Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: ognita on May 26, 2014, 10:53:06 pm
-
I have done my share of searching the boards and reading some articles but there in no definitive [practical] answer. I am under the impression that the Epson driver will convert to 360ppi if you send something less than 300ppi file. I always re-size to 360ppi for my regular prints so there's no concern.
But this time, I will be printing larger than my usual and I would like to maintain the integrity of the pixels. I plan not to up-rez but rather, to give it a smaller ppi of 180 to achieve the desired size.
Would the Epson driver convert the 180ppi to 360ppi still?
or is it more like this:
If the ppi is less than 180 - it will convert to 180
If the ppi is more than 180 but less than 360 - it will convert to 360.
But if the ppi is either 180 or 360 exactly - it will remain unconverted.
The answer would dictate the route that I will take in preparing the file for print.
Thank you guys!
-
What model Epson printer are you using? On some of the more recent ones there is choice of "360 or 720 native resolution". My understanding is that the driver will up/down res on-the-fly as the case may be to one of the two native resolutions (where you have the choice). As a result, you may bring the file to 360/720 for printing purposes using your image editing software, or you can send whatever PPI you want to the Epson driver and let it handle the conversion. This choice boils down to which approach delivers better quality output, something you should judge for yourself by testing both approaches and observing whether you see any appreciable difference.
-
Thank you for your reply, Mark.
I use a 3880 but will a 7900 for the bigger prints.
I think the 720ppi would not be such a concern since my camera does not produce as much pixels to begin with, and is closer to 360.
That's the thing if I lower down the ppi to hit the required size, say 180 Exactly. Would the driver still re-sample to 360?
-
I believe so.
-
Would the Epson driver convert the 180ppi to 360ppi still?
Well, you image data does get transformed to 360ppi but it's not by the print driver, it's the OS level print pipeline that does it...ad it does it with a relatively poor bilinear algorithm. So, if you want the optimal results, you should consider upsampling the image data using a better algorithm in your image app or output app. Photoshop CC has a new and improved upsampling using Preserve Details with is a considerable improvement over bilinear and Lightroom and Qimage will also do a better job that the print pipeline. You can test this yourself, but doing your own upsampling will do a better job particularly for high frequency detailed images.
P.S. The above largely applies to glossy media. Media like canvas or rough watercolor paper may not show any substantial benefits.
-
Jeff - is the "OS print pipeline" not the software installed as part of the Epson driver? (I wasn't aware that operating systems have independent print pipelines that do up-rezzing - but that doesn't mean they don't of course!)
-
The print driver reports it's "resolution" to the OS level print pipeline...the application sends the image data to the print driver via the print pipeline. As far as I can determine, it's the print pipeline that accepts the image data from the app and passes it to the print driver. Part of that "passing" are potential color and resolution transforms...(depending on the OS and the way in which the app or driver handles color).
All I know for a fact is that Epson tech told me that the print driver doesn't do any resolution changes and Adobe engineers have confirmed that the apps don't do any resolution changes (unless you specifically instruct it to), so that leaves the OS level print pipeline.
In the case of Epson that reported resolution will be either 360 or 720 (on pro printers with Finest Detail checked). On Canon or HP that reported resolution will be either 300 or 600 depending on the driver settings.
-
OK yes, I remember now- not the first time you have mentioned this advice from the Epson tech. I'm not trying to be facetious, but I wonder whether he is correct about that, because it seems strange that Epson would manufacture a printhead and driver designed to handle data at a given parameter for the PPI and then not have its own algorithm for implementing it. Do you think corroboration would be useful/helpful?
-
Do you think corroboration would be useful/helpful?
Neither Apple nor MSFT are offering any insight...(and yes, I do believe the Epson and Adobe engineers–we've gone back and forth on this and we're all "pretty sure" it's the OS level pipeline that's altering the resolution).
And through testing we're pretty sure that the resampling is a fast (but not very good) bilinear resampling–which can be improved by using apps to resample.
-
Thanks Jeff, that's helpful.
-
Thanks guys!
That basically answers my question. For optimal control, I need to up-sample to 360ppi and let go of the idea of placing lower ppi (180) to get my desired print size without interpolation.
I'm going to use Perfect Resize for this (any good?) Man! I was somehow praying that I misunderstood the ppi conversion thing, as I was hoping to use the native pixels only. Oh well...
Thanks again guys!
-
Well, you image data does get transformed to 360ppi but it's not by the print driver, it's the OS level print pipeline that does it...ad it does it with a relatively poor bilinear algorithm.
On OSX 10.9 (Mavericks) printing to an Epson3800 there is no longer the 360 /720 dpi option in the print driver - it's greyed out (depending on your choice of paper). For any of the Photo papers - gloss, semi-gloss, luster - it's now SuperFine 1440 dpi or SuperPhoto 2880 dpi only.
Jeff refers to a resampling of the image data in ppi but I'm not sure how that is now handled/converted to the dpi options of the Epson driver.
-
Thanks guys!
That basically answers my question. For optimal control, I need to up-sample to 360ppi and let go of the idea of placing lower ppi (180) to get my desired print size without interpolation.
Hi,
Indeed, upsampling to 360 or 720 PPI always allows better image quality. It also allows to do output sharpening at the final / native printer resolution, instead of sharpening and then upsampling to a blur again. That's why upsampling to 720 PPI is preferred when your image data exceeds 360 PPI, rather than downsampling. Anyway, why throw away data that you already captured?
I'm going to use Perfect Resize for this (any good?)
Yes, recent versions will do a decent up-sampling, with post resampling sharpening options that can enhance sharp edges.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks guys!
That basically answers my question. For optimal control, I need to up-sample to 360ppi and let go of the idea of placing lower ppi (180) to get my desired print size without interpolation.
I'm going to use Perfect Resize for this (any good?) Man! I was somehow praying that I misunderstood the ppi conversion thing, as I was hoping to use the native pixels only. Oh well...
Thanks again guys!
You may wish to consider printing from Lightroom - it's brilliant.
-
I dont recall the Epson 3800 driver *ever* giving you a 360/720 choice. It's always been 1440/2880 IIRC
-
I dont recall the Epson 3800 driver *ever* giving you a 360/720 choice. It's always been 1440/2880 IIRC
I didn't say the Epson 3800 offers 360/720. Furthermore the 360 or 720 refers to pixels per inch of image resolution. The 1440/2880 is another metric - dots per inch printed.
-
I dont recall the Epson 3800 driver *ever* giving you a 360/720 choice. It's always been 1440/2880 IIRC
Hi Howard,
One needs to enable the 'Finest Detail' option in the printer driver by checking the box.
Without that, the printer will only print in 360 PPI (=pixels not dots!) mode.
The dots option refers to the color dithering (1200/2800 dots) pattern used.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I didn't say the Epson 3800 offers 360/720. Furthermore the 360 or 720 refers to pixels per inch of image resolution. The 1440/2880 is another metric - dots per inch printed.
No, but I referenced it in my post above. The 360/720 you say refers to pixels per inch , but I thought it referred to dithering. The driver clearly lists both 360 and 720 as dpi, as it does for the 1440/2880 metric.
Also, if one selects, for example, 'Enhanced Matte Paper' then there is the additional option of 720dpi. 360 dpi doesn't appear until you get down to 'Photo Quality Inkjet Paper' The four options are described as Normal(360) - Fine(720) - SuperFine(1440) and SuperPhoto(2880).
