Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: tsinsf on January 04, 2012, 12:39:24 am
-
In the video tutorial Camera to Print and Screen (2011) Jeff Schewe recommends up-resing by 50% if the ppi is less than 300, and to 720 ppi if it is 300 ppi or above. Since I already own Perfect Resize 7, should I use it assuming it would do a better job than Lightroom? I shoot with a Canon 5d Mark 2, so my file dimensions out of camera are 5616x3744; printing 16x24 on my Epson 3880 gives a native resolution of 234ppi.
I have another question. Since the newer Epson printer heads resolution is 360 dpi, why wouldn't it be better to always up-res to at least 360 ppi for images?
Thanks!!
-
Hi,
I have looked at a lot of uprezzing packages and have not really seen any real benefits. I would just go with Lightroom at print at 360PPI.
BTW, Eric Chan mentioned that Adobe tested about 30 algorithms before settling on the present one.
Best regards
Erik
In the video tutorial Camera to Print and Screen (2011) Jeff Schewe recommends up-resing by 50% if the ppi is less than 300, and to 720 ppi if it is 300 ppi or above. Since I already own Perfect Resize 7, should I use it assuming it would do a better job than Lightroom? I shoot with a Canon 5d Mark 2, so my file dimensions out of camera are 5616x3744; printing 16x24 on my Epson 3880 gives a native resolution of 234ppi.
I have another question. Since the newer Epson printer heads have 360 spray units/inch, why wouldn't it be better to always up-res to 360 for images below that resolution?
Thanks!!
-
Since the newer Epson printer heads resolution is 360 dpi, why wouldn't it be better to always up-res to at least 360 ppi for images?
Or put another way, is the upres algorithm in printers better than the algorithm in LR/Perfect Resize/etc? I don't know the answer, though.
-
Hi,
No that is a different question, and an important one. LR does it's own scaling. That scaling is done before output sharpening. The scaling in LR has nothing to do with scaling in the printer. If you scale in LR to printer native resolution all scaling is done in LR.
Best regards
Erik
Or put another way, is the upres algorithm in printers better than the algorithm in LR/Perfect Resize/etc? I don't know the answer, though.
-
In the video tutorial Camera to Print and Screen (2011) Jeff Schewe recommends up-resing by 50% if the ppi is less than 300, and to 720 ppi if it is 300 ppi or above.
Jeff has updated this advice, see:
Nope...
It's now any res under 360 goes to 360, any res above 360 goes to 720 and print with finest detail on. In the case of Canon or HP it's 300/600.
Nope...
It's now any res under 360 goes to 360, any res above 360 goes to 720 and print with finest detail on. In the case of Canon or HP it's 300/600.
and specifically with reference to 'finest detail':
No...I said Epson "said that Finest Detail is only useful for vector art"...what I'm saying is that it's also useful when printing out at 720ppi with images whose native resolution is above 360ppi (I can't see any benefit from using Finest Detail when printing at 360).
Regards
Nigel
(Edited to add two additional Jeff Schewe quotes.)
-
Would you mind sharing where these quotes are from? I'd love to read or listen to the whole discussion. Thanks.
-
I have looked at a lot of uprezzing packages and have not really seen any real benefits. I would just go with Lightroom at print at 360PPI.
Ditto. Did a Webinar a few months back on the subject, found that with proper capture sharpening (that is KEY), LR did a better job than any of the 3rd party products I tested. Faster too. Just slightly better than Photoshop with the same capture sharpening. From those I respect who have also tested the waters, some of these 3rd party products are a bit better when you have to upsize a tiny original (the example was a 640x480 xray).
-
How do you manage to print 16 x 24 on the 3880? The maximum sheet size is 17 x 22 and there is no provision for rolls of paper.
-
The maximum sheet size is 17 x 22 and there is no provision for rolls of paper.
No, the max size is 17 x 37. You have to make a custom paper size to do it though...
-
you can print up to 17x37.5 on a 38xx if you can get the paper (RedRiver).
-
I print 17x22 on an Epson 3800. Native files from my Olympus E-5 are around 180 ppi at that output size. My workflow is to uprez to 360 ppi for printing using Genuine Fractals 6 and then apply output sharpening to the uprezzed file using smart sharpening. There is a slight difference in the final print using that workflow compared to printing straight from LR3, but is it slight. GF6 looks more painterly to my eye. But really, I think it is more a matter of taste than of raw quality. Everyone else's MMV, of course.
-
Would you mind sharing where these quotes are from? I'd love to read or listen to the whole discussion. Thanks.
