Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: MLrgb on May 22, 2017, 10:09:33 pm
-
Hello everyone!
It's my frist on your forum and also new to digital printing. I just bought a used canon pro 10 and so far it seems to be OK :). I work with windows 10 and lightroom 5. My first question is how do i know the number of DPI I need if i want to make a 13X19 print compare to a 4x6. My second Question is when I am in the print section of lightroom in the print job section why don't I see if I print in 16 bits (like in MAC) and how do I know if I do print in 16 bits. THank you!
-
My first question is how do i know the number of DPI I need if i want to make a 13X19 print compare to a 4x6.
There is no fixed answer, and much depends on your personal standards and the subject-matter of the image. At normal viewing distances 300 ppi for a 4x6-inch print should produce very close to all the quality you can see, but if you're very picky or really look closely, then AFAIK the Pro-10 might benefit from as much as 600 ppi. The close-viewing limit pertains equally to 13x19 inch prints, but as a practical matter, IMOPO a good file of 200 ppi can produce a very nice 13x19 inch print. (And 600 ppi at 13x19 inches requires a 100 MP medium format digital back--do you have one of those?) I have had a few 24x30-inch prints made from 16 MP files, i.e., 136 ppi, and at normal viewing distances most people think they look very good. And I have framed in my office an 11x14-inch print from a crop from a 6 MP camera, giving me 175 ppi, which only the fairly picky would find lacking in resolution / detail.
But to hint at two points of elaboration, in case you're interested:
(1) If part of what you're looking for is to know exactly what pixel dimensions to which you need to scale an image to make a certain-size print at a certain nominal resolution, then I suspect you'll find it quite difficult to get an accurate answer (tons of people will give you approximate answers, which are easy to calculate). There are many variables. For example, I strongly suspect that "300 ppi" minilab printers are really 12 ppmm, i.e., 304.8 ppi. But then paper dimensions are inexact, or exact in metric and approximate in English units, and both inkjets and wet printing machines need to overspray a bit to make sure there are no white borders. In all my years of looking, I found one lab that that told you the exact dimensions its printers used; I remember, e.g., that their 8x10 inch prints used exactly 2456x3070 pixels. And of course the way inkjets simulate continuous tones with 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, or 11 colors makes it a lot more complex--see the next point.
(2) You used "DPI" and may be confusing that with "PPI". For inkjets that's a big difference. DPI is Dots Per Inch. The Pro-10 can lay down a pattern of up to 4800 x 2400 dots per inch. But those dots aren't exactly dots of any visible color, but dots of the eight colors of ink it can print. PPI is Pixels Per Inch. What you edit are pixels. Pixels are much closer to representations of continuous tone. At the simplest level, if you sent a 300 ppi image to a 4800x2400 dpi inkjet (like the Pro-10), then the printer can put whatever combination of dots of its 8 ink colors in a 16x8-pixel matrix (the matrix being 1/300 x 1/300 inch) to simulate continuous tone. So if you have a dark green pixel in a 300 ppi picture that you print with a Pro-10, it can fill that 16x8-pixel matrix with some combination of cyan, yellow, gray, and black spots of ink. But really it's even more complicated than that. With sophisticated software, there's no reason why a printer can't be controlled more along the lines of--this is a simplified example--'You fed me a 3264x4912-pixel image and asked for a 13x19-inch print. I'll have to crop a little from the long side, but in real terms I have 3264 pixels / 13 inches = 251 ppi to work with. If I print at 2400x2400 dpi, then I will have 2400 /251 = 9.6x9.6 dots of ink with which to simulate the color of each pixel. I'll calculate exactly for that.' So theoretically--I doubt this is much of a practical issue!--with inkjets the higher PPI resolution you insist they print (e.g., 600 instead of 300), the less well they can simulate continuous tone; and conversely, the lower PPI you let them print at, the better they can simulate continuous tone. And really, the algorithms can get a lot more complicated. I suspect that almost all of us shouldn't worry about such things, and least unless we're writing printer-driver code or printing software.
-
Hello everyone!
It's my frist on your forum and also new to digital printing. I just bought a used canon pro 10 and so far it seems to be OK :). I work with windows 10 and lightroom 5. My first question is how do i know the number of DPI I need if i want to make a 13X19 print compare to a 4x6. My second Question is when I am in the print section of lightroom in the print job section why don't I see if I print in 16 bits (like in MAC) and how do I know if I do print in 16 bits. THank you!