So if I understand Bart's post the 720ppi is engaged on the Epson printers ONLY by checking the Finest Detail box otherwise it's 360ppi.
-
No, but I referenced it in my post above. The 360/720 you say refers to pixels per inch , but I thought it referred to dithering. The driver clearly lists both 360 and 720 as dpi, as it does for the 1440/2880 metric. So what is the difference ?
Also, if one selects, for example, 'Enhanced Matte Paper' then there is the additional option of 720dpi. 360 dpi doesn't appear until you get down to 'Photo Quality Inkjet Paper' The four options are described as Normal(360) - Fine(720) - SuperFine(1440) and SuperPhoto(2880).
So if I understand Bart's post the 720ppi is engaged on the Epson printers ONLY by checking the Finest Detail box otherwise it's 360ppi.
The 360/720 business is pixels per inch of image resolution regardless of what the nomenclature in the driver says. The dithering happens in the algorithms for laying printer dots of the colour mixtures to paper and that is where the range of 1440-2880 dots per inch comes in. Have a look at Michael Reichmann's very useful article on this website explaining resolution (quite some years ago).
-
So if I understand Bart's post the 720ppi is engaged on the Epson printers ONLY by checking the Finest Detail box otherwise it's 360ppi.
Correctly understood. No amount of waving magic wands or alignment of the planets will achieve 720 PPI, unless/until the 'Finest detail' checkbox is set.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I have a radical suggestion - LOOK AT THE PRINTS AND DECIDE WHAT YOU LIKE.
-
I have a radical suggestion - LOOK AT THE PRINTS AND DECIDE WHAT YOU LIKE.
Please review the end of Reply #1 above :-)
-
Printing from LR, at 360 dpi just makes it so much easier. Let LR do the upres/print sharpening or if you want, upres with many of the software tools to 360, but still let LR print. Just makes things so much easier. IMO one of the best deals on the market, just for print alone.
Paul
-
I have a radical suggestion - LOOK AT THE PRINTS AND DECIDE WHAT YOU LIKE.
Hi Peter,
Many people are rather poor at judging by eye, because they don't know what to look for. But others will spot their judgement errors pretty fast. So there is nothing wrong with asking for some opinions/advice.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well, you image data does get transformed to 360ppi but it's not by the print driver, it's the OS level print pipeline that does it...
The print driver reports it's "resolution" to the OS level print pipeline...
...the print driver doesn't do any resolution changes...
As an interesting aside, what happens when you send a file to an outside lab for printing, especially if you do not know which printer they are using and what its native resolution is? Inferred from the above, it means that the lab computer's OS would do the resolution changes? How would you then optimize the file before sending (if at all)?
P.S. The above largely applies to glossy media. Media like canvas or rough watercolor paper may not show any substantial benefits.
That seems about right. I sent my files for 20x30 canvas prints to an outside lab at the files' native resolution (or whatever it was after cropping), which often meant something barely above 100ppi (old Canon 20D files, for instance). The prints turned out rather well.
-
Without putting too fine a point on it, perhaps we can all agree that seeing for oneself is perhaps a necessary but not always sufficient provision.
-
As an interesting aside, what happens when you send a file to an outside lab for printing, especially if you do not know which printer they are using and what its native resolution is? Inferred from the above, it means that the lab computer's OS would do the resolution changes? How would you then optimize the file before sending (if at all)?
Hi Slobodan,
Excellent point, assuming one subscribes to 'the OS level print pipeline does resampling' idea, which I don't. The sometimes printer specific print application, other times just the printer driver, will do the resampling, and can be set or disabled. Applications like Qimage will do all resampling, add a user selectable amount of sharpening at the pixel level after resampling, add optional dithering for profile conversions after all that, and then sends the data stream to the printer driver which only dithers the ink-colors. Maybe the Mac OS adds some complications by enforcing some additional color management.
Some printer drivers even allow to adjust the upsampling quality, with edge enhancement and such. I don't see how the OS could do that in different ways for different printer driver algorithms.
When outsourcing files for printing, I prepare them with the colorprofile and native resolution of the printer that will be used for the actual print. It's not always easy to get that info, but serious print operations are happy to assist by making profiles available and will share info about the equipment they use (and which settings they use, sometimes a compromise for production speed!).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Without putting too fine a point on it, perhaps we can all agree that seeing for oneself is perhaps a necessary but not always sufficient provision.
LOL, nicely worded ...
However, allow me to 'point out' that merely switching on/off the 'Finest detail' setting is not enough for a good comparison, because printing at a finer detail level also allows/requires to use different output sharpening settings ... In addition, a different level of noise can be added to the image data to hide posterization and suggest detail for extreme up-sampling factors.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... In addition, a different level of noise can be added to the image data to hide posterization and suggest detail for extreme up-sampling factors.
Which brings us to a question regarding Lightroom processing pipeline. LR can add noise as an effect, and LR can uprez in the printing module. The question is, does LR add noise before or after uprezzing?
-
I have a radical suggestion - LOOK AT THE PRINTS AND DECIDE WHAT YOU LIKE.
I sent a Roman 16 image (Magenta woman knitting) out to my 3880 at 360 PPI resized for the 8x11 and one native resolution which worked out to 224 PPI. Output to Epson Glossy paper. I can't see any difference until I put a powerful loupe on the two cut so they line up to see the them side by side. One could argue the 360 PPI looks a tiny bit sharpener on the fine details but it's nearly microscopic. At least with this image quality and output size, I wouldn't even trouble myself sizing to exactly 360 PPI.
-
In the case of Epson that reported resolution will be either 360 or 720 (on pro printers with Finest Detail checked). On Canon or HP that reported resolution will be either 300 or 600 depending on the driver settings.
Other drivers, such as with the PrintFab RIP, can send a reported resolution of 1440. However, that makes for very large files spooled and sent to the printer.
R
-
To those who suggest to use LR to print - thank you. But I am going through the ABW route with custom gray profile. Yes, I am on a Windows platform.
Would you say that LR is better in printing? I mean engine wise (considering the same skills of the printer person)
I sent a Roman 16 image (Magenta woman knitting) out to my 3880 at 360 PPI resized for the 8x11 and one native resolution which worked out to 224 PPI. Output to Epson Glossy paper. I can't see any difference until I put a powerful loupe on the two cut so they line up to see the them side by side. One could argue the 360 PPI looks a tiny bit sharpener on the fine details but it's nearly microscopic. At least with this image quality and output size, I wouldn't even trouble myself sizing to exactly 360 PPI.
Maybe I can just let it go as well :) I have to check. Target size is 20x20 inches. I have done it several times before - print 20x20 inches @360 ppi with only a 2500 pixel file. I just thought that I might be missing something out or there's a better or easier (wherein the difference is not noticeable) way.
Thanks for all your input guys!
-
To those who suggest to use LR to print - thank you. But I am going through the ABW route with custom gray profile. Yes, I am on a Windows platform.
Would you say that LR is better in printing? I mean engine wise (considering the same skills of the printer person)
Maybe I can just let it go as well :) I have to check. Target size is 20x20 inches. I have done it several times before - print 20x20 inches @360 ppi with only a 2500 pixel file. I just thought that I might be missing something out or there's a better or easier (wherein the difference is not noticeable) way.
Thanks for all your input guys!