What may have changed his opinion is probably found in discussions in this forum. October 2011 has one and there have been more.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
You can check this thread for Jeff's newer opinion . . there's an earlier one as well.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=58368.0
Mitch
-
Since the newer Epson printer heads resolution is 360 dpi, why wouldn't it be better to always up-res to at least 360 ppi for images?
the "head" resolution is just how many dots of ink it can spit out at a time. a "head" resolution of 180/inch nozzles can print identically to one of 360/inch, it just means the print head must make 2 passes across to put the same number of dots on the paper as the other printhead does in one pass. the main advantage of the higher density nozzles is speed. (btw, the 3880 is 180 nozzles, not 360)
The printer driver does work internally at a "resolution" which for Epson is 360/720. I also recommend you let Lightroom handle it, it's amazingly good and fast. The discussions mentioned talk about when to use 360 in Lightroom and when to use 720, I pretty much use that workflow now and print only from Lightroom. Many of my files make the round trip to PS for creative sharpening, but now I can have one master file to print to any size I want and LR does a great job of handling output sharpening.
-
What may have changed his opinion is probably found in discussions in this forum. October 2011 has one and there have been more.
No actually, it was earlier...when Mike and I shot the first series of the C2PS vids in April, I was still thinking upsample at least 50% if under 360PPI and keep native rez if over 360...that came about when Lightroom 3 was released. With further testing I changed my mind and thought if under 360 upsample to 360 and if over 360, upsample to 720. That was further refined by adding the addition of using Finest Detail option in the Epson driver. The second round of shooting we did in May covered upsampling to 720 for images whose native rez was above 360 but below 720.
My current thinking is in the current/recent issue of Digital Photo Pro magazine article "The Right Resolution (http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/workflow/the-right-resolution.html)".
-
Thank you so much!!
-
Jeff,
Thanks for pointing to the article!
Best regards
Erik
No actually, it was earlier...when Mike and I shot the first series of the C2PS vids in April, I was still thinking upsample at least 50% if under 360PPI and keep native rez if over 360...that came about when Lightroom 3 was released. With further testing I changed my mind and thought if under 360 upsample to 360 and if over 360, upsample to 720. That was further refined by adding the addition of using Finest Detail option in the Epson driver. The second round of shooting we did in May covered upsampling to 720 for images whose native rez was above 360 but below 720.
My current thinking is in the current/recent issue of Digital Photo Pro magazine article "The Right Resolution (http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/workflow/the-right-resolution.html)".
-
Hi,
No that is a different question, and an important one. LR does it's own scaling. That scaling is done before output sharpening. The scaling in LR has nothing to do with scaling in the printer. If you scale in LR to printer native resolution all scaling is done in LR.
duh. My point was whether it's better to send a image already scaled to printer native resolution in LR to the printer, or let the printer do the scaling.
Moot point now, since Schewe answers that question further up this thread (resize before sending to printer).
-
Just read the excellent article "The Right Resolution" by Jeff Schewe in DigitalPhotoPro. But it has left me with a question:
I have a (new) Epson R3000, so I want to print my images at 360ppi.
0. Using Photoshop CS5, I can use Image Resize to set the resolution to 360ppi and natively, with no resampling, this makes the 12.3mp image, say 6inx4in. I guess if I print this (either in PS after applying some output sharpening, or in LR using output sharpening), this is the best print I can achieve.
However, If I wanted to print an enlarged version, I have 4 options, but which will give me the best printed image quality?
1. In PS, resize the image but maintain resolution at 360ppi using Resampling. I can then just sharpen/print from PS as the image is at 360ppi
2. In PS, resize the image but don't constrain the resolution, i.e. let it reduce to whatever it takes for that size - no resampling. Then print it in LR, by setting the output resolution to 360ppi and let LR do the resampling and the sharpening (LR is uprezzing the image)
3. Open the original from step 0 above in LR - it is already at 360ppi - then resize/zoom to fit paper in LR without changing the resolution (LR is increasing the image size at the same ppi)
4. Use Perfect Resize 7 plugin to do the resizing
I would very much appreciate your views on why which approach is best
-
A upsample (while keeping the rez to 360) is what you would want to do...then sharpen. Upsampling to 200% is very doable...past that you hit the limits of image quality.
-
Thanks Jeff
Just for my clarity - which of my options is that 1,2 or 3. I'm having a dim moment! I'm guessing its 1 or 3.
-
I would do the work in Lightroom in the Print module...
-
...
My current thinking is in the current/recent issue of Digital Photo Pro magazine article "The Right Resolution (http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/workflow/the-right-resolution.html)".
Thanks for the article.