Second question first: In the LR Print Module, right-side column, bottom, "Print Job" panel, you should see a check box for "16-bit output".
First question: Feel safe sending anything between 240-360 PPI to the printer. These pixels will anyhow be resampled to suit the native resolution the printer works with; for Epson printers that is commonly 360PPI for photographs and 720PPI for vector graphics; for Canon, I believe the comparable numbers are 300/600, though I'm not certain for your model (but you needn't worry about it). The main risk to image quality is sending too few - certainly not less than 180PPI. Don't be concerned about dpi (ink dots per inch - the number you see in the thousands rather than the 100s) - in and of itself this number is not very informative because these printers use complex dithering algorithms for rendering pixels by mixing and laying down the ink dots.
-
No intention to hijack the thread but I have Print Resolution set to 720 ppi in Lr for printing to my Epson p800. Should this be 360ppi or does it make a difference? I've never done the test myself.
-
No intention to hijack the thread but I have Print Resolution set to 720 ppi in Lr for printing to my Epson p800. Should this be 360ppi or does it make a difference? I've never done the test myself.
720 is recommended for vector graphics and 360 for normal photographs.
-
No intention to hijack the thread but I have Print Resolution set to 720 ppi in Lr for printing to my Epson p800. Should this be 360ppi or does it make a difference? I've never done the test myself.
I treat this as pretty much the definitive reference.
https://luminous-landscape.com/videos/guide-to-lightroom-4-introduction-advanced/lr4-print-resolution/
There is an advantage to printing photographs at 720 sometimes (if the image is very sharp and has curves or diagonal lines), but you have to pixel peep (ink dot peep?) to see the difference. Most of the time I just keep it at 360. Note that if you do send the data at 720 you need to have the Finest detail box checked in the print driver or the print pipeline will just downsample back to 360 I think.
Mike
-
I treat this as pretty much the definitive reference.
https://luminous-landscape.com/videos/guide-to-lightroom-4-introduction-advanced/lr4-print-resolution/
There is an advantage to printing photographs at 720 sometimes (if the image is very sharp and has curves or diagonal lines), but you have to pixel peep (ink dot peep?) to see the difference. Most of the time I just keep it at 360. Note that if you do send the data at 720 you need to have the Finest detail box checked in the print driver or the print pipeline will just downsample back to 360 I think.
Mike
It's also useful to consider what resolution the photo starts with. In LR, make sure View>Guides is set to show dimensions, and in the Print Job panel, uncheck the print resolution box. The actual resolution and linear dimensions will now show in a little box on the upper left corner of the photo. Let us say that shows 16.5 x 11 inches at 365 PPI. But I have my output resolution set to 360 PPI once that print resolution box is checked with a 360 setting chosen. This tells me the print will be downsampled only by 5 PPI, which is trivial. But if I had print resolution set to 720, I'd be upsampling from 365 to 720. While the resampling algorithms in LR are very, very good, why bother doing this and sending 4 times more data to the printer than necessary? Mike is correctly having a hard time seeing the difference, because 360 is said (by knowledgeable industry sources) to correspond roughly with the limit of human visual perception of normal photographic image detail.
-
Thanks for the answers about the Print Resolution box. Also, Mark, good tip about View-Guides and unchecking the Print Resolution box to see a non-printing info line on image size and resolution. BTW, I think this information used to be shown in earlier versions of Lr with View->Show info overlay in the Print module. For some reason this option, which is still in the menu (shortcut "i") does not work. Very good to know where I can get to see the information now.
-
Second question first: In the LR Print Module, right-side column, bottom, "Print Job" panel, you should see a check box for "16-bit output".
As the OP noted the Windows version of Lightroom does not have the 16-bit output check box. However Canon do provide a downloadable 16-bit XPS driver for the OP's printer. Once this is installed he will have 2 versions of his printer installed, if he choose to print to the XPS version he will have 16-bit output to his printer.
-
As the OP noted the Windows version of Lightroom does not have the 16-bit output check box. However Canon do provide a downloadable 16-bit XPS driver for the OP's printer. Once this is installed he will have 2 versions of his printer installed, if he choose to print to the XPS version he will have 16-bit output to his printer.
Thanks for correcting this. I left the Windows world 7 years ago and wasn't aware there is this difference in the options provided.
-
Thank you for all your clear and detailed answers very appreciated. If I read all of you correctly the smaller the picture the more DPI I need like 360 for a 4x6 and 260 for 13x19. For my other question I just looked at what are XPS drivers and I will download them.
