Interpolation method

[FrankG]

No doubt this is a resolved issue for most but not me.

I need to make a 20 inch (long dimension) print at 360 ppi from a M43 Raw file (16MP) that is 4592px x 3448px = 12.75 x 9.57 in (4:3).
* at the highest possible, close up viewing, pixel peeping, quality.

My options are:
1.  to enlarge (interpolate) it in ACR (Raw) and save as a tif.
2. Save as tif and use Image size>Bicubic smoother to enlarge (interpolate)
3. Leave it at it’s original/native size and scale it up to the paper size in the Epson dialog

I have Nik Sharpener and would apply some Raw capture sharpening to the tif converted from the Raw after it is re-sized to 20 inches. Or, to the PS (Bicubic Smoother) enlarged file. And then again some Output sharpening prior to the printing. Option 3 doesn’t facilitate Output sharpening at the final size.

What is the guru established recommended workflow steps for a scenario like this?

Thanks

Thanks

[digitaldog]

Last time I tested this, door #1 (do it in ACR/LR) with good capture sharpening produced the best appearing prints.

[FrankG]

Thank you. Would you duplicate the Raw file first in order to keep one at the original size. Or is it infinitely adjustable, up or down, with re-sizing as it is with the other image corrections?

[digitaldog]

Would you duplicate the Raw file first in order to keep one at the original size. Or is it infinitely adjustable, up or down, with re-sizing as it is with the other image corrections?

The raw is raw, isn't ever changed. The TIFF you create from the rendering is of course new and unique. So you'll have the upsized (past native resolution) after you render the raw. You could then render it at any size thereafter.

[FrankG]

Perfect. Thanks !

Would you consider  "good" Capture sharpening to be judged as "good" when it pleases the eye, viewed at 100% or at the screen image sized to approximate the final print, or is it "good" because it follows a particular, or a formulaic procedure?

I have Nik Sharpener and it has a slider which moves across to 100% towards Edge sharpening. So I guess that depending on the nature of the subject matter - further towards Edge for wide flat areas (c/u portrait, flower, sky?), and away from Edge for smaller details (textures)? Perhaps set at 50% (halfway)is satisfactory for most images with mixed content (sky, walls, people...). And it has a strength % slider.

[digitaldog]

Would you consider  "good" Capture sharpening to be judged as "good" when it pleases the eye, viewed at 100% or at the screen image sized to approximate the final print, or is it "good" because it follows a particular, or a formulaic procedure?

In ACR/LR, that's about the only way to go. Output sharpening is a different story; can look ugly on-screen and make a beautiful print.
DO test all this!

[FrankG]

Do the sharpening in ACR ?
And, apply to the strength that is eye-pleasing at 50%, 100% view?

[digitaldog]

Do the sharpening in ACR ?
And, apply to the strength that is eye-pleasing at 50%, 100% view?

Yes, capture sharpening prior to resizing up and rendering that raw data, view at 100%. I think that's key to why LR/ACR was slightly better than using BiCubic Smoother in Photoshop in my tests AFTER the rendering to native resolution of the raw. LR/ACR's resizing algorithms are not identical, slightly superior too. Again, test this on your end to output (even a small 8x10).

[FrankG]

I will definitely be doing several tests.
This help puts me on a track.
Thanks.

But why the sharpening at the original size prior to sizing up?

Since both happen in the same ACR dialog, don't they get applied to the file at the same time when you click Save & Done?

[digitaldog]

But why the sharpening at the original size prior to sizing up?
Since both happen in the same ACR dialog, don't they get applied to the file at the same time when you click Save & Done?

There really is no 'original' size per se unless you set ACR/LR for the native resolution and you're going to exceed that. But the point is, the sharpening in both products is based on the resolution you ask for when you render the image. So if you ask for a 1MB or a 100MB render from the raw, the product is smart enough to sharpen based on what you ask for, and both will be different. IOW, the sharpening is resolution dependent.

[FrankG]

I was confused by the Sharpening in the Deatail tab and the sharpening (output) in the resizing window (attached above).
So the order is to sharpen (amount, radius, detail, masking sliders) in the Detail tab, and then go to the resize window

[digitaldog]

I was confused by the Sharpening in the Deatail tab and the sharpening (output) in the resizing window (attached above).
So the order is to sharpen (amount, radius, detail, masking sliders) in the Detail tab, and then go to the resize window

Yes. IF you decided to interpolate UP from the get-go; from the raw to the TIFF. I as said, I worked best for the testing I did for a Webinar a year or so back. But you should trust but verify.

[bjanes]

I need to make a 20 inch (long dimension) print at 360 ppi from a M43 Raw file (16MP) that is 4592px x 3448px = 12.75 x 9.57 in (4:3).
* at the highest possible, close up viewing, pixel peeping, quality.

My options are:
1.  to enlarge (interpolate) it in ACR (Raw) and save as a tif.
2. Save as tif and use Image size>Bicubic smoother to enlarge (interpolate)
3. Leave it at it’s original/native size and scale it up to the paper size in the Epson dialog

I have Nik Sharpener and would apply some Raw capture sharpening to the tif converted from the Raw after it is re-sized to 20 inches. Or, to the PS (Bicubic Smoother) enlarged file. And then again some Output sharpening prior to the printing. Option 3 doesn’t facilitate Output sharpening at the final size.

