x22 BW prints on Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper of various portraits I have shot with my 1Ds.

Any thoughts if it is better to use Photoshop's 'Image Size' and re-sample all the shots (they will need assorted degrees of re-sampling) to my finished height of 20"high @ 240ppi, and then send them all to the Epson driver, or should I send them in at their native dimensions, but at an identical ppi of 240 with no Photoshop re-sampling, and let the Epson driver up-size them?

The reason I chose 240ppi was because I read that multiples of 720 work best with Epson printers. Urban legend? Use another ppi?

[Randy Carone]

Resample in Photoshop and send your print size to the Epson. You should get better results than letting the Epson driver up or downsize. You are correct about 240 as one of the optimum PPI sizes to send to an Epson. In Michael and Jeff's vid Camera to Print Jeff lists the optimum PPIs. If my memory is correct they are 180, 240, 360, 480. Not certain about the last two but 180 and 240 are definitely two he recommended. I also remember a seminar at the Apple Store in SoHo where the instructor said that 180ppi is sufficient when sending a file to an Epson. I wonder if any other Forumites can chime in to say whether they notice much difference in the yield from sending an image to print at 180 vs 240 vs higher ppi?

[AFairley]

My understanding is that the 3800's native resolution is 360.  If you're uprezzing to 240, why not go all the way to 360?

[jjlphoto]

I wonder if any other Forumites can chime in to say whether they notice much difference in the yield from sending an image to print at 180 vs 240 vs higher ppi

Thanks Randy. I guess the million dollar question is then send them in at 180, as they are very close to that and would hence require very minimal bi-cubic re-sampling , or do a major bi-cubic re-sampling up to 240.

My understanding is that the 3800's native resolution is 360.  If you're uprezzing to 240, why not go all the way to 360?

Given that, is Photoshop 'Image Size' the best way to do such a huge up-sample from 170 to 360, or simply send 'er in at 180?

I'm sending one in at 180, (I always output at Epson's 1440 setting) and will report back.

[jjlphoto]

They look fine sent in 'to size' at 180. Right now, it is hard to justify the additional expense (in paper and ink) of running tests at 240 or 360.

[tomm101]

Given that, is Photoshop 'Image Size' the best way to do such a huge up-sample from 170 to 360, or simply send 'er in at 180?

I'm sending one in at 180, (I always output at Epson's 1440 setting) and will report back.
[/quote]

Had an interesting experience with a 35 TriX neg I scanned at 3200ppi. At 16x20 I had about 180ppi, so I printed the direct scan and one I resampled to 300ppi for a Canon iPF5000. The grain while sharp one the scan had awful artifacts in the image I left the Canon driver to handle. The 300ppi image had intact grain and was a surprisingly nice image. Now 180 is probably off for a Canon though it is divisable by 60 but I just can't bring myself to sending anything under 180ppi to the printer.

Tom

[Randy Carone]

AFairly,
I'm not certain what you mean by "native resolution is 360". I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to learn more about the printer.
Second, rather than risk adding artifacts, I'd send the file at 240ppi and only "uprez" to the size needed for correct ouput. Going up from 240 to 360 may be more risky than simply adding some pixels using Bicubic Smoother.

[wolfnowl]

There's a good article on uprezzing here: http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_60/essay.html

Mike.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Anybody using a 3800 should study Eric Chan's notes and faqs (here). He recommends using 360.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I'd understood Jeff (and Michael, quoting an HP engineer) to say, in C2P, that provided your resolution at the desired size is between 180 and 480 dpi, it's best (or at least perfectly acceptable) to send it to the printer as it is and let the driver sort things out.

Have I misunderstood the video? Or are there just different thoughts.

Jeremy

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I'd understood Jeff (and Michael, quoting an HP engineer) to say, in C2P, that provided your resolution at the desired size is between 180 and 480 dpi, it's best (or at least perfectly acceptable) to send it to the printer as it is and let the driver sort things out.

Have I misunderstood the video? Or are there just different thoughts.

Jeremy

Excellent question, Jeremy. Jeff Schewe, Michael, and Eric Chan are all among the experts I respect the most on LuLa. I would love to hear Eric and Jeff discuss this very question.

I was following the Jeff and Michael plan until I got my 3800 a couple of months ago. I then tried Eric's workflow suggestions because they were so carefully worded and worked so well. It may be that either approach works fine for prints up to the maximum size the 3800 will handle. Anyway, I haven't been able to see a difference.

Jeff? Eric Chan? Comments?

[KeithR]

Somewhat of the same thing I asked in another post.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=34558

[jjlphoto]

Anybody using a 3800 should study Eric Chan's notes and faqs (here). He recommends using 360.

I gave it a serious read, decided to pop for a test print, and here is what I did:
-Set the print 'to-size' but at 180ppi rather than eric Chan's recommended 360. Seems that is the one area where the experts clearly are not in agreement here.
-The initial prints I made were done using my custom made ICC profile and the usual No Color Adjustment ICC method, but for this test, I used Eric Chan's ABW method with his profile, his platten gap and paper thickness recommendations, and printed the output at 2880 as he recommended.
-Used the front tray to eliminate any potential pizza wheel marks.

All I can say is WOW! His article mentioned that the D-Max is deeper in the Epson ABW mode, and it clearly shows! Also, The 2880 is also able to render some fine detail better than the ones I did at 1440.

The only glitch was the front tray issue. I am using 17"x22" paper, but the closest size in the Page Set-Up menu that uses the front tray is A2, which is 16.5"x23.4". The 17"x22" paper does fit (with a 2 ply backing board per Eric's instructions), but the size difference between A2 and 17x22 makes it difficult to do exact print positioning. If anyone has a solution that that, it would be great to hear it.

[KeithR]

-Set the print 'to-size' but at 180ppi rather than eric Chan's recommended 360. Seems that is the one area where the experts clearly are not in agreement here.

If you have the "Lightromm 2" tutorial, look at section 29 on printing and Jeff goes into a reasoning as to why up-rezing to the higher numbers may actually be a benefit

[jjlphoto]

If you have the "Lightromm 2" tutorial, look at section 29 on printing and Jeff goes into a reasoning as to why up-rezing to the higher numbers may actually be a benefit

Sorry, I'm not a LR guy.

[KeithR]

Just went back and re-watched the segment I mentioned and it talks about up-rezing in LR, if the native resolution is low and then the sharpening is added. But this is for printing from within LR.