Should I down rez for small prints?

[natas]

Hey Guys,

I own a 7900 and print from ImageNest 3.0.1 and PS CS5. When I am printing 8x12 and smaller sizes should I down rez my photos to 360dpi instead of something like 480?

Another question.

Lets say I have an image that is 20x30 that is natively 240dpi, would it be better to just send the image as is or up rez that image to something like 300 or 360dpi using fractals? My workflow right now is to up rez my shots with fractals, then do print sharpening then send to printer.

[jeremypayne]

I've been sending up to 550dpi to my Epson 2880 for small prints.

When LR 3 came out I did some testing by sending various resolutions, up to 720, to the printer.

For the most part, it was hard to see much difference past 360.

BUT ... There were a few shots with some "infinite" detail that did seem to look better at 550.  Those same shots appeared identical to my eye at 720 and 550 ... so now I send more than 360 if it is there in the file.

[langier]

I master most of my portfolio prints as 13x19 on 17x22 paper and then simply scale it in the print driver to smaller prints for both my Epson 4000 and Epson 9800. The prints look just fine and it saves me quite a bit of time in down-resing and scaling in addition to file bloat.

Of course, your results may vary. Why not pick 3-4 images and try printing them both through scaling in the print driver and and downsampling in Photoshop.

Mark the back on the prints, flip them over and shuffle and lay them out on the counter overnight. Take a look the next day and see what you think is the best print quality, if you can see it, and that's your answer.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think so. Downscaling has a lot of perils. Printer driver may do a good job.

Doing your own tests is a good proposal.

Best regards
Erik

Hey Guys,

I own a 7900 and print from ImageNest 3.0.1 and PS CS5. When I am printing 8x12 and smaller sizes should I down rez my photos to 360dpi instead of something like 480?

Another question.

Lets say I have an image that is 20x30 that is natively 240dpi, would it be better to just send the image as is or up rez that image to something like 300 or 360dpi using fractals? My workflow right now is to up rez my shots with fractals, then do print sharpening then send to printer.

[Schewe]

When I am printing 8x12 and smaller sizes should I down rez my photos to 360dpi instead of something like 480?

Downsampling, if you have enough "native" resolution in the image is never a great idea...why waste pixels you already have simply to meet some sort of magic number? (clue, there is no reason).

Fact is that you actually NEED more resolution (in pixels/unit) with small prints held closer to your eyes than larger prints whose intended viewing distance is further away.

So, my experience is to simply resize without resampling (don't change the pixel count) and after resizing, output sharpen for the actual PPI.

As for whether or not to upsample (before output sharpening) that's a slight;y more difficult question to answer...it all depends on your image and printer. Generally speaking, upsampling and then output sharpening will result in a better final output if your image has a lot of high frequency image data or high contrast diagonal or circular objects. I can't really give you a "this is always true" answer other than to test it yourself on YOUR images and YOUR printer.

Also, I don't know what the heck "ImageNest" is...my experience is with Photoshop and Lightroom. I pretty much tend to print from Lightroom because, well, that's my preference...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hey Guys,

I own a 7900 and print from ImageNest 3.0.1 and PS CS5. When I am printing 8x12 and smaller sizes should I down rez my photos to 360dpi instead of something like 480?

It depends on how good a job ImageNest does on their downsampling. They apparently are aware that upsampling can benefit from improving on the built-in printer driver's algorithms, but I don't know if the dime has dropped for downsampling yet, and how it relates to their effect on dithering accuracy.

Erik's suggestion to try yourself is good advice (your version of ImageNest may behave differently from the more recent ones).

Another question.

Lets say I have an image that is 20x30 that is natively 240dpi, would it be better to just send the image as is or up rez that image to something like 300 or 360dpi using fractals? My workflow right now is to up rez my shots with fractals, then do print sharpening then send to printer.

IMHO, upsampling to the printer's native resolution (i.e. 720 PPI for Epson printers on Glossy media), and sharpening after that, will result in superior image quality (for images with detail anyway, but gradients can also benefit from more dense interpolation). Whether Genuine Fractals is the best method, I doubt that although in print it may be hard to see its posterization effects if the magnification is only moderate.

Cheers,
Bart

[Schewe]

IMHO, upsampling to the printer's native resolution (i.e. 720 PPI for Epson printers on Glossy media), and sharpening after that, will result in superior image quality (for images with detail anyway, but gradients can also benefit from more dense interpolation).

That's a pretty broad statement that I don't think always plays out...if you have an image with a lot of high frequency image data, upsampling "might" help maintain the image detail depending on the quality of the original image. If the image resolution is already on the low side (below say 300PPI) I seriously doubt you'll see much if any benefit to automatically upsampling to 720PPI (or 600PPI for Canon/Epson). So, I think that a blanket statement like that is wrong to make. Depending on the quality of the original capture and the starting resolution, you "might" see a benefit to upsampling...or you might not. Note that upsampling to 720/600 PPI will make the spool file much, much bigger and may adversely impact print speed (not to mention requiring the processing time to upsample).

You really, REALLY need to test this on your own example images on your own printer. Also note that this is very dependent upon optimal output sharpening–which easy in Lightroom but more complicated in Photoshop.

[Scott Martin]

Also, I don't know what the heck "ImageNest" is...my experience is with Photoshop and Lightroom.

Time to check it out then! It's the cat's meow for those that nest. http://www.bluecubit.com/

[Schewe]

Time to check it out then! It's the cat's meow for those that nest. http://www.bluecubit.com/

According to the web site: "ImageNest is printing software that runs exclusively on OSX and is used primarily to layout Images, layout Photos, and to batch print them all at the same time."

I don't do that for printing. When I need to do a layout for a book I use InDesign...

[Scott Martin]

I don't do that for printing.

I figured, but when speaking to a larger audience it's good to have knowledge of products like ImageNest.

When I need to do a layout for a book I use InDesign...

Right, InDesign is a *layout* tool, ImageNest is a *nesting* tool. InDesign doesn't nest at all. Some high volume printing shops need to print lots of smaller images onto larger rolls. Sophisticated nesting algorithms that let you arrange images for maximum paper usage or to optimize cutting afterwards, for example, are hard to come by and ImageNest fits those needs exceptionally well.

There are lots of different kinds of workflows and user needs. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions. Marrying the right workflows to the right tools is an important part of this dialog.