Upsizing with LR or Perfect Resize?

[Donna Futrell]

I shoot with a Nikon D800E and D3 camera. When wanting to print double the native print size at 360ppi, should I use Perfect Resize and set resolution to 720ppi or go with Lightrooms print module and set resolution to 720ppi and size parameters? I am always using superfine 2880 as quality in setup. I now have use of an Epson 7900 but don't know much about large format printing --any suggestions for good books on this subject??

[Paul2660]

I would start with "The Digital Print". By Jeff Shewe. Perfect place to start.

Paul

[Donna Futrell]

Thanks Paul

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I shoot with a Nikon D800E and D3 camera. When wanting to print double the native print size at 360ppi, should I use Perfect Resize and set resolution to 720ppi or go with Lightrooms print module and set resolution to 720ppi and size parameters? I am always using superfine 2880 as quality in setup.

Hi Donna,

Make sure to also check the Finest detail option to ON. Otherwise the printer driver will resample to 360 PPI again.

The 200% upsampling is not all that much, but you can indeed squeeze a bit more quality out of your image by using Perfect Resize. The differences will get more prominet when you get in the 400 - 1000% upsampling range.

One of the main benefits over LR, besides a better quality on sharp edge detail (PR adds resolution, LR doesn't), it also allows you to do your output sharpening on the final pixels that will be sent to the printer. That generally allows to apply more sharpening which automatically boosts the apperance of not only the finest detail, but also of the rest of the image. It also allows to use more sharpening on the finest details, because tiny artifacts from slightly over-doing it will be too small to see by naked eye.

Cheers,
Bart

[PeterAit]

From everything I've heard, and my own experience, the up-sampling algorithms in LR are about as good as they get. If you are printing from LR, no need for anything else.

[digitaldog]

From everything I've heard, and my own experience, the up-sampling algorithms in LR are about as good as they get. If you are printing from LR, no need for anything else.

That's been my experience. Better, faster and since I own it, cheaper. But by all means do a test (all the way to print output, not display).

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That's been my experience. Better, faster and since I own it, cheaper. But by all means do a test (all the way to print output, not display).

Hi Andrew,

Better, how so? How can something that already looks worse on display, and has a measurably lower resolution (should one doubt one's eyes), all of the sudden become better in print? Many people already own a copy of Perfect resize as well, so how would your personal LR centric solution be better in that respect, cost wise. Besides, there are other workflows than only LR based, some people have the skills to improve their images with other tools (sometimes in addition to LR, sometimes in other editors). Printing directly from LR may be simpler (if one uses it), but that's about it.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Better, how so? How can something that already looks worse on display, and has a measurably lower resolution (should one doubt one's eyes), all of the sudden become better in print?

The output to print is superior visually, the screen doesn't tell you this at all. The proof is in the print IF the final output for the resizing is a print. Simple as that.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The output to print is superior visually, the screen doesn't tell you this at all. The proof is in the print IF the final output for the resizing is a print. Simple as that.

Hi Andrew,

Since talk is cheep, do you have an example (scan) from a comparison between Perfect Resize and LR upsampled output. I'm getting a bit tired (only a bit) of having to do all the work showing crops, and calculations, etc., so it would be nice if you could substantiate your claim (it is your claim). I might do the same, so we can compare our skills/tools.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Since talk is cheep, do you have an example (scan) from a comparison between Perfect Resize and LR upsampled output.

http://www.retouchpro.com/index.php?page=arrentals
RetouchPRO Resolution and upsizing images Webinar

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

http://www.retouchpro.com/index.php?page=arrentals
RetouchPRO Resolution and upsizing images Webinar

Paid links, is that kind of advertizing allowed on LuLa?

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Paid links, is that kind of advertizing allowed on LuLa?

The examples are there, take it or leave it. Or email Doug Nielson from the site, send him this URL, tell him I'd like him to send you an email with a comp for you to see the Webinar. OR send me a SASE large enough for 8x11 prints, I'll dig up the samples and send you. Find and scan them? No, that's more work than I'm willing to do considering the Epson scanner is in a box in the closet.

[abiggs]

I have done tons of test over the past few years with upsizing, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no benefit to using 3rd party programs over Lightroom's own internal mechanics. LR is easier, has a more efficient workflow that also handles sharpening and much faster.

Boom.

Oh, and I send all of my output to my Canon wide format at 300dpi and to my Epson at 360dpi.

[PeterAit]

Now now, children, play nice!

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The examples are there, take it or leave it. Or email Doug Nielson from the site, send him this URL, tell him I'd like him to send you an email with a comp for you to see the Webinar. OR send me a SASE large enough for 8x11 prints, I'll dig up the samples and send you. Find and scan them? No, that's more work than I'm willing to do considering the Epson scanner is in a box in the closet.