Once again thank you!
-
Thank you for all your clear and detailed answers very appreciated. If I read all of you correctly the smaller the picture the more DPI I need like 360 for a 4x6 and 260 for 13x19. For my other question I just looked at what are XPS drivers and I will download them.
Once again thank you!
There is no hard and fast rule that you need 360 for 4*6 and 260 for 13*19. There is, however, a general principle that the smaller the photo, the closer up will be the viewer and therefore the more resolution it may be good to provide; but if you abide by the guidance I provided above you'll be fine whether 4*6 or 13*19, etc.
-
360 is said (by knowledgeable industry sources) to correspond roughly with the limit of human visual perception of normal photographic image detail.
The often-seen statement is that the limit of ostensibly 'perfect' human vision is about 0.5 minute-of-angle (MOA). A minute is 1/60 of a degree. At 18 inches, 0.5 MOA corresponds to 382 ppi; at 360 ppi, 0.5 MOA corresponds to a minimum viewing distance of 19.1 inches.
But the statement is often made in the context of distance; 0.5 MOA is about 0.52 inch at 100 yards (14.5mm at 100 m). Is it an appropriate limit for photo viewing at close distances? I won't wade into that, except to say that I've heard disagreement on the point. Also, I suspect that this limit refers to seeing a well-defined, high-contrast subject, e.g., a black disc on a white field. I suspect that if you're looking at the moderate-contrast details of green foliage, the limit is somewhat less; and if you're looking at red rock details in a landscape, it's even less. But that's just what I suspect. YMMV!
-
I used the word "roughly" advisedly! :-) As a rule of thumb it seems to work.
-
I used the word "roughly" advisedly! :-) As a rule of thumb it seems to work.
That's what my eyes say too. I can recall having seen the limits of 300 ppi only where it was black pigment (toner) on white paper, with certain geometry: back when laser printers were 300 ppi (late 1980s - early 1990s), I could just barely see the 'jaggies' on things like smaller italic letters. Some years later, 600 ppi became typical for laser printers, and I stopped noticing such things, even on close inspection. That sort of maximum-contrast rendering is probably more demanding for the printer / demonstrative of the limits of resolution than 99+% of regular photos.
-
I treat this as pretty much the definitive reference.
https://luminous-landscape.com/videos/guide-to-lightroom-4-introduction-advanced/lr4-print-resolution/
There is an advantage to printing photographs at 720 sometimes (if the image is very sharp and has curves or diagonal lines), but you have to pixel peep (ink dot peep?) to see the difference. Most of the time I just keep it at 360. Note that if you do send the data at 720 you need to have the Finest detail box checked in the print driver or the print pipeline will just downsample back to 360 I think.
Mike
+1 Jeff Schewe knows what he's talking about.
Rand
-
+1 Jeff Schewe knows what he's talking about.
Rand
Yes, of course, and if you go to pages 128, 129 and 186 in his "The Digital Print" book, the relevant information is provided. There is nothing on pages 128 and 129 suggesting the usefulness of printing at more than 360; however (and Jeff forward-referenced this), on page 186 he says "if you were printing a textural fine-detailed image and the native resolution, uninterpolated, is above 360 PPI, you'd want to upsample to 720...."; then on page 187, "The advantage of selecting Finest Detail applies primarily to glossy media."
All this boils down to the basic point that the value of moving above 360 is limited to a combination of several specific conditions.
-
Yes, of course, and if you go to pages 128, 129 and 186 in his "The Digital Print" book, the relevant information is provided. There is nothing on pages 128 and 129 suggesting the usefulness of printing at more than 360; however (and Jeff forward-referenced this), on page 186 he says "if you were printing a textural fine-detailed image and the native resolution, uninterpolated, is above 360 PPI, you'd want to upsample to 720...."; then on page 187, "The advantage of selecting Finest Detail applies primarily to glossy media."
All this boils down to the basic point that the value of moving above 360 is limited to a combination of several specific conditions.
As you are aware, Jeff text refers to Epson. Since the thread references Canon, it would be 300/600, right?
-
As you are aware, Jeff text refers to Epson. Since the thread references Canon, it would be 300/600, right?
Most likely. I hesitate to be definitive because Canon defines the technology as Canon FINE (Full-lithography inkjet Nozzle Engineering); how that translates into specific resolution numbers isn't stated in the specs for that printer model; however I quoted the material from Jeff's book because I think the general guidance it provides would be valid across a range of printing technologies, as it relates more to the limits of human visual perception than to any specific printer PPI, albeit that he references the usual Epson specs. At one point there he also mentioned the Canon 300/600.