-
Jeff
Thanks for the link to your article, which rather neatly summarises the outcome of our last marathon debate on this topic, back in June. Since then I have done a bit more testing, and I find that for the very, very most picky results when using an Epson printer -
* Always upres to 720 ppi
* And I can see a difference in result depending on the starting resolution. For best results I re-size the image to a multiple of 60, rather than a random figure, thus - 180, 240, 300, 360 (of course), 420, 480, 540, 600, 660. So if my image native res was 454 I would re-size it to 480 (smaller) or 420 (bigger). Then up-res it in LR to 720 ppi on its way to the printer.
John
-
By the way....what happens if one prints through a traditional system, i.e. not ink printers but at a custom lab using normal photographic paper? How should I proceed if I want to print my D300 files on papers of size 16x24 or above? Nowadays I set in LR a resolution of 300 dpi in the print module and export as jpg....
Agustin
-
I'm sorry, I am having a little brain lock on this as I am not very familiar with Lightroom. Is the workflow that I should take my OOC DNG in LR and do capture sharpening and global adjustment, and then creative sharpening and local adjustments with the adjustment brush, and then just print at 360 dpi if the native rez of the image at the target print size is <360 and print at 720 if the native rez of the image at the target print size is >360 (assuming Epson printers). That seems too easy.
-
That seems too easy.
Yep...it is pretty easy largely because of the advantages of Lightroom. In the Print module, be sure to check the option in the Guides panel for Dimensions...there you'll see the dimensions that the image is being printed. If you uncheck the Resolution, the dimensions and native resolution of the image at that size will be displayed. If under 360, upsample the resolution to 360. If above 360, upsample to 720...set your output sharpening and print. Easy...without having to spawn off multiple files of different sizes and resolutions as you would have to do using Photoshop.
-
I have been following this advice for a while now, since a discussion of similar sorts I started back in the summer, and must say that I'm very pleased with the results. Like Jeff says... "Yep... it is pretty easy". Don't tell everyone though... my customers think I'm a printing wizard!! ;)
-
No actually, it was earlier...when Mike and I shot the first series of the C2PS vids in April, I was still thinking upsample at least 50% if under 360PPI and keep native rez if over 360...that came about when Lightroom 3 was released. With further testing I changed my mind and thought if under 360 upsample to 360 and if over 360, upsample to 720. That was further refined by adding the addition of using Finest Detail option in the Epson driver. The second round of shooting we did in May covered upsampling to 720 for images whose native rez was above 360 but below 720.
Jeff,
Much has been written about the print module in Lightroom. However, some us still work in Photoshop. Is there any reason features of the print module of Lightroom could not be incorporated into the print function of Photoshop?
Regards,
Bill
-
Is there any reason features of the print module of Lightroom could not be incorporated into the print function of Photoshop?
No reason except for engineering time...and a willingness to put the stuff in.
-
Much has been written about the print module in Lightroom. However, some us still work in Photoshop. Is there any reason features of the print module of Lightroom could not be incorporated into the print function of Photoshop?
No reason except for engineering time...and a willingness to put the stuff in.
In another thread addressing the imminent demise of Kodak, it was noted that even though Kodak arguably invented digital photography, they did not develop it for fear of cannibalizing their cash cow: film. It was brave for Adobe to develop Lightroom, since it could and has cannibalized Photoshop to some extent. One of the major advantages of Lightroom is the printing module, and I would think that Adobe would place this functionality in Photoshop so as to avoid further defections to LR from PS. Or perhaps they figure that many photographers will buy both :)
Regards,
Bill
-
One of the major advantages of Lightroom is the printing module, and I would think that Adobe would place this functionality in Photoshop so as to avoid further defections to LR from PS.
Photoshop has had it's own set of challenges that Lightroom hasn't faced...the major one was being forced to switch from Carbon APIs to Cocoa. It was a MAJOR coding challenge just to get everything working in CS5 and the printing engine was one of the most difficult to work on. As a result, the guys working on the Print function really didn't have any time for substantial new functionality.
Since Lightroom started life using Cocoa APIs, Lightroom was able to take advantage earlier and go further than Photoshop. Don't think for a moment that there isn't a "Lightroom Envy" for the Photoshop team...it's just that the way Photoshop is developed takes a more evolutionary track than revolutionary as Lightroom was able to do.
Photoshop WAS able to do some things in CS5 Printing–some of which ticked people off–removing the No Color Management option while adding other things such as the ability to completely script the Print command in an action–which most people don't even realize...but they didn't get saved presets nor auto output sharpening in. Personally, I would love it if Photoshop wanted Lightroom's output sharpening in Photoshop :~) but Adobe doesn't currently have that option since PhotoKit Sharpener was licensed only for Lightroom and Camera Raw. Photoshop also doesn't have Eric's auto-Bicubic resampling yet either. So, in my mind, Photoshop is lagging as the best place to print from. Hopefully they'll catch up. In the mean time, printing from Lightroom is pretty optimal.