You should not deny yourself the opportunity of making B&W prints softproofed (in Develop) and then printed through the Lightroom Print module, preserving your custom profile, and comparing the outcome with what you do in ABW. You may be surprised.
-
Would you say that LR is better in printing? I mean engine wise (considering the same skills of the printer person)
LR is pretty decent, but with more effort you can do better. Not everybody has the stamina (or skills) to take those few extra steps that will produce above average results. You have Perfect resize, which should be able to do better upsampling (even from below 360 PPI going all the way to 720 PPI, especially with sharp edge detail), and when you add some spatial detail enhancement (http://www.topazlabs.com/detail) after that at the highest resolution level (720 PPI), you can really make a difference compared to the more limited control options of LR.
I just thought that I might be missing something out or there's a better or easier (wherein the difference is not noticeable) way.
Better, probably yes, but not easier. Quality requires effort.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Quality is (a) context sensitive and (b) in the eye of the beholder; therefore it is necessary to make one's own comparisons of the options and decide what workflow is the most appropriate relative to one's own needs and objectives.
-
Quality is (a) context sensitive and (b) in the eye of the beholder; therefore it is necessary to make one's own comparisons of the options and decide what workflow is the most appropriate relative to one's own needs and objectives.
Better, probably yes, but not easier. Quality requires effort.
Couldn't agree more.
-
Excellent point, assuming one subscribes to 'the OS level print pipeline does resampling' idea, which I don't.
Yeah, ya know...based on the discussions I've had with the "experts" (meaning the guys from Epson and Adobe who write the code) I keep coming back to the question, if the OS level print pipeline doesn't do the resampling, why does the print driver need to report the print resolution to the OS?
Epson "reports" either 360 or 720 DPI in the system...Canon/HP either 300/600 DPI. We know this and can prove that the driver reports to the OS what the desired resolution the driver wants...We know that the apps send the image data to the print pipeline without changes (unless the user does something proactive). I have been told by Epson that the driver itself doesn't do any resampling. So, what happens between the app & the driver? On Mac, potentially a lot. On Windows much less.
But, in either case, I don't think it's the application nor the print driver doing any resolution changes...I think it's the OS that takes the app data and hands it off to the driver-and makes the changes required for both resolution and color handling.
Can alternative resampling do a better job? You bet! I think we've proven that...upsampling to the reported driver resolution has show better results than letting the resolution changes happen outside of the print pipeline. Right? We agree that taking an active role in sending the correct sharpened resolution to the driver is better than not doing the post processing?
I really don't think the app nor the driver does the resampling...I think it's a crude resampling done by the print pipeline–and I think we agree that it's less than optimal, right?
-
Yeah, ya know...based on the discussions I've had with the "experts" (meaning the guys from Epson and Adobe who write the code) I keep coming back to the question, if the OS level print pipeline doesn't do the resampling, why does the print driver need to report the print resolution to the OS?
Epson "reports" either 360 or 720 DPI in the system...Canon/HP either 300/600 DPI. We know this and can prove that the driver reports to the OS what the desired resolution the driver wants...We know that the apps send the image data to the print pipeline without changes (unless the user does something proactive). I have been told by Epson that the driver itself doesn't do any resampling. So, what happens between the app & the driver? On Mac, potentially a lot. On Windows much less.
But, in either case, I don't think it's the application nor the print driver doing any resolution changes...I think it's the OS that takes the app data and hands it off to the driver-and makes the changes required for both resolution and color handling.
Can alternative resampling do a better job? You bet! I think we've proven that...upsampling to the reported driver resolution has show better results than letting the resolution changes happen outside of the print pipeline. Right? We agree that taking an active role in sending the correct sharpened resolution to the driver is better than not doing the post processing?
I really don't think the app nor the driver does the resampling...I think it's a crude resampling done by the print pipeline–and I think we agree that it's less than optimal, right?
For what reason a printing route part utters the request for a certain input resolution (300 etc PPI>HP, Canon, 360 etc PPI Epson) I do not know for sure but Qimage Ultimate in default mode will auto-magically resample to that requested PPI any image loaded on the print page. Either the OS or the driver makes that request. If the OS does it then it has to interact with the driver and driver settings to put that request for 300, 600 or 1200 PPI specifically (my HPs). What I recall is that Qimage Ultimate checks a Windows API to get the information of the requested input resolution. Maybe the Windows system architecture is made flexible to allow any part of the print route to do the resampling to the requested input resolution. There will not be an issue if the application like QU does it up front and the rest of the chain sees that the data is already at the requested resolution so will not interfere.
Given this line of text by Mike Chaney I would say it is the (Windows) driver that does the resampling normally:
"As can be seen in the samples below, Qimage Ultimate, which automatically resamples to native driver resolution, does a much better job at resampling than the driver and eliminates much of the artifacts (aliasing) caused by the driver not having the best resampling algorithm"
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
Yeah, ya know...based on the discussions I've had with the "experts" (meaning the guys from Epson and Adobe who write the code) I keep coming back to the question, if the OS level print pipeline doesn't do the resampling, why does the print driver need to report the print resolution to the OS?
Epson "reports" either 360 or 720 DPI in the system...Canon/HP either 300/600 DPI. We know this and can prove that the driver reports to the OS what the desired resolution the driver wants...We know that the apps send the image data to the print pipeline without changes (unless the user does something proactive). I have been told by Epson that the driver itself doesn't do any resampling. So, what happens between the app & the driver? On Mac, potentially a lot. On Windows much less.
But, in either case, I don't think it's the application nor the print driver doing any resolution changes...I think it's the OS that takes the app data and hands it off to the driver-and makes the changes required for both resolution and color handling.
Can alternative resampling do a better job? You bet! I think we've proven that...upsampling to the reported driver resolution has show better results than letting the resolution changes happen outside of the print pipeline. Right? We agree that taking an active role in sending the correct sharpened resolution to the driver is better than not doing the post processing?
I really don't think the app nor the driver does the resampling...I think it's a crude resampling done by the print pipeline–and I think we agree that it's less than optimal, right?
Jeff, based on your understanding of how Lightroom works, when we process a photo in Develop and open it in Print, then in the Print dialogue specify a resolution of say 360, can we take it that there is an LR algorithm that does the resampling? And if so would you put it on par with any other resampling algorithms you've had experience with?
Mark
-
As a user of Perfect Resize all the way back to the genuine Fractals days, I personally don't see much difference between LR uprez to 360 and taking a image to 360 with Perfect resize and then printing from LR at 360. I have done enough tests over the years.
Perfect resize take a whole lot longer to run which makes you think something is better greater going on, however in final print on 9900 at 40- x 60 to 36 x72 output, I just don't see the differences. But it's an individual degree of detail that each person is striving to get to. Personally on anything smaller 20 x 30 24 x 36, if the image was taken with a modern DSLR with a good lens and the raw was worked well, I don't think you will see any differences to the naked eye, maybe under magnification with a loupe.
LR for the price, really does a great job, let it do the work.
Paul
-
As a user of Perfect Resize all the way back to the genuine Fractals days, I personally don't see much difference between LR uprez to 360 and taking a image to 360 with Perfect resize and then printing from LR at 360. I have done enough tests over the years.
LR for the price, really does a great job, let it do the work.
That's been my experience as well. With proper capture sharpening with LR, it does a better job than PR with it's default's.
-
...when we process a photo in Develop and open it in Print, then in the Print dialogue specify a resolution of say 360, can we take it that there is an LR algorithm that does the resampling?