-
Most likely. I hesitate to be definitive because Canon defines the technology as Canon FINE (Full-lithography inkjet Nozzle Engineering); how that translates into specific resolution numbers isn't stated in the specs for that printer model; however I quoted the material from Jeff's book because I think the general guidance it provides would be valid across a range of printing technologies, as it relates more to the limits of human visual perception than to any specific printer PPI, albeit that he references the usual Epson specs. At one point there he also mentioned the Canon 300/600.
Well.....For a long time the printer "experts" refused to acknowledge what happened to the ppi of an image when sent to a printer. Specifically that printers have, based on settings, specific ppi that they need/expect to print and image. If they do not get that ppi, the will interpolate to that size and, usually, that interpolation is much rougher than what would be done in the computer. Whether this will be seen in the image depends on many factors such as image, ppi sent, printer, paper. Also, the computer interpolation used to get to the expected printer ppi, which is why better results are obtained be Perfect Resize or Qimage vs bicubic.
It was only recently that people such as Jeff changed their recommendations to be in line with what people such as Mike Chaney had been saying for years. Jeff is correct with the Epson numbers. Unfortunately, the terminology of what driver settings relate to which ppi change over time. Same with the Canon 300/600. In fact, if I remember correctly, some Canon printer settings can expect 1200. In any case, sending a different ppi than expected may, or may not, have a visible effect on the image. To optimize the image, Qimage queries the printer driver to provide the ppi expected, allowing the interpolation algorithms to resize optimally.
-
Regarding printing in 16 bits:
I have the Pixma Pro 1 and I run LR in Windows. It is not possible to print 16 bits directly from Lightroom using windows. Even if you select the XPS driver. I've checked recently again and I still see banding in smooth (BW) gradations (e.g. the sky near the horizon in this picture (https://flic.kr/p/qr8HfH)).
But there is a way to do it inderectly. Install the Canon plug-in for LR "Canon Print Studio Pro". Use that plug-in for the picture you want to print. You won't find a"16 bits check box" around, just use the XPS driver and you will print in 16 bits. In this way, your smooth gradations won't show any banding.
What I don't like from the plug in is that you cannot crop the picture as you can do in LR print module. However, you have all kind of options to control the output in a nicer way than in the printer driver.
I don't think it's worth to use 16 bit printing on images that don't have smooth gradations, unless you have a very trained eye. My eyes aren't able to see differences in those pictures, although they do in the gradients. Other people I've shown examples need some time to realize it, after I point to it. Some don't still see the difference.
Best,
Santiago
-
[P]rinters have, based on settings, specific ppi that they need/expect to print and image. If they do not get that ppi, the will interpolate to that size and, usually, that interpolation is much rougher than what would be done in the computer.... Also, the computer interpolation used to get to the expected printer ppi, which is why better results are obtained be Perfect Resize or Qimage vs bicubic.
I may be missing something--if so, please tell me, I'd love to learn!--but it seems to me that some interpolation is almost unavoidable. (This post is not about how much this some interpolation affects print quality; but if the very negative statements about the quality of printer-based interpolation are correct, then the issue merits some inquiry.) One can say that the printer needs the exact ppi. But the ppi tag does not (AFAIK, in most common software) control the printing behavior; the input file's pixel dimensions and the requested output size do that. It seems to me--again, I'd love to find out that I'm wrong--that we have no reasonably-easy way to determine the exact pixel dimensions to send for a given print size for a few reasons:
(1) We do not know the printer's exact ppi resolution. We may say that Epsons are 360 or 720 ppi and that Canons are 300 or 600 ppi. But how likely is it that Japanese companies performing most if not all of their engineering in Japan are working in English units? Doesn't it seem far more likely that the exact specification is an even figure in a metric unit, like pixels per millimeter (ppmm)? Some years back by own analysis of a "250 ppi" lab concluded that it was far more likely that the printers were actually 254 ppi--which is exactly 10 ppmm. I'd bet lunch that so-called 300 ppi printers are actually 12 ppmm, which is 304.8 ppi. And what about those supposedly-360 ppi Epsons? I suspect that they are actually 14 ppmm = 355.6 ppi. But I don't know any of this. And I would be unlikely to trust information on it from any U.S.-based source. Obviously if you send a printer an image that has enough pixels for 300 ppi and the printer needs, 304.8 ppi, the printer (or its driver) has to up-interpolate to generate 1.6% more pixels. And obviously if you send a printer an image that has enough pixels for 360 ppi and the printer needs 355.6 ppi, the printer (or its driver) has to down-scale to generate 1.2% fewer pixels.