What is the guru established recommended workflow steps for a scenario like this?

A good option for this task is the software Photozoom Pro. I have ver 5 and have found it good at preserving edge detail when upsizing. It is highly recommended by Bart van der Wolf, among others.

Drawbacks are it is relatively slow and expensive. Version upgrades are also relatively expensive.

Regards,

Bill

[FrankG]

Thanks, but cost is an obstacle, so Unless it was head and shoulders above the options that are already included within ACR or PS.

Are there any Raw (ACR) Sharpening pre-sets available that I can use as a capture sharpening starting point, and then adjust from there ?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Thanks, but cost is an obstacle. Unless it was head and shoulders above options that are already included within ACR or PS

Hi,

Well, it is. PhotoZoom Pro adds resolution to edge detail. Thin lines stay sharp and relatively thin, and sharp edges stay sharp and don't become blurry, despite the magnification, and lower contrast features are upsampled without common artifacts that most other programs produce. I agree it costs a lot for only that purpose (I do not like its downsamplling quality), but for upsampling it is better than the rest.

Another good option is 'Perfect Resize' which is also available without the full OnOne Perfect Photo Suite.

Another good option is Qimage Ultimate which is more of a print management application but with very good resampling, for a very reasonable price and an attractive update and upgrade scheme (currently for a reduced sales price). Although it's a Windows program it also runs under e.g. Parallels on the Mac OS. I does the resampling automatically, and offers to add Smart output sharpening fully automatic, regardless of the output size. It even has a decent Rawconverter built in, so one can print directly from Raw files. It also has cataloging functionality.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Another good option is 'Perfect Resize' which is also available without the full OnOne Perfect Photo Suite.

To each his own. In my testing and video mentioned, I tried that product and it produced lesser quality to actual printed output than either Photoshop or ACR/LR. But then there's a tremendous amount of options in the product so I admit there may be some specific settings that would have produced better results. But why? In the end, the output from all the printed examples looked virtually identical at proper viewing distance. Up close, under a loupe (if you're inclined to do that), yes, there were subtle differences. Not enough that I'd spend a time on additional software.

[FrankG]

Bart's recommended programs may well be superior and easier, but unless the difference is marked, I can't justify the additional cost (that's just where my finances are at right now).
I'll try to use the detail tab in ACR first (and then up-res the size before saving the raw file to tiff).

Do you know of a few basic pre-set settings for the amount/radius/detail/mask to launch a starting point ?
For example for an image without much fine detail, one with lots of detail, and perhaps one that is a 50/50 average ?
And of course, there is also the adjustment brush to do local capture sharpening

[Pete Berry]

Bart's recommended programs may well be superior and easier, but unless the difference is marked, I can't justify the additional cost (that's just where my finances are at right now).
I'll try to use the detail tab in ACR first (and then up-res the size before saving the raw file to tiff).

Do you know of a few basic pre-set settings for the amount/radius/detail/mask to launch a starting point ?
For example for an image without much fine detail, one with lots of detail, and perhaps one that is a 50/50 average ?
And of course, there is also the adjustment brush to do local capture sharpening

Frank, for several years I've followed Jeff Schew's advice in turning the ACR sharpening module from USM to de-convolution sharpening mode by pushing the detail slider all the way to 100. I apply this to my m4/3 files of 3456x4608 px with my output default set to 15x20" @ 300ppi, 16-bit PP-RGB TIF files.

My sharpening defaults are amount=40 and radius 1px, but I can push the amount to 60 or so, depending on contrast, without ringing artifacts. Also frequently add additional larger radius output sharpening (2.5-5px) in PS6 with the Smart Sharpening module (also de-convolutional) to enhance micro-contrast. I get a very detailed natural print appearance with this workflow.

Pete

[FrankG]

That is interesting. Never heard the term before.Reading about it now
Pete, do you put the Detail slider at 100 for all images, regardless?
Please link me to some so I can just see what type of photography (if you dont mind)

I was just now testing the sliders on an image that has both a finely textured wall and some smooth blue sky (with white clouds).
I found that when the Detail slider was at 100% there were 'artifacts' of some kind visible around the edge between puffy clouds and blue sky, so I brought it back down to 50.
I can also leave Detail at 100 and bring Amount down to get rid of artifacts, but then I lose the fine texture on the wall too

[jrsforums]

To each his own. In my testing and video mentioned, I tried that product and it produced lesser quality to actual printed output than either Photoshop or ACR/LR. But then there's a tremendous amount of options in the product so I admit there may be some specific settings that would have produced better results. But why? In the end, the output from all the printed examples looked virtually identical at proper viewing distance. Up close, under a loupe (if you're inclined to do that), yes, there were subtle differences. Not enough that I'd spend a time on additional software.

I'm confused.  When did ACR get a print output module?  Shouldn't you be talking about LR and Photoshop?

LR module does do good interpolation and output sharpening appropriate to the output size.  In my testing, and that done by Jim Kasson some time ago, Qimage and Perfect Resize (JK testing) easily improves upon what LR can do.  With Qimage the interpolation, sharpening, and printing are done in one step and does not require a different tiff for each output size.

In PS, interpolation and sharpening are separate steps and may require sharpening experience or separately purchased products.