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the kind offer, but I don't see how that would benefit the OP or others. Besides, I'm not the one who needs to be convinced that sub-par upsampling and output sharpening does not make much of a difference ...

I strongly believe that the only credible way of argumentation has to be reproducible/verifiable by independent others. Just like in proper science, full disclosure and peer review is the way forward. Just stating opinions doesn't benefit anybody.

I guess I'll have to prepare yet again some sample material (unless somebody beats me to it) that's freely available to whoever wants to do their verification of what can be achieved. I'll need a bit of time to create such a target file that would ideally have subject matter that's diverse enough to suit many different types of users. The original should also be small enough to allow more significant upsampling without producing output files that are too large to store comfortably or download.

Cheers,
Bart

[Paul2660]

I have done a lot testing with Perfect Resize, LR and Photozoom.  I personally don't see much difference between prints up to 36 x72 between any of them, from D800E or IQ160/260 files, either singles or panos (stitched).  

What has made a big difference to me, is getting away from printing in CS/CC and using LR in combination with the LR output sharpening.  It's just less work IMO, but may not be the most perfect best solution under a magnification.  

My tests have been to take an image to say 30 x 45, at 360dpi with Perfect Resize or Photozoom, and print it from LR with output sharpening (even though I realize in theory the sharpening will not be the best case as it's not being done during the uprez), and compare it to the same image just printed from LR at 360ppi with output sharpening.  I can't see any differences enough to cause me to move to the extra step of using Perfect Resize or Photozoom Pro before printing.  

If the work is going to a press offsite and is approaching the 5' x 11' size, different story as I will lead with Perfect Resize first, and 2nd Photozoom pro.  I don't feel LR does as good a job on this larger size.  However I am basing this on 100% screen views since I can't print it that large.  I have printed pieces of such large prints and still Perfect Resize seems to work best.

The key to me is the capture, i.e. taking the shot with enough resolution so that I can get to my larger sizes without using any of the tools mentioned.  I try to do this via stitching with the D800E or by Tech camera and shifting the back.  Takes more time to setup in the field but the results in post are worth it.

Paul

[digitaldog]

Thanks for the kind offer, but I don't see how that would benefit the OP or others. Besides, I'm not the one who needs to be convinced that sub-par upsampling and output sharpening does not make much of a difference ...

Then why'd you ask 
 For every person who's squeezed blood out of a rock or pixel with some exotic set of practices, there are people who do it within LR or Photoshop or another 3rd party solution who say their methods yield results as good. Everyone should run their own tests with their own workflow and make up their own minds.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Then why'd you ask 

For the benefit of others. I'm not at all about me, I like everybody to have an opportunity to grow their skills.

You're claim was that LR was better than Perfect Resize or similar. I challenged that, and have not seen any evidence to substantiate that claim, which is a pity. Also the argument that people should roll their own test and draw conclusions based on that, is a bit lame. When people don't know what is possible, then how are they to know that it is their technique that is lacking?

We've seen the same with the thread on deconvolution, and others, where people thought that there was nothing left to improve the image, until it was demonstrated how much was actually possible, with better technique. Eureka.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

For the benefit of others. I'm not at all about me, I like everybody to have an opportunity to grow their skills.

I can't send them all prints, the best way to see the results, as I have offered to you.

You're claim was that LR was better than Perfect Resize or similar.

Not just mine, at least three others here in this post alone.

I challenged that, and have not seen any evidence to substantiate that claim, which is a pity.

I will not speak for the other three but I'm convinced by my own testing how I feel about the output and what workflow I'll use. I would assume they will say the same thing.

Also the argument that people should roll their own test and draw conclusions based on that, is a bit lame.

They should just take people at face value?

When people don't know what is possible, then how are they to know that it is their technique that is lacking?

It's not rocket science (or it doesn't have to be), anyone who's not sure how to test this is open to ask. After awhile, trying to figure out which angel dancing on a pin is the sharpest gets to the point of minutia for anyone who's got to actually process a number of images. 

[AFairley]

My own testing his shown me that at uprezzing slightly under 200%, either Perfect Resize or PhotoZoom gives results that are visibly better on the print (D800E files) than uprezzing in LR.   The difference is most noticeable on hard-edged diagonals.  I shoot in an urban setting with lots of hard lines, if you shoot landscapes YMMV, I don't know. But the short answer to the OP's question is to download the trials and see for himself what he likes best.

[EDIT] I should have said "a print examined at close distances but without magnifying aids."