(2) We don't know what the printer thinks the media size really is. Have you ever gotten "8x10 inch" prints from a lab that appeared to be slightly less than 8 inches, and maybe slightly less than 10 inches? I have. From more than one place. I suspect that the paper rolls they were feeding into their printers were not exactly 8 inches wide, but in fact were exactly 200mm wide, which comes to 7.87 inches. So if you tell your printer 8x10 inches, does it really expect exactly 8x10 inches? Maybe, maybe not, it's hard to know. (Although I suspect that the U.S.-market printers actually do expect the exact dimensions in English units).
(3) For borderless prints, we do not know how much overspray the printer applies. The paper feed guides are not ultra-high-precision devices; they just slide into place, up to the edge of paper that might be bowing a little. Except where there's paper misaligment in the feed path, I have not seen thin white borders on borderless inkjet prints. To achieve this, the printer has to spray at least a little ink past / off the edge of the paper. How much? I don't know, but enough that some people recommend not printing borderless to avoid gunking up the printer's insides with overspray ink. If the printer oversprays by even 1/32 inch (a little under 1 mm) on each side, then for a print at (a nominal?) 300 ppi, it needs about 19 extra pixels in each dimension. So you think, '8x10 inches at 300 ppi means I send 2400x3000 pixels to avoid interpolation.' In reality the printer needs 2419x3019 pixels, to give something for overspray, and some sort of interpolation has to occur.
Is Lightroom, or Qimage, or whatever able to query the printer about exactly how many pixels it needs, to allow them to use their more sophisticated interpolation methods to send the printer the exact number of pixels? I don't know. Maybe. But if you or I can get that information from Lightroom or Qimage or whatever, please tell me how.
Thanks!
-
I may be missing something--if so, please tell me, I'd love to learn!--but it seems to me that some interpolation is almost unavoidable. (This post is not about how much this some interpolation affects print quality; but if the very negative statements about the quality of printer-based interpolation are correct, then the issue merits some inquiry.) One can say that the printer needs the exact ppi. But the ppi tag does not (AFAIK, in most common software) control the printing behavior; the input file's pixel dimensions and the requested output size do that. It seems to me--again, I'd love to find out that I'm wrong--that we have no reasonably-easy way to determine the exact pixel dimensions to send for a given print size for a few reasons:
(1) We do not know the printer's exact ppi resolution. We may say that Epsons are 360 or 720 ppi and that Canons are 300 or 600 ppi. But how likely is it that Japanese companies performing most if not all of their engineering in Japan are working in English units? Doesn't it seem far more likely that the exact specification is an even figure in a metric unit, like pixels per millimeter (ppmm)? Some years back by own analysis of a "250 ppi" lab concluded that it was far more likely that the printers were actually 254 ppi--which is exactly 10 ppmm. I'd bet lunch that so-called 300 ppi printers are actually 12 ppmm, which is 304.8 ppi. And what about those supposedly-360 ppi Epsons? I suspect that they are actually 14 ppmm = 355.6 ppi. But I don't know any of this. And I would be unlikely to trust information on it from any U.S.-based source. Obviously if you send a printer an image that has enough pixels for 300 ppi and the printer needs, 304.8 ppi, the printer (or its driver) has to up-interpolate to generate 1.6% more pixels. And obviously if you send a printer an image that has enough pixels for 360 ppi and the printer needs 355.6 ppi, the printer (or its driver) has to down-scale to generate 1.2% fewer pixels.
(2) We don't know what the printer thinks the media size really is. Have you ever gotten "8x10 inch" prints from a lab that appeared to be slightly less than 8 inches, and maybe slightly less than 10 inches? I have. From more than one place. I suspect that the paper rolls they were feeding into their printers were not exactly 8 inches wide, but in fact were exactly 200mm wide, which comes to 7.87 inches. So if you tell your printer 8x10 inches, does it really expect exactly 8x10 inches? Maybe, maybe not, it's hard to know. (Although I suspect that the U.S.-market printers actually do expect the exact dimensions in English units).