Yes.
.And if so would you put it on par with any other resampling algorithms you've had experience with?.
Some comparison images scanned from real printer (Epson 4900) output here (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=1896)and here (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=1907).
Jim
-
...can we take it that there is an LR algorithm that does the resampling?
Yes, it's a hybrid Bicubic going from normal Bicubic with little resampling to Bicubic Smoother when getting upwards of 200% (not sure what the cutoff point is but I kinda recall 200% was pure Bicubic Smoother–Eric can correct me). The advantage is that there is a smooth interpolation between the types of upsampling...
And if so would you put it on par with any other resampling algorithms you've had experience with?
Well, considering the resampling and sharpening work together, it's certainly a really good solution. The LR resampling might be beaten by some resizing algorithms...including the new Image Size Preserve Details in Photoshop CC, but I'm personally satisfied keeping all in LR for my work :~)
-
For what reason a printing route part utters the request for a certain input resolution (300 etc PPI>HP, Canon, 360 etc PPI Epson) I do not know for sure but Qimage Ultimate in default mode will auto-magically resample to that requested PPI any image loaded on the print page.
Which is what the OS level print pipeline seems to be doing as well. The main difference is in the case of the OS pipeline, it's a poor algorithm compared to Qimage.
We have no dispute that controlling the resampling outside of the print pipeline is a superior workflow...the app engineers (on Photoshop & Lightroom) and in the case of Epson an upper level tech say it's the OS print pipeline that's doing the resampling in a speed based (not quality based) method.
I also think we can agree that allowing the OS level pipeline to resample can actually introduce potential aliasing issues that interfere with optimal image quality.
The main take-a-way is DON'T let the print pipeline do the resampling...
At one point Bruce Fraser had advocated that users keep their images at "native resolution" and let the print pipeline send the sharpened image data to the printer. This was based on a lot of testing Bruce Fraser and I did when developing PhotoKit Sharpener. Bruce thought that native rez between 180-480 simply be left at it's own resolution (he didn't advocate downsampling ever but said upsampling was of less benefit back then).
When I worked with the Lightroom engineers to incorporate PhotoKit Sharpening into Lightroom, we determined there was a potential benefit to upsampling prior to sharpening (this was after Bruce passed away). So, the original thinking was updated to resampling to 360/300 PPI.
Later, due to debate here on LuLa, and after much testing, I determined that upsampling native resolution to 360/720 for Epson and 300/600 for Canon before output sharpening was superior. Sadly, I never had the chance to play with or test any HP printers so I can't talk about any benefits to upsampling to 1200 PPI...
Now, for the pixel peepers out there, let me reiterate; if the native resolution of your image is below 360/300, you should upsample (with you fav algorithm) and then do output sharpening before printing. If the image is above 360/300 then you should upsample to 720/600 and then sharpen.
This is noticeable in high frequency image data and areas of high contrast diagonals and circles when printed on glossy media. It's less noticeable on matte media but still noticeable on certain smooth matte media and not really noticeable on watercolor and pretty much NOT noticeable on canvas...
YMMV and you should always test these "theories" with you own images and you own printers/papers to make up your own minds.
-
but I'm personally satisfied keeping all in LR for my work :~)
Me too, and anything else would have to beat it by a VISIBLE margin at normal viewing magnification on paper before I would change, but always interesting to try different stuff and see how it compares.
-
Yeah, ya know...based on the discussions I've had with the "experts" (meaning the guys from Epson and Adobe who write the code) I keep coming back to the question, if the OS level print pipeline doesn't do the resampling, why does the print driver need to report the print resolution to the OS?
Hi Jeff,
It doesn't need to, although it can be asked for by an application (e.g. Qimage by default reports that driver settings specific PPI feedback because the application sends a request), and the response can also be ignored. Depending on the choice of paper/quality set in the printer driver, one can ask the printer driver for the maximum PPI it will accept based on those settings, and avoid sending too much data.
One can send more PPIs, but then the printer driver will override it and resample again. Some printer drivers have settings for the type of resampling and other postprocessing (e.g. smoothing out jaggies) to use. So it allows to prevent needless overhead by the sending application, but it can still be sent too much data. There may be some interaction between the printer driver and the printer firmware, but the OS has little to do with it.
Epson "reports" either 360 or 720 DPI in the system...Canon/HP either 300/600 DPI. We know this and can prove that the driver reports to the OS what the desired resolution the driver wants...We know that the apps send the image data to the print pipeline without changes (unless the user does something proactive). I have been told by Epson that the driver itself doesn't do any resampling. So, what happens between the app & the driver? On Mac, potentially a lot. On Windows much less.
But, in either case, I don't think it's the application nor the print driver doing any resolution changes...I think it's the OS that takes the app data and hands it off to the driver-and makes the changes required for both resolution and color handling
.
Resampling is not the task of the OS, that's what applications and drivers are for. The OS will control the various physical input and output interfaces and the data transfer/timing/handshaking between them. The OS wouldn't know how to reduce jaggies for a specific printer hardware and features, but some printer drivers allow to select that option.
What might happen is that the printer driver can let part of the resampling be handled by the printer firmware, e.g. the 720 to 360 PPI resampling when the finest detail option is unchecked in the printer driver but 720 PPI data amounts are sent. That (averaging 2 bytes before dithering) would be a trivial operation, always the same, and can be optimized together with the dithering in a firmware operation. Firmware is usually faster than software, because it's not flexible. Other tasks, like borderless printing, requires variable amounts (a percentage) of resampling, and color management for the additional pixels, a typical task for an application or a driver (if printer manages color).
Can alternative resampling do a better job? You bet! I think we've proven that...upsampling to the reported driver resolution has show better results than letting the resolution changes happen outside of the print pipeline. Right? We agree that taking an active role in sending the correct sharpened resolution to the driver is better than not doing the post processing?
I really don't think the app nor the driver does the resampling...I think it's a crude resampling done by the print pipeline–and I think we agree that it's less than optimal, right?
Specific targeted post-processing of the pixels that get delivered to the pipeline definitely allows better output quality. No discussion about that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
As a user of Perfect Resize all the way back to the genuine Fractals days, I personally don't see much difference between LR uprez to 360 and taking a image to 360 with Perfect resize and then printing from LR at 360. I have done enough tests over the years.
Hi Paul,
But have you tested upsampling to 720PPI, with GF / Perfect Resize doing the edge preserving upsampling, and post upsampling sharpening or Detail enhancement with a suitable plugin? And have you tried with the Finest Detail option checked? Otherwise the printer driver will force the resolution up/down to 360 PPI exactly, with a poor algorithm, without output sharpening after the resampling.
In my experience, people tend to sell themselves short on quality because they do not use proper sharpening + detail booting at the output resolution, and one can do that to a higher degree at 720 PPI on Epsons (or 600 PPI for Canon/HP).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, it's a hybrid Bicubic going from normal Bicubic with little resampling to Bicubic Smoother when getting upwards of 200% (not sure what the cutoff point is but I kinda recall 200% was pure Bicubic Smoother–Eric can correct me). The advantage is that there is a smooth interpolation between the types of upsampling...
Hi Jeff,
It would be nice if Eric could explain a bit more about that, because as far as I can see, LR uses something quite different from Bi-Cubic / Smoother. But I understand that he is not entirely free to give away too much info about the inner workings. It's just that I see something different going on, without the halo/blocking creation that would be a tell-tale sign of a simple non-adaptive filter like a variant of bicubic.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart:
To me the most important part is understanding what is going on with a driver driven print, or LR and understanding that 360 is the correct number for larger prints, 720 smaller.
