lightroom 720ppi/epson finest detail

[CynthiaM]

Seeking clarification on when to use these settings. Have been reviewing some notes that I have made referencing Jeff Schewe's recommendation that if the native resolution of an image is between 360 and 720ppi when printing to an epson printer, to let lightroom upscale the image to 720 and I believe, if I'm understanding this correctly, to concomitantly in the epson print driver change the print quality to SuperPhoto - 2880x1440dpi and turn on/put a check mark in finest detail.

Not sure what is recommended if printing to Epson Hot Press Natural. I have a series of photos taken of a newborn and I would like to make prints on the 8 1/2x11 inch size paper to give to the parents in a Dane Creek Folio. Most of these images have a native resolution at this print size from 400 to nearly 680ppi. Many were taken with a macro lens at f/2.8; one is attached. Some of the images have a lot of soft focus due to the depth of field yet also have some very fine detail. In the one attached, there is some fine detail in the baby's eyelashes, eye crustie/shmootz and in the fine hairs on the arm and head. I would like to preserve as much of this as possible in a print.

Is it a waste to use the 720ppi/2880x1440 with finest detail checked on this kind of image or should I be dropping this back to 360ppi/SuperFine - 1440x720dpi and uncheck finest detail? I am printing to an Epson p800. Again my notes reference the notion that this may have no effect when printing to matte papers, except possibly when printing to some of the higher end smooth matte fine arts papers like epson hot press natural.

[Mark D Segal]

The only thing that gets "wasted" is a bit of time. Ink use is about the same. As for image quality, the best approach is to evaluate it yourself first hand for the relevant photos. Make several test prints of one typical photo with alternative settings and see whether you notice anything determinative one way or another.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Is it a waste to use the 720ppi/2880x1440 with finest detail checked on this kind of image or should I be dropping this back to 360ppi/SuperFine - 1440x720dpi and uncheck finest detail?

Hi,

Not a waste at all. Why throw away the actual resolution you have above 360PPI?
The difference may be subtle, but at 720PPI you can also do more accurate sharpening to compensate for any losses in the matte medium.

Cheers,
Bart

[CynthiaM]

The difference may be subtle, but at 720PPI you can also do more accurate sharpening to compensate for any losses in the matte medium.

When you say to do more acccurate sharpening, are you speaking to sharpening that one may use when developing the file; creative sharpening or selective sharpening or are you speaking to output sharpening?

[CynthiaM]

Make several test prints of one typical photo with alternative settings and see whether you notice anything determinative one way or another.

For me, the waste would be in the paper. I have already printed some using the higher settings and they are gorgeous.

[Mark D Segal]

For me, the waste would be in the paper. I have already printed some using the higher settings and they are gorgeous.

That's super - if you are pleased with what you are getting, no harm staying with those settings. Satisfaction from prints is personal, so the only way of knowing for sure whether other settings would please you more is by trying them, and yes it requires a sheet or two of paper but I would hardly consider that a waste - it's not something you would do for every print. But no need if what you are doing works well for you.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

When you say to do more acccurate sharpening, are you speaking to sharpening that one may use when developing the file; creative sharpening or selective sharpening or are you speaking to output sharpening?

Output sharpening. Because when you upsample to 720 PPI, you'll have more pixels to render microdetail at increased levels of contrast/acutance. When you downsample to 360PPI, you'll throw away some of that microdetail, and output sharpening will happen at a larger pixel size.

Cheers,
Bart

[Jim Kasson]

The only thing that gets "wasted" is a bit of time. Ink use is about the same. As for image quality, the best approach is to evaluate it yourself first hand for the relevant photos. Make several test prints of one typical photo with alternative settings and see whether you notice anything determinative one way or another.

I don't know about the P800, but Finest Detail turns off the drop size modulation on some other Epson printers, so smoothness may be affected. OTOH, that matte paper is gonna provide its own smoothing, and I'll bet you won't see any difference.

As Mark says, it's real simple to try it both ways.

With glossy paper, it does make a difference:

http://blog.kasson.com/technical/controlling-resampling-in-the-epson-driver/

Jim

[Wayne Fox]

speaking from a non "technical" perspective, and as a retired portrait photographer, with that paper combination and that subject, I do not believe anything to be gained by pushing the resolution to extreme.

I would also be careful with sharpening.  I think the fine detail of will be more than adequate if the image is sharp and the resolution is adequate , and sharpening may introduce a quality that might be visually in conflict with the "soft" nature of the image and the subject.  I also don't believe Hot Press (and most similar papers) can really gain much from the ultra fine detail.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I also don't believe Hot Press (and most similar papers) can really gain much from the ultra fine detail.

Hi Wayne,

That's easy enough to verify by printing my Printer/Media resolution test target at 720 PPI with 'finest detail' selected. It will show you what will be missed (between the red and green circle) if anything, and that's before output sharpening.

Cheers,
Bart

[Ernst Dinkla]

Here is a linkt to an interesting feature added lately to Qimage Ultimate;

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/v2017-115-issuescomments/

Whether it works in practice for larger images is unlikely, if it works it will be in smaller prints on high resolution capable papers like the best glossy inkjet papers.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
November 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Here is a linkt to an interesting feature added lately to Qimage Ultimate;

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/v2017-115-issuescomments/

Whether it works in practice for larger images is unlikely, if it works it will be in smaller prints on high resolution capable papers like the best glossy inkjet papers.

It looks like I need to make 2 new additional resolution test images, at 1200 PPI and 1440 PPI ..., or make a print at half the designed size at double the PPI. Have yet to test the new QU functionality myself, but the scan from actual print output that Mike posted seems to prove the claim.

Cheers,
Bart

[Ernst Dinkla]

What I already wrote in that QU thread; 15 years ago when printing small text on cards I used to 720 PPI rasterized vector fonts where the driver did not ask more than 360 PPI input. What actually happened on the way to the printer I could not check but the text was better than 360 PPI would create. I assumed that it was something like sub-pixel aliasing does, a method I was familiar with since my first Acorn computer use, another 10 years earlier. Mike however writes that the printer drivers know a higher resolution than shown in the user interface.

Now I recall that for testing aliasing in my Z printer drivers (versus the use of anti-aliasing filter in Qimage Ultimate) I actually did use targets half the size to double the input resolution. And I got aliasing, moiré etc without the filter. Hope I did not throw away the printed samples. Wonder what that tells about that new QU feature. When that Overdrive mode is chosen, will it bypass the anti-aliasing filter setting if the last is not set at zero?

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
November 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[tonyrom]

The way I like to think about the setting, Finest Detail, is in simple terms.

The printer will always print in either 360 or 720 ppi.  If Finest Detail is off, it's 360ppi.  If Finest Detail is on, it's 720ppi. If your image is not one of those resolutions, the PRINTER will scale your image to the current setting (360 or 720).

Observations from testing.  The printer does NOT do a good job compared to LR in scaling either up or down.

Take control of what you print, be intentional with the settings so the PPI of the print matches the printer PPI.  Stated differently, the LR setting should match the Finest Detail setting.   This way LR will scale the image accordingly.

You will have to decide which looks best.

-tony