(3) For borderless prints, we do not know how much overspray the printer applies. The paper feed guides are not ultra-high-precision devices; they just slide into place, up to the edge of paper that might be bowing a little. Except where there's paper misaligment in the feed path, I have not seen thin white borders on borderless inkjet prints. To achieve this, the printer has to spray at least a little ink past / off the edge of the paper. How much? I don't know, but enough that some people recommend not printing borderless to avoid gunking up the printer's insides with overspray ink. If the printer oversprays by even 1/32 inch (a little under 1 mm) on each side, then for a print at (a nominal?) 300 ppi, it needs about 19 extra pixels in each dimension. So you think, '8x10 inches at 300 ppi means I send 2400x3000 pixels to avoid interpolation.' In reality the printer needs 2419x3019 pixels, to give something for overspray, and some sort of interpolation has to occur.
Is Lightroom, or Qimage, or whatever able to query the printer about exactly how many pixels it needs, to allow them to use their more sophisticated interpolation methods to send the printer the exact number of pixels? I don't know. Maybe. But if you or I can get that information from Lightroom or Qimage or whatever, please tell me how.
Thanks!
Yes. Qimage queries the driver and gets the answer to all three of your questions. It then uses the highest quality interpolation algorithms (not bicubic) to resize the image based on the paper and driver settings.
While resizing it uses "smart sharpening" to maintain the sharpening for any size changes required. This sharpening can be tweaked for specific paper/ICC type.
Here is one old video that may start your understanding...There are manymore
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&hd=1&v=gMzUxDP_JwM
-
Qimage queries the driver and gets the answer to all three of your questions.
Thanks for the link. I watched that and several other videos on Qimage (listed below). What follows may just tend to prove the limits of what I understand (a/k/a my own ignorance), so take it with appropriate grains of salt. But:
Unfortunately, the linked video actually decreased my confidence in Qimage / this procedure. The prime example is his part about when you select borderless printing on the Epson R1900 he's using, Qimage reports 725 ppi instead of the usual 720 ppi. If the guy presenting the video knows what's going on there, at least he doesn't seem to explain it. I'd bet that what's actually occurring is that the Epson driver is artificially claiming 725 ppi without really changing anything. Indeed, if the point were to compensate for overspray, then the print head run would stretch out slightly the resolution would go down, say to 715 ppi or something, not up to 725 ppi. But what I bet the Epson driver is doing is telling the program printing, 'If you're going to try to send me exactly how many pixels you think I need, increase that number by 0.69% (725/700=1.00694), because that's how much extra I need in terms of pixels for overspray. So on the shown 8.5x11 inch sheet, theoretically and presumably it is 6120 pixels wide (8.5x720=6120), but the R1900 is going to overspray by about 21 pixels, i.e., about 0.03 inch or 0.75mm on each side, so it really needs about 6162 pixels to work with, i.e., 725 ppi x 8.5 inches. But the way Qimage is shown to handle the borderless printing setting makes me doubt the sophistication / correctness of its 'querying the printer driver'. (And for the reasons previously stated, I still tend to suspect that the 300, 360, 600, and 720 ppi figures are nominal English-unit ones, and the actual figures differ slightly, and are even number in ppmm.)
Then I was under the impression that Qimage bypasses the printer driver to take direct control of the hardware. But watching the videos, that is obviously not the case. In the videos he goes into the printer properties dialog boxes for both a Canon Pro-9000 and an Epson R1900--which is clearly using the manufacturers' drivers--and in one point I think he actually discusses that. I can see pros and cons to using the manufacturers' drivers, but this tends to slot the sophistication of Qimage somewhat lower than had been my impression (and contrasting with, say, VueScan, which AFAIK does bypass the manufacturers' drivers and control the hardware directly).
From those videos and Jose Rodriguez's, I tend to suspect that Qimage's best uses are (1) making prints that are very large relative to the available input file resolution (because the up-interpolation does sound pretty sophisticated) and (2) conveniently laying out print packages of multiple prints on one sheet or roll.
videos watched
Qimage Ultimate - Paper Size and Printable Area (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMzUxDP_JwM)
Qimage Ultimate - Printer Settings (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1gWDCzDolw)
Qimage Ultimate - Printing Options (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZUf3pl-XMA)
Qimage Ultimate Intelligent Printer Settings (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt8DCIgw7L0)
and Jose Rodriguez / Jtoolman's QIMAGE Why do so many people LOVE it and yet so many HATE it? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-N3mV5GacU)
-
...................
Is Lightroom, or Qimage, or whatever able to query the printer about exactly how many pixels it needs, to allow them to use their more sophisticated interpolation methods to send the printer the exact number of pixels? I don't know. Maybe. But if you or I can get that information from Lightroom or Qimage or whatever, please tell me how.