To be honest, if you take an average 60MP 3 part stitch or a 3 part D800 Stitch to 720, your file will be so huge in 16 bit mode, that to me it just becomes pointless to work with it. But yes I have tried pretty much every angle of Perfect resize I can think of, but for my work, I never to to 720, always at 360. I have plenty of ram, and processor, but these files just get huge. Not to mention, Perfect resize will take 10 minutes to process it out. I never have figured out what it's doing in all that time (besides making a person think "wow, it's sure taking a long time so the results should look great").
Most times, now my work is at 300 dpi, output from C1 or LR, and I will leave the image in that dpi throughout the work process, I then do the final output size in the LR print module to 360 ppi and let it do the final sharpening. I still will often use Focus Magic as an in between step or it with a combination of one of the photokit creative sharpening levels.
For me it's all about get to the final results with the least amount of steps, and after reading Jeff's book, and spending time with my printers, I feel you can see a difference in the LR prints. That plus I can still tweak an image with the LR develop toolset, which I often do. I have used LR for years, but only really started to print from it about 6 months ago, but only recently started outputting everything to 360. Plus the fact that LR has incorporated the Photokit sharpening routines, in both the Develop and print module is to a great asset, as I have always been a big fan of the Photokit plugin.
As to the print from the driver with finest detail checked, even Epson is a bit vague on this, as they imply you should only use it for images with text or wording. I have tried it and agree it makes a bit of difference to the positive but it can also add some strange artifacts. The other big issue can be with printing solid areas, skies, water etc, where when this option is checked the driver seems to want to add more detail, when tends to look like noise or something worse.
I am 100% windows, so the Mac print flow may be totally different with Epson and the print driver, I know they allow 16bit with Mac, not Win.
There is no "right" answer, but as Jeff stated, you have to find a method that works for you and learn it the best you can. On my larger prints, 40 x 60 and 36 x 72, this method is giving me some excellent results.
Paul
-
Me too, and anything else would have to beat it by a VISIBLE margin at normal viewing magnification on paper before I would change, but always interesting to try different stuff and see how it compares.
My problem is with the tests I've done, I see no visual difference at Photographers Viewing Distance (defined by Bruce Fraser as based on the size of one's nose just about to touch the print itself). Even with a loupe, it's a struggle hence, I'm not convinced the differences are worth shooting for. Now maybe it's the printer (3880) and paper (luster or glossy) or the image (Roman 16's) or their 'native' resolution (about 200 and change to an 8x11).
-
My problem is with the tests I've done, I see no visual difference at Photographers Viewing Distance (defined by Bruce Fraser as based on the size of one's nose just about to touch the print itself). Even with a loupe, it's a struggle hence, I'm not convinced the differences are worth shooting for. Now maybe it's the printer (3880) and paper (luster or glossy) or the image (Roman 16's) or their 'native' resolution (about 200 and change to an 8x11).
Hi Andrew,
Could it be due the output sharpening? At Photographers Viewing Distance it should be easy to see, from a larger distance only if the output sharpening was (additionally) tuned for that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
When the image at print size has more then 360 pixel per inch going to 720ppi AND finedetails =on it is visible, definitely at "nose" distance, also at normal viewing distance there is something different.
It is as if the image has more clarity, more depth, more spatial effect. This is true even on smooth fine art papers.
I did a test with the same image printed on different fine art papers of A4 with different settings and corresponding printer profiles. As an additional outcome the 360 vs 720 ppi& fd=on was visible to those asked to look at the prints and describe the differences they observed.
I am on Windows 7, use an Epson4900, use LR for development and print and i am extremely happy with this set up. Tried a 3880 a while ago and found it to be less smooth compared to the 4900.
-
In my effort to further pursue the question of where re-sampling occurs to meet the "native resolution" of the printer and where best to do the re-sampling - at least for Epson professional printers, I have received the following information from a totally reliable source, who will have to remain unidentified. It is this:
<Basically, the answer is “it depends”. It depends on whether you’re using Windows or OS X.
On OS X, the image is rendered using Quartz Compositor which has a unique interpolation algorithm similar to Bi-Cubic or Bi-Linear, so the printer driver doesn’t need to worry about the image resolution.
For Windows, the image is rendered by an Epson-proprietary renderer and it is based on the Nearest-Neighbour algorithm.
So OS X will do a nicer job than Windows, but in all cases you are better off getting it right before you send it – i.e. with LightRoom or PS or Qimage etc., as has already been mentioned. This is also why you have different options such as Coarse Rendering and Edge Smoothing in Windows, but not in OS X.>
-
That pretty much follows the thinking I was informed of...it "depends" and "it's complicated".
:~)
-
In my effort to further pursue the question of where re-sampling occurs to meet the "native resolution" of the printer and where best to do the re-sampling - at least for Epson professional printers, I have received the following information from a totally reliable source, who will have to remain unidentified. It is this:
<Basically, the answer is “it depends”. It depends on whether you’re using Windows or OS X.
On OS X, the image is rendered using Quartz Compositor which has a unique interpolation algorithm similar to Bi-Cubic or Bi-Linear, so the printer driver doesn’t need to worry about the image resolution.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the info.
However, from what I can find (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2005/04/macosx-10-4/13/), the Quartz Compositor takes its rasterized input(s) from various applications, composites all image data sources kept in Backing Stores, and outputs a single composited image to the Graphics card. "Quartz is the umbrella term for the Mac OS X display layer through which all drawing and screen display is done."
So it seems that possibly the printer driver sends a raster image to the QC which then sends a composited image to the display card.
How does the print pipeline fit into that scheme?
For Windows, the image is rendered by an Epson-proprietary renderer and it is based on the Nearest-Neighbour algorithm.
Which then still leaves it an open question for other printer drivers ...
So OS X will do a nicer job than Windows, ...
QED
... but in all cases you are better off getting it right before you send it – i.e. with LightRoom or PS or Qimage etc., as has already been mentioned. This is also why you have different options such as Coarse Rendering and Edge Smoothing in Windows, but not in OS X.>
Yes, preprocessing (re-sampling and subsequent detail enhancement and output sharpening) at the required native printer driver resolution will obviously allow more control and potentially better quality output.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The info you re linking to is nine years old. Some things may have changed since then. No info on other printers; my source knows Epson printers - thoroughly.
-
The info you re linking to is nine years old. Some things may have changed since then. No info on other printers; my source knows Epson printers - thoroughly.
Hi Mark,
I have to assume your source doesn't know the Apple OS as well as Epson printers. No problem, one cannot know everything.
Doing some more research myself, it seems possible that a Printer driver for OS X uses some API functionality that's available outside the OS kernel, in particular Quartz 2D (https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/graphicsimaging/conceptual/drawingwithquartz2d/Introduction/Introduction.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40007533-SW1) (not Compositor, which is display oriented).
That means that a part of a graphics library may be utilized for some calculations, but it will be called by the printer driver which also instructs to direct the output to the printer. It's not a functionality of the OS, but a software component that is borrowed by an application or driver for executing a task. I have not found any details about available algorithms yet.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Mark,
I have to assume your source doesn't know the Apple OS as well as Epson printers. No problem, one cannot know everything.
