software uprez vs. print at 200%

[steveblennis]

I suppose its very dependent on quality and a lot of other things.

But....Im curious about letting the printer print above 100%, vs. (how Ive always done it) Software uprez, I use Alien Skin Blow up.

Im usually uprezzing some,  if not a lot. Im just starting into some sample prints. But curious what the positives, negatives and any info
about uprezzing at the printer. i.e if it tends to degrade, blur, or otherwise be worse or better than software uprezzing.

In an ideal scenario, uprezzing a little to clean up and sharpen, then letting the printer do the major uprez work, sounds great.


Greg

my current project is below, in this case its more of an illustrative work, which Blow up is doing a good job on.

starting image
2000x1994 px, 11x11 inches, at 180 ppi

uprezz to:
7600x7577 px, 30x30 inches, at 240 ppi

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I got the impression that the optimal workflow is to upsize to the image size needed for printing before applying output sharpening.

Why?

- The output sharpening needs to be done on the actual pixels sent to the printer (or more correctly to the printer driver)

- The printer driver is said to do coarse uprezzing, probably using nearest neighbour

Best regards
Erik

I suppose its very dependent on quality and a lot of other things.

But....Im curious about letting the printer print above 100%, vs. (how Ive always done it) Software uprez, I use Alien Skin Blow up.

Im usually uprezzing some,  if not a lot. Im just starting into some sample prints. But curious what the positives, negatives and any info
about uprezzing at the printer. i.e if it tends to degrade, blur, or otherwise be worse or better than software uprezzing.

In an ideal scenario, uprezzing a little to clean up and sharpen, then letting the printer do the major uprez work, sounds great.


Greg

[Manoli]

You may want to read this thread
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90225.0

In an ideal scenario, uprezzing a little to clean up and sharpen, then letting the printer do the major uprez work, sounds great.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You may want to read this thread
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90225.0

And: this thread, and this thread may also add some more insight.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I suppose its very dependent on quality and a lot of other things.

But....Im curious about letting the printer print above 100%, vs. (how Ive always done it) Software uprez, I use Alien Skin Blow up.

Hi Greg,

Blow-up will do a much better job on straight edge detail than the printer can.

Im usually uprezzing some,  if not a lot. Im just starting into some sample prints. But curious what the positives, negatives and any info about uprezzing at the printer. i.e if it tends to degrade, blur, or otherwise be worse or better than software uprezzing.

For small upsampling percentages the differences may be subtle, unless patterns are present in the image that are sensitive to aliasing.

Upsampling by the printer driver, prevents the possibility to output sharpen at the final resolution that the printer uses/creates.

In an ideal scenario, uprezzing a little to clean up and sharpen, then letting the printer do the major uprez work, sounds great.

Unfortunately it produces lower quality, do to the mediocre resampling algorithms the printer driver uses, and the lack of sharpening after resampling.

my current project is below, in this case its more of an illustrative work, which Blow up is doing a good job on.

starting image
2000x1994 px, 11x11 inches, at 180 ppi

uprezz to:
7600x7577 px, 30x30 inches, at 240 ppi

That also doesn't use the native resolution of the printer, which is 360 or 720 PPI, so the printer driver will add another resampling that 240 PPI to 360 PPI. Blow-up should be able to produce much better image quality if you let it do the resampling from 180 to 360 PPI directly, and when you add some detail enhancement at that 360 PPI level, the print should start to really rock.

Cheers,
Bart

[PeterAit]

At the Academy of Learning the question arose: how many teeth does a horse have? A committee of august professors was formed, learned books were consulted, and there was much lively discussion. At some plint the ju nior member suggested finding a horse and counting its teeth. He was immediately thrown off the committee.

Bottom line? Make some prints and see for yourself.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bottom line? Make some prints and see for yourself.

Indeed. There are those who prefer to find their way through the mine-field themselves.
Others appreciate some guidance to get to the other side faster, and in one piece ...

For instance, make some prints, with which printer driver settings? Perhaps 90% of the people here at LuLa were unaware of the benefits of checking the "Finest Detail" option in their Epson LF printer driver until they were told here at LuLa.

Cheers,
Bart

[steveblennis]

That also doesn't use the native resolution of the printer, which is 360 or 720 PPI, so the printer driver will add another resampling that 240 PPI to 360 PPI. Blow-up should be able to produce much better image quality if you let it do the resampling from 180 to 360 PPI directly, and when you add some detail enhancement at that 360 PPI level, the print should start to really rock.