Thanks!
I'm wondering whether this thread isn't going completely OT and beyond the scope of useful information. Has anyone participating here done or seen any tests, on the most recent printer models and with most recent software, whether it makes a particle of practical difference to image quality: (a) whether the application or elsewhere in the print pipeline resampling to native resolution gets done and for each option within what limits of resampling, and (b) whether the effective native resolution of the print head is give or take 5 pixels around its usually quoted native resolution? None of this discussion in and of itself would help improve my prints without a solid basis of evidence supporting it.
-
Thanks for the link. I watched that and several other videos on Qimage (listed below). What follows may just tend to prove the limits of what I understand (a/k/a my own ignorance), so take it with appropriate grains of salt. But:
Unfortunately, the linked video actually decreased my confidence in Qimage / this procedure. The prime example is his part about when you select borderless printing on the Epson R1900 he's using, Qimage reports 725 ppi instead of the usual 720 ppi. If the guy presenting the video knows what's going on there, at least he doesn't seem to explain it. I'd bet that what's actually occurring is that the Epson driver is artificially claiming 725 ppi without really changing anything. Indeed, if the point were to compensate for overspray, then the print head run would stretch out slightly the resolution would go down, say to 715 ppi or something, not up to 725 ppi. But what I bet the Epson driver is doing is telling the program printing, 'If you're going to try to send me exactly how many pixels you think I need, increase that number by 0.69% (725/700=1.00694), because that's how much extra I need in terms of pixels for overspray. So on the shown 8.5x11 inch sheet, theoretically and presumably it is 6120 pixels wide (8.5x720=6120), but the R1900 is going to overspray by about 21 pixels, i.e., about 0.03 inch or 0.75mm on each side, so it really needs about 6162 pixels to work with, i.e., 725 ppi x 8.5 inches. But the way Qimage is shown to handle the borderless printing setting makes me doubt the sophistication / correctness of its 'querying the printer driver'. (And for the reasons previously stated, I still tend to suspect that the 300, 360, 600, and 720 ppi figures are nominal English-unit ones, and the actual figures differ slightly, and are even number in ppmm.)
Then I was under the impression that Qimage bypasses the printer driver to take direct control of the hardware. But watching the videos, that is obviously not the case. In the videos he goes into the printer properties dialog boxes for both a Canon Pro-9000 and an Epson R1900--which is clearly using the manufacturers' drivers--and in one point I think he actually discusses that. I can see pros and cons to using the manufacturers' drivers, but this tends to slot the sophistication of Qimage somewhat lower than had been my impression (and contrasting with, say, VueScan, which AFAIK does bypass the manufacturers' drivers and control the hardware directly).
From those videos and Jose Rodriguez's, I tend to suspect that Qimage's best uses are (1) making prints that are very large relative to the available input file resolution (because the up-interpolation does sound pretty sophisticated) and (2) conveniently laying out print packages of multiple prints on one sheet or roll.
videos watched
Qimage Ultimate - Paper Size and Printable Area (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMzUxDP_JwM)
Qimage Ultimate - Printer Settings (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1gWDCzDolw)
Qimage Ultimate - Printing Options (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZUf3pl-XMA)
Qimage Ultimate Intelligent Printer Settings (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt8DCIgw7L0)
and Jose Rodriguez / Jtoolman's QIMAGE Why do so many people LOVE it and yet so many HATE it? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-N3mV5GacU)
http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/december-2007-border-patrol-all-about-borderless-printing/
P.S. You have misplaced views on sophistication. Also, Vuescan often uses mfg. scanners drivers. I have used for years and have had Vuescan unable to support scanners when new OS did not have driver for old scanner. A lot depends on the scanner and driver interface.
Hamrick is pragmatic, not sophisticated....So is Chaney. Qimage is not a RIP and does not claim to be, but it does print things that few others do...Just focus on its print capability.
-
I'm wondering whether this thread isn't going completely OT and beyond the scope of useful information. Has anyone participating here done or seen any tests, on the most recent printer models and with most recent software, whether it makes a particle of practical difference to image quality: (a) whether the application or elsewhere in the print pipeline resampling to native resolution gets done and for each option within what limits of resampling, and (b) whether the effective native resolution of the print head is give or take 5 pixels around its usually quoted native resolution? None of this discussion in and of itself would help improve my prints without a solid basis of evidence supporting it.