Risky assumption :-)
-
Risky assumption :-)
Best I can do, based on the limited information at hand ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Best I can do, based on the limited information at hand ...
Cheers,
Bart
Understood Bart, but you made a good point and a useful contribution, because on the basis of your intellectual curiosity I went back to "source" and got the following response:
<It is not Quartz “Composer” but Quartz “2D” - rasterizes drawing objects from the application and provides to printer driver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_2D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_2D)>
Hope that helps clear-up the matter.
Cheers,
Mark
-
Understood Bart, but you made a good point and a useful contribution, because on the basis of your intellectual curiosity I went back to "source" and got the following response:
<It is not Quartz “Composer” but Quartz “2D” - rasterizes drawing objects from the application and provides to printer driver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_2D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_2D)>
Hope that helps clear-up the matter.
Hi Mark,
Yup, now it makes sense. Thanks for verifying with your 'source'.
Here (http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/2q00/macos-x-dp4/macos-x-dp4-5.html) is a more detailed description of the formal print process through the various components. It explains with a schematic in a bit more detail how the sending application (e.g. Photoshop or LR ) sends the print job to the printer, and that the printer driver is simplified because it can borrow some functionality from "Quartz 2D" and now only needs to generate the printer specific raw commands for the already 'cooked' raster data / pixels.
Thus the print job is an interaction between Application (supplies the image), Job manager (queries the destination printer's associated Printer Module to find out what data format it requires and, if necessary, the Job Manager uses a converter (Quartz 2D) to transform the incoming data into a format that the destination printer module can accept), "simplified" Printer driver/module (converts the incoming data into the raw commands for the printer), and OS (handles interfacing between modules and outside world).
So the modern manufacturer specific printer driver (now called printer module in OS X) is intertwined with some generally available OS functionality, and it utilizes Quartz 2D for pixel resampling as instructed by the Job manager which queries the printer module for the required PPI. Which makes sense, because why reinvent the resampling wheel that's already available.
In a Windows OS environment the printer driver functionality is currently less intertwined (the formal term is "interoperability" ), and presumably resampling to the printer requested resolution is done by the printer driver itself (although e.g. Direct-X (Direct2D (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct2D)) functionality could be utilized).
Unfortunately an inferior resampling filter seems to be used in the various drivers/modules (Nearest Neighbor, Bi-linear, or Bi-cubic), and without the possibility to influence output sharpening after resampling, so the general conclusion to do it ourselves (resample to exactly 300/360 PPI or 600/720 PPI by application or plugin, and sharpen) before sending the data to the printer remains.
Printing border-less will trigger another resampling step in addition to the already resampled/sharpened data, which will reduce print quality marginally (possibly less at 600/720 PPI because more precise raster data is available).
Cheers,
Bart
-
In a Windows OS environment the printer driver functionality is currently less intertwined, and presumably resampling to the printer requested resolution is done by the printer driver itself (although e.g. Direct-X functionality could be utilized)
Unfortunately an inferior resampling filter seems to be used in the various drivers/modules (Nearest Neighbor, Bi-linear, or Bi-cubic), and without the possibility to influence output sharpening after resampling, so the general conclusion to do it ourselves (resample to exactly 300/360 PPI or 600/720 PPI by application or plugin, and sharpen) before sending the data to the printer remains.
Printing border-less will trigger another resampling step in addition to the already resampled/sharpened data, which will reduce print quality marginally (possibly less at 600/720 PPI because more precise raster data is available).
Cheers,
Bart
Bart,
If I recall it correctly the Epson and more drivers improved after 2006, Windows versions. I would be surprised if any recent Epson driver still uses "Nearest Neighbour" for upsampling. For downsampling anti-aliasing is absent on the HP drivers I tested and my gut feeling is that a primitive resampling algorithm is used. It would not surprise me if these flaws are more common in today's drivers. Qimage Ultimate does anti-aliasing in default on downsampling.
In case of printing from Qimage Ultimate the conclusion that we have to do the resampling/sharpening ourselves is a bit overstated, the application does a good job auto-magically, on the fly and without any changes to the original file. Beyond the defaults the print related choices are flexible enough to do any print job properly. I am not a big fan of Qimage's image editing but if it gets a proper Tiff to start from there is not much in manual steps needed for a good print.
I am not using borderless printing at all but Qimage can also interfere on the driver's borderless "expansion" on the input resolution with a preference setting that will result in a 720 PPI resolution + the exact sheet size to the driver. It will then be impossible to avoid some white at one or two edges where the normal borderless expansion gives some overspray, sheet/roll register is not that good on our printers.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
.........................
Printing border-less will trigger another resampling step in addition to the already resampled/sharpened data, which will reduce print quality marginally (possibly less at 600/720 PPI because more precise raster data is available).
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
On this one, my source advises as follows:
<use the “Retain Size” option in Epson LFP driver. It was requested/prepared just to avoid such an unexpected resampling.>
Cheers,
Mark
-
If I recall it correctly the Epson and more drivers improved after 2006, Windows versions. I would be surprised if any recent Epson driver still uses "Nearest Neighbour" for upsampling.
Hi Ernst,
I have also not found any evidence for that yet (neither for Canon or HP drivers), but also not what they actually do use instead (and how that is affected by driver settings). It would indeed surprise me, given the capabilities of the various APIs (Quartz 2D, Direct2D, Open GL, etc.). I know that even for Display rendering (many frames/second) Nvidia CUDA allows a choice including Mitchell Netravali filtered scaling (which works very well for both up-/ and down-sampling).
For downsampling anti-aliasing is absent on the HP drivers I tested and my gut feeling is that a primitive resampling algorithm is used. It would not surprise me if these flaws are more common in today's drivers. Qimage Ultimate does anti-aliasing in default on downsampling.
Yes, Mike added that functionality at my request, and Qimage allows the user to even adjust it in a few steps if the default setting doesn't satisfy.
In case of printing from Qimage Ultimate the conclusion that we have to do the resampling/sharpening ourselves is a bit overstated, the application does a good job auto-magically, on the fly and without any changes to the original file. Beyond the defaults the print related choices are flexible enough to do any print job properly. I am not a big fan of Qimage's image editing but if it gets a proper Tiff to start from there is not much in manual steps needed for a good print.
I agree, most defaults are very sensible and never need adjusting, but there is still the possibility to override in very specific scenarios. The on-the-fly conversions, even multiple sizes from the same source on the same page, of course with subsequent automatic output sharpening, make it a productivity enhancer with super quality output results.
I am not using borderless printing at all but Qimage can also interfere on the driver's borderless "expansion" on the input resolution with a preference setting that will result in a 720 PPI resolution + the exact sheet size to the driver. It will then be impossible to avoid some white at one or two edges where the normal borderless expansion gives some overspray, sheet/roll register is not that good on our printers.
Indeed, it again attempts to do better than the straight forward print instructions. It's explained in this tutorial video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMzUxDP_JwM&feature=youtu.be&hd=1) quite clearly. That's also where the feedback of the actual PPI from the printer driver in Qimage's interface is very useful. It has warned me at occasions about a printer driver setting that changed the PPI that I intended to sent. One of many useful features.