Cheers, Bart

Thanks. I arrived at 240 after a ton of searches and articles a few years ago. I had heard of that native resolution, but if I remember, if it was divisible by say 12, it would work. Well Im back and ready to relearn. Maybe I should revisit my luminous-landscapes videos.

Im on Canvas, so (not thinking) I needed 360, Ive been using 240.

Back to the books !   Thanks

[steveblennis]

Thanks for the links to other threads. I know there are the 'RTFM' and 'plow through it yourself' mindsets, but
Im all about learning from those who either know or at least have a much better solution than I do.

Thanks everybody.

The Native Resolution thing is starting to sink in.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The Native Resolution thing is starting to sink in.

Hi Greg,

That's the essential starting point. The printer driver usually only supports one or two native resolutions. For Epsons it's 360 PPi and  720 PPI, and for Canons an HPs, Lexmark, etc. it's 300 PPI and 600 PPI. There may be other settings available in the printer driver, but effectively those PPIs are what it's at. Other output modalities, like C-print equipment (using photochemical paper), or dedicated (high resolution or solvent) inkjet print stations may require different settings (ranging from 254 PPI to some 720 PPI).

Any other PPI sent to the printer will be resampled to those values, and it's done with relatively low quality resampling algorithms, so one better does it oneself (which additionally allows to output sharpen at the final output size).

Cheers,
Bart

[PeterAit]

Indeed. There are those who prefer to find their way through the mine-field themselves.
Others appreciate some guidance to get to the other side faster, and in one piece ...

For instance, make some prints, with which printer driver settings? Perhaps 90% of the people here at LuLa were unaware of the benefits of checking the "Finest Detail" option in their Epson LF printer driver until they were told here at LuLa.

Cheers,
Bart

I have nothing against asking advice from more experienced photographers. The point I was trying to make, albeit in a round-about way, was that following the advice of experts may get you good prints, but you don't learn much. Figuring it out yourself, at least partly, is the best way to learn. As an analogy, slavishly following recipes versus experimenting. We learn a lot from mistakes!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Im on Canvas, so (not thinking) I needed 360, Ive been using 240...

Given that you are on canvas, you probably won't see much difference anyway.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Any other PPI sent to the printer will be resampled to those values, and it's done with relatively low quality resampling algorithms, so one better does it oneself (which additionally allows to output sharpen at the final output size).

Reading through all those linked threads addressing the subject of "low quality resampling algorthms" I was frustrated as usual to find not one poster went through the trouble of taking a side by side comparison shots of two prints using each upsampling method and posted it or even provided a link to a site that did.

Andrew's post stating he could only see the differences viewing through a loupe pretty much told me the time I took reading through all of it was the equivalent of mining the Library of Congress for info on how to screw in a light bulb.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Andrew's post stating he could only see the differences viewing through a loupe...

If I am not mistaken, Andrew was looking at a letter-size print. As usual, the size does matter  Otherwise, I agree with you, it would be nice to see the difference.

[Schewe]

Reading through all those linked threads addressing the subject of "low quality resampling algorthms" I was frustrated as usual to find not one poster went through the trouble of taking a side by side comparison shots of two prints using each upsampling method and posted it or even provided a link to a site that did.

Read this and get back to me with any questions...The Right Resolution.

[Jim Kasson]

Reading through all those linked threads addressing the subject of "low quality resampling algorthms" I was frustrated as usual to find not one poster went through the trouble of taking a side by side comparison shots of two prints using each upsampling method and posted it or even provided a link to a site that did.

Here you go...

[steveblennis]

Read this and get back to me with any questions...The Right Resolution.

Thanks I'll check it out

[steveblennis]

Thanks folks, Im on an Epson 9900 by the way. ok so Im getting some clarity.


Good point from Bart and Slobodan Blagojevic

Any other PPI sent to the printer will be resampled to those values, and it's done with relatively low quality resampling algorithms, so one better does it oneself (which additionally allows to output sharpen at the final output size).

and

Given that you are on canvas, you probably won't see much difference anyway.

I probably wont see a wildly better print, but I wont make it much worse "resampling with relatively low quality resampling algorithms".



Thanks


I have two projects for an Interior Designer in Miami, I'll put the new information to use.

[Schewe]

Photographs: http://www.kasson.com/

Jim, really nice UW shots! I hadn't known you did that :~)

[Schewe]

I probably wont see a wildly better print, but I wont make it much worse "resampling with relatively low quality resampling algorithms".

Actually, resampling to the printer's reported resolution CAN help canvas if you have image detail that has strong high contras diagonals (or circles or other texture that has a specific pattern) because even with canvas and matte watercolor paper, you can still see the printer resampling aliasing errors in cases like this.