Ask Jeff. For years he strongly proposed that there was no need to resize to "native resolution". His recent books and statements fully support it. I praise Jeff as it takes courage to reverse your position.
Jeff Kesson did some work on interpolation outside of lightroom, using Qimage and Perfect Resize. Here is one article on Qimage http://blog.kasson.com/technical/resampling-for-printing-with-qimage/ You may wish to contact him to see if he did any detail work comparing resizing in computer vs printer driver. Chaney has done work, but like many "experts" I feel you may not believe him.
-
Ask Jeff. For years he strongly proposed that there was no need to resize to "native resolution". His recent books and statements fully support it. I praise Jeff as it takes courage to reverse your position.
Jeff Kesson did some work on interpolation outside of lightroom, using Qimage and Perfect Resize. Here is one article on Qimage http://blog.kasson.com/technical/resampling-for-printing-with-qimage/ You may wish to contact him to see if he did any detail work comparing resizing in computer vs printer driver. Chaney has done work, but like many "experts" I feel you may not believe him.
I'm appropriately asking the present discussants. But maybe it's a bit risky to "feel" what you don't "know". This isn't about "taking positions" or"reversing them" or "believing" one person or another. It's about whether there is evidence to support a hypothesis. The only expertise on call here is that which is prepared to accept or reject a hypothesis based on credible evidence, so I'm asking about the evidence.
Thanks for mentioning the sources you point to. I have not seen that evidence, as I do almost 100% of my printing straight from raw files in Lightroom and would first like to see such evidence emerging from a comparatively simple Adobe-based workflow. I say this without prejudice to what others may find preferable for their work.
-
I'm appropriately asking the present discussants. But maybe it's a bit risky to "feel" what you don't "know". This isn't about "taking positions" or"reversing them" or "believing" one person or another. It's about whether there is evidence to support a hypothesis. The only expertise on call here is that which is prepared to accept or reject a hypothesis based on credible evidence, so I'm asking about the evidence.
Thanks for mentioning the sources you point to. I have not seen that evidence, as I do almost 100% of my printing straight from raw files in Lightroom and would first like to see such evidence emerging from a comparatively simple Adobe-based workflow. I say this without prejudice to what others may find preferable for their work.
Mark...First too clarify my post....The first Jeff I referenced was Jeff Schewe. I would suggest you contact him on reason he changed his advice.
Second Jeff should have been JIM Kasson
I have been using Qimage since Late 1990's or early 2000's, so always had benefit of accurate resolution and high level interpolation. I have, for my own benefit, done multiple test comparisons from Photoshop and Lightroom....Mostly using proper resolution, sometimes without. On every print comparison Qimage print was superior. I have not specifically done tests of native vs non-native....Again, I would suggest you discuss with Schewe if you do not agree with is current recommendations.
Btw....Printers I used were 3800, 3880, 4900, and, currently, P-1000
You may also like to review this http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/tech-prt.htm
And this http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/july-2011-restless-natives/
-
Thanks for the references, and something I can easily discuss with Jeff, as we may have in the past. I'm not partial to either approach regarding resampling strategy because I think there is reason to believe both are fine. I can't test QImage because I am on OSX and won't go through the pain of installing Parallels/Windows just for that; as well, I do like my raw workflow in LR and I'm quite sure 99% of the time it's fine, because I actually have compared letting LR resample to the driver resolution or letting the system do it and frankly for the most part I think for the range I tested you'd need a magnifier to see any difference. But useful for those on Windows to know you are very pleased with what QImage is doing for you.
-
Thanks for the references, and something I can easily discuss with Jeff, as we may have in the past. I'm not partial to either approach regarding resampling strategy because I think there is reason to believe both are fine. I can't test QImage because I am on OSX and won't go through the pain of installing Parallels/Windows just for that; as well, I do like my raw workflow in LR and I'm quite sure 99% of the time it's fine, because I actually have compared letting LR resample to the driver resolution or letting the system do it and frankly for the most part I think for the range I tested you'd need a magnifier to see any difference. But useful for those on Windows to know you are very pleased with what QImage is doing for you.
A friend of mine went to OSX, but is running a Windows system just for Qimage printing.
Jim Kasson did, and posted, test of Perfect Resize and Qimage vs. PS and LR. Both PR and Q were comparable and beat the Adobe systems. Qimage is easier to use as you sharpen to what you view on display, then Q will properly do final sharpening for paper, ink, size required. No need to guess if you have over sharpened enough or to sharpen for each size, paper, etc.