Cheers,
Bart
-
On this one, my source advises as follows:
<use the “Retain Size” option in Epson LFP driver. It was requested/prepared just to avoid such an unexpected resampling.>
Hi Mark,
Thanks for that addition. Since I don't print on an Epson, I'm not sure if all (desktop and LF) Epson Drivers offer that feature. Anyway, Qimage did already allow to override the standard printer driver response for some years, so now everybody can be happy.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not everybody can be happy on account of QImage - it's Windows only and "some of us" print using OSX. The LFP solution is available to those who use Epson printers. I have no idea what happens for Mac users of Canons or HPs.
-
Not everybody can be happy on account of QImage - it's Windows only and "some of us" print using OSX.
I meant that even those unfortunate enough to not use Qimage (which BTW runs fine on Macs under Parallels or similar) can apparently use the switch in the driver your source mentioned.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And the question I have ask, is: Do you feel that the output from Qimage at 360, is that much better? I personally don't see it. Qimage (which I have used for over 6 years on and off, so I am pretty familiar with it), can do a great job, however it's still another step. Ion't work on MAC's, every often, and print only from Windows.
The LR 5.4 print module for me, is just so much more simple in both the interface (Qimage is not, never has been). I say this as I have spent about 1/3 of my life either selling, supporting or working PC's and most software I can grasp. Qimage I can't. It might just be me, however the interface is not at all straight forward.
LR still (and most likely never will) have layers, but it has variants. But for me, keeping the file at 300dpi, no matter if it's Fuji, Canon, Nikon or Phase One, and then letting LR make the final size for the print to 360. I have also tried the separate uprez software solutions, mentioned earlier, and even on larger output, I personally don't see the difference. And I am confident the average viewer won't either.
Not saying one method is better than the other in final output, but to me the workflow within LR is superior.
Paul
-
And the question I have ask, is: Do you feel that the output from Qimage at 360, is that much better? I personally don't see it. Qimage (which I have used for over 6 years on and off, so I am pretty familiar with it), can do a great job, however it's still another step. Ion't work on MAC's, every often, and print only from Windows.
Hi Paul,
I guess it depends on image content, pre-processing, and actual print medium (glossy / matte / canvas XYZ) and brand. All I know is that Qimage will use 720 PPI if allowed by the 'finest detail' setting checkbox in the Epson printer driver, and the Qimage Ultimate version will use the new Deep Focus Sharpening (DFS) method for halo-free smart sharpening after resampling. This alone, combined with very good resampling algorithms, should be able to get the best quality out of a given file, perhaps only bested by using a specific resampling software and a feature Detail output enhancement plugin.
It would surprise me somewhat if there would be no improvement over 360 PPI prints, although it might turn out to be subtle for some subject matter and small input file sizes. I can certainly see the improvement on my 300 -> 600 PPI prints (architecture/nature/macro subjects) on Canon printers, and that makes it worth the effort to me. YMMV. Of course, Qimage also allows to do complex print jobs (multiple output sizes of the same file with the highest quality), and it remembers settings used before, and allows to save and recall specific settings and templates from earlier print-jobs, very useful for re-prints.
The LR 5.4 print module for me, is just so much more simple in both the interface (Qimage is not, never has been). I say this as I have spent about 1/3 of my life either selling, supporting or working PC's and most software I can grasp. Qimage I can't. It might just be me, however the interface is not at all straight forward.
LR still (and most likely never will) have layers, but it has variants. But for me, keeping the file at 300dpi, no matter if it's Fuji, Canon, Nikon or Phase One, and then letting LR make the final size for the print to 360. I have also tried the separate uprez software solutions, mentioned earlier, and even on larger output, I personally don't see the difference. And I am confident the average viewer won't either.
I agree on the convenience part, and sure LR makes things easy and it's not all that poor at upsampling either. But it is also not giving the best quality, nor does it claim to (neither does Mike Chaney, but he does try to push the boundaries to a higher level). LR can use a sort of layered approach with OnOne's Perfect Layers, but that result will be based on a rendered version of the original.
Not saying one method is better than the other in final output, but to me the workflow within LR is superior.
Correct, convenience is always welcome. Sometimes good enough is just that, good enough. But I do think that there is more quality to be had than many people are achieving right now. For some, like me, that quality is very high on the list of priorities.
Besides, raising the bar will also force LR to improve its output quality ..., so everybody gets to benefit.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Greeting all:
I have read this entire thread, and it is eye opening, as it recommends just the opposite of what I have been doing. I like and make big prints, typically 13"x19", 16"x24" and 20"x30" (24"x32" for 645D files). I am 77 years of age, and not a software expert, so I rely on those that are. I am a BIG fan of Photokit Sharpener, and have used it since day one, and still do. Based on the PK instructions, my work flow has been:
1. Optimize the raw file, add retouching, levels, etc, and save it as a " Master".
2. When I get a print order, say 13" x 19", I rename the file, flatten it, apply PK Capture Sharpen, then size to 13x19. If the file is les than 240 dpi, I upres to 240 using either Blow Up, or Photoshop. With my newer cameras, the files are usually much bigger than 240 ( usually an odd number like, say, 421 dpi). When this is the case, I leave the file as is, apply PK output sharpen, and print.
From what I have read here, I should upres to 360, and if my file is bigger than this, I should upres to 720, then output sharpen, and print. Is this correct?
Thanks
Dave
-
From what I have read here, I should upres to 360, and if my file is bigger than this, I should upres to 720, then output sharpen, and print. Is this correct?
Thanks
Dave
Try one image as suggested and one the way you normally do it. Resize as suggested then run PKS. Then just look at them, you'll know what's now best for you.
-
Greeting all:
I have read this entire thread, and it is eye opening, as it recommends just the opposite of what I have been doing. I like and make big prints, typically 13"x19", 16"x24" and 20"x30" (24"x32" for 645D files). I am 77 years of age, and not a software expert, so I rely on those that are. I am a BIG fan of Photokit Sharpener, and have used it since day one, and still do. Based on the PK instructions, my work flow has been:
1. Optimize the raw file, add retouching, levels, etc, and save it as a " Master".
2. When I get a print order, say 13" x 19", I rename the file, flatten it, apply PK Capture Sharpen, then size to 13x19. If the file is les than 240 dpi, I upres to 240 using either Blow Up, or Photoshop. With my newer cameras, the files are usually much bigger than 240 ( usually an odd number like, say, 421 dpi). When this is the case, I leave the file as is, apply PK output sharpen, and print.
From what I have read here, I should upres to 360, and if my file is bigger than this, I should upres to 720, then output sharpen, and print. Is this correct?
Thanks
Dave
Yes,
And if you print from LR, you can just let LR do the final uprez to 360 or 720. This is what I am doing for prints up to 36 x 72 and they all look great. The key for me is just letting LR do the final uprez. I am printing images from various cameras, MFD, and 35mm digital. As I mentioned in earlier posts, I have tried everything but Qimage. I tried Blowup a few years ago, and did not like the results, but this is something that is going to to unique to each person's eye. I only use 720ppi on smaller images, say 18 x 25 or down.
I have worked with Qimage, Photozoom Pro, Perfect Resize mainly. I have tried up rezing the file in each of these to 360dpi, and printing the same file from LR at 360ppi, to me the differences are not enough to warrant the extra time and work since LR just seems to do as good a job.
Jeff's book, "The Digital Print" goes into more detail on this issue and is well worth the read.
The Print Module in LR will take a bit of getting used to, but to me it's a great overall solution.