-
Jeff, I have to ask: is there a print size limit for uprezzing to 720? (or even 360 come to think of it)
Thanks, John
-
Not sure what you are asking...in Photoshop? Lightroom? The Epson print driver? As far as I know, recent Epson drivers, Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3.x don't have a hard limit per se...
-
I've found that some of my larger pieces can't be resized to 720 dpi in Lightroom. The job seems to execute, but produces blank output.
I haven't tried to be scientific about determining a maximum print dimension that works. It seems to be at around 32,000 pixels in the long dimension, even though that particular number (2^15) should not be an issue with a 64-bit workflow (I'm using Mac OS 10.6 with Lightroom 3 in 64-bit mode, and 24 Gb of RAM). Having said that, it could easily be something specific to my environment, rather than a Lightroom or Epson driver limitation.
-
I've found that some of my larger pieces can't be resized to 720 dpi in Lightroom. The job seems to execute, but produces blank output.
I haven't tried to be scientific about determining a maximum print dimension that works. It seems to be at around 32,000 pixels in the long dimension, even though that particular number (2^15) should not be an issue with a 64-bit workflow (I'm using Mac OS 10.6 with Lightroom 3 in 64-bit mode, and 24 Gb of RAM). Having said that, it could easily be something specific to my environment, rather than a Lightroom or Epson driver limitation.
The best upsampling routines, smart print sharpening, etc will increase print data compared to applications that do not have those features. To check that difference you should keep the print spooler data and compare some jobs that go through and some that do not. It does not have to be the pixel number. With Qimage Ultimate and the HP Z3200 driver on Vista 64 there can still be issues that are strange. For example at the same print resolution one image on 44" x 16' will not go through, 4 leporellos 11" x 16' that cover the same print area will print, total print data the same, print data flow should be the same. I agree with the rule that upsampling above 360 PPI to 720 PPI (in my case above 300>600 PPI) is a good strategy but in case the difference is not worth it; enough print quality already available below 300 PPI, good anti-aliasing in the downsampling routine available. possible memory issues, etc then I will downsample a 350 PPI at print size image to 300 PPI on the fly with the driver settings and Qimage's smart adaption to those settings. There is the old trick of print data stitching at print time to overcome any limits in the application, driver, memory but that one does not work with HP Z drivers. For Epson and Canon it works with Qimage's Poster/Tiles method as described in the manual, 6a of the Learn by example section.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
Would you mind sharing where these quotes are from? I'd love to read or listen to the whole discussion. Thanks.
If you are referring to the Jeff Schewe quotes I included in my post, you can go to the relevant threads by clicking on the small green text starting 'Quote from:' above each quote box.
Regards
Nigel
-
It was brave for Adobe to develop Lightroom, since it could and has cannibalized Photoshop to some extent. One of the major advantages of Lightroom is the printing module, and I would think that Adobe would place this functionality in Photoshop so as to avoid further defections to LR from PS. Or perhaps they figure that many photographers will buy both :)
Regards,
Bill
I think it was quite smart of Adobe to introduce LR. PS is used by photographers, yes, but more so by graphic artists in many more fields. That market wouldn't have been affected by LR at all. In fact, it may have added to that market by graphic artists purchasing LR as well as PS. I would be willing to lay odds that many (not necessarily the majority) photographers were using pirated copies of PS but have since purchased a copy of the much lower priced Lightroom.
-
On what are you basing your statement about piracy? Was this info from Adobe? Sounds high.
-
I think it was quite smart of Adobe to introduce LR. PS is used by photographers, yes, but more so by graphic artists in many more fields. That market wouldn't have been affected by LR at all...
It is worth noting that photographers represent less that 10% of Photoshop users. LR, however, appears to be exclusively aimed at photographers.
-
I've found that some of my larger pieces can't be resized to 720 dpi in Lightroom. The job seems to execute, but produces blank output.
I've seen this as well. If I try printing a large print from my IQ180 files or some of my stitched files at 720dpi from lightroom, I get a blank print. I have to go back down to 360.
Doesn't happen often since not many files printed very large have enough resolution to be higher than 360 which may benefit from using 720 in LR, but has happened a couple of times.
-
On what are you basing your statement about piracy? Was this info from Adobe? Sounds high.
No real source... other than myself, but I've met (and know) many photographers (through associations - professional and amateur, workshops, etc.) and its quite amazing how many pirated copies there are. And I did say "many", not a given number or even percentage. But if I personally know of many, I'm sure the number is much higher.