Paul
-
Thanks digitaldog and Paul. I have LR and never use it. Old habits die hard. I use Bridge to review a new shoot, then convert from RAW using DXO if the camera/lens is supported, then post process in PS and use that for printing. I need to expand my horizons, thanks
Dave
-
Just printed another Roman 16, 7x10@300 is the resolution. Printed from Lightroom:
1. Native rez (check box off, send 300ppi)
2. Resample to 360 (Print Resolution check box on)
3. Resample to 360 and Finest Detail on in driver.
Epson 3880, Luster paper, custom profile, OS X 10.9.3 latest version of LR.
Photographer's viewing distance, they look identical to me.
-
3. Resample to 360 and Finest Detail on in driver.
Andrew,
Shouldn't no.3 be resample to 720 AND Finest Detail on in driver. ?
As you sent it, we're back to the OS / print driver presumably doing the interpolation.
But I do agree with you, that you'll need a loupe to possibly see the difference, other than in large expanses of almost monochromatic colour or exceedingly fine detail.
-
Andrew,
Shouldn't no.3 be resample to 720 AND Finest Detail on in driver. ?
Yes and maybe no <g>. When I do set it to 720, the LR warning triangle appears because the native resolution is too low. I could do that but that now means a new rule (if less than 360, set 720 and Finest Detail). And considering I see nothing different from all three, I'd be shocked if upsizing from 300 to 720 would do anything useful.
-
I think we'd all be better off if the printer driver and/or OS didn't resample the image to some power-of-two ratio of that of the marking engine prior to doing diffusion/dither halftoning. Oh, I see how if makes the driver easier to write, and probably makes it faster to boot, but with today's computers the driver should be able to do some more work and still keep up with the print head. If the drivers worked that way, we photographers could think about more important things than printer resampling.
But what do I know? The last halftoner I wrote was twenty years ago, to check out some ideas about tradeoffs between marking engine resolution and number of inks, and it never was anywhere near production quality. Since the printer was simulated, it could be molasses-slow, too.
If the driver is going to continue to halftone from resampled images, can we at least put the blame where it belongs and talk about the "native resolution" of the printer driver not the native resolution of the printer?
More thoughts on the subject here (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5976).
Jim
-
And considering I see nothing different from all three, I'd be shocked if upsizing from 300 to 720 would do anything useful.
Hi Andrew,
Get ready to be shocked ... :o
When using dedicated upsampling software, such as Perfect Resize or PhotoZoom Pro, actual resolution is added on edge detail. That means that the edges do not get upscaled the same as other image areas, but they remain sharp and lines stay thin, and thus at a higher resolution. Lightroom apparently does not do that, it uses a more classical upsampling approach.
This is not new, but you may have missed the discussion (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62609.msg505470#msg505470) which took place more than two years ago ...
Recent versions of Perfect Resize do a reasonably good job at this, but PhotoZoom Pro does it a bit cleaner IMHO. The differences in actual print between the two will not be that noticeable unless one does really huge output. Also Alienskin's Blowup adds this type of edge resolution, but in my experience it tends to round/fill sharp corners more than PhotoZoom Pro.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart, if the main difference is at the edges, would a slight difference in sharpening technique bridge the performance you perceive between the various approaches?
-
Bart, if the main difference is at the edges, would a slight difference in sharpening technique bridge the performance you perceive between the various approaches?
Hi Mark,
Yes, an adaptive sharpening technique might achieve similar results, but it will have to work on a much larger data-set so it won't be lightning fast. One thing it certainly can do is remove some of the upsampling blur by using deconvolution. Another thing is vectorizing the edge-like detail, and replace/blend that sharp and smoothed edge in (with a generic edge mask or by painting it in). Again, basing this on the smaller image is faster.
In fact, I've been experimenting with selective edge enhancement with a Photoshop layer that was treated with Topaz Labs Clean and or Simplify. However, that does base its processing on the already upsampled data, and its quality. It can turn aliased edge detail into jaggies. So it is probably more effective to do it correctly right from the start, with the upsampling routine.
The three mentioned resampling applications, Perfect Resize, Blow-up, and Photozoom Pro, do some mix between vetorizing and resampling the original data. Obviously, this will benefit some image detail more than other detail.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Andrew,
Get ready to be shocked ... :o
Sorry, nothing at all shocking. I sent the same image out of LR but set the resize to 720, got the warning triangle. The output looks virtually identical to the naked eye compared to the other three prints and slightly softer under a loupe. Nothing surprising, shocking or unexpected. And about a year, year and a half ago I did a Webinar on resizing and tested Perfect Resize and found nothing at all useful in the product. It took longer, far longer than Photoshop or LR to resample and again, produced nothing on the print I saw that I found at all useful compared to using the other products to their fullest (meaning proper capture sharpening was more important than the various upsizing options). Don't know what some of you are smoking but share it with me please <g>. I see nothing on this end, with the OS and equipment I own that warrants doing any more than sending the native image resolution to the Epson from LR, assuming it's native PPI is above about 180-200. The Roman 16 images are of very, very high quality clean digital capture and I'm just not seeing anything on the print that leads me to believe the KISS approach isn't just as good as sampling up. There is text on the test image, it again looks a tad softer at 720/Finest detail out of LR with a native document resolution of 300ppi.
-
Sorry, nothing at all shocking. I sent the same image out of LR but set the resize to 720, got the warning triangle. The output looks virtually identical to the naked eye compared to the other three prints and slightly softer under a loupe. Nothing surprising, shocking or unexpected.
And somewhat expected, because LR doesn't add resolution, and you do not say that you optimize output sharpening after upsampling.
And about a year, year and a half ago I did a Webinar on resizing and tested Perfect Resize and found nothing at all useful in the product. It took longer, far longer than Photoshop or LR to resample and again, produced nothing on the print I saw that I found at all useful compared to using the other products to their fullest (meaning proper capture sharpening was more important than the various upsizing options).
In which case I'd suggest you to not use it. Many others do report output image improvements, obviously depending on the original image content and quality, and output sharpening.
Don't know what some of you are smoking but share it with me please <g>.
Maybe an open mind that acknowledges that when many others do see the differences, it might be not only measurable but actually true ... But, by all means, do not upsample if you can't see the difference and think your clients also cannot see it ...
Like the doctor said, if it hurts when you push there, stop pushing.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And somewhat expected, because LR doesn't add resolution, and you do not say that you optimize output sharpening after upsampling.
Output sharpening was applied in the print module for all 4 prints.
In which case I'd suggest you to not use it
Based on these and other tests, I don't. It's why Mark and others have suggested we each test what is proposed and come up with our own conclusions.
Many others do report output image improvements, obviously depending on the original image content and quality, and output sharpening.
Well there are variables including the OS alone. I've specified the printer, image type, media and OS I used, I see nothing useful or for that matter visible sending out native versus interpolated data.
Maybe an open mind that acknowledges that when many others do see the differences, it might be not only measurable but actually true
I have an open mind, that's why I spent the time again, just this week to run the tests. My mind is open, so are my eyes. My eyes, with and without the aid of a very good loupe tell me it's a waste of my time to do anything other than set the LR print module to native output resolution for data that falls within the 180 or 200ppi range and up.
Like the doctor said, if it hurts when you push there, stop pushing.
In this case, it doesn't hurt, it has zero feeling: upsizing did absolutely nothing visisble. Maybe with your printer, image and OS, you see something better upsizing. I can't replicate anything on this end that is visisble with my nose touching the print paper!