Correct Print Resolution for Epson Printers

[steverap]

Jeff Schewe and others suggest sending files to an Epson printer with print resolutions of 360 or 720 ppi, so if a file's resolution is greater than 360 but less than 720, it should be upsampled in, say, Lightroom's Print Job module by checking Print Resolution and entering 720. Does that remain the consensus advice about printing from Lightroom?

[jrsforums]

It depends on quality options selected.  Below is for P800 (from RedRiver site)

Quality Options

2880 x 1440 dpi (Level 5)
1440 x 720 dpi (Level 4) - Lowest choice available for glossy, luster, fine art settings
720 x 720 dpi (Level 3) - Available for photo matte and plain paper media settings
720 x 360 dpi (Level 2) - Available for plain paper media setting

Interpolation in the computer will, almost always, be better than in the driver/printer.  Plus, one should assume that, in the computer, sharpening will be adjusted for the dpi (really ppi). Qimage does this for you automatically.

[steverap]

Thanks, John, but that does not really answer my question. If it is best to send files to an Epson printer (P800 soon to be replaced by a P900) with resolutions of either 360 ppi or 720 ppi, if a file is, say, 550 ppi, should I upsample the file to 720 ppi by checking Print Resolution in Lightroom's Print Job module and entering 720 ppi? I guess it's two questions: (1) should I always upsample files >360 ppi to 720 ppi, and (2) any reason not use Lightroom's Print Job module to upsample?

[digitaldog]

In terms of LR or otherwise, yes.
Jeff's piece, a must read:
https://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/photography-workflow/the-right-resolution/

[jrsforums]

Thanks, John, but that does not really answer my question. If it is best to send files to an Epson printer (P800 soon to be replaced by a P900) with resolutions of either 360 ppi or 720 ppi, if a file is, say, 550 ppi, should I upsample the file to 720 ppi by checking Print Resolution in Lightroom's Print Job module and entering 720 ppi? I guess it's two questions: (1) should I always upsample files >360 ppi to 720 ppi, and (2) any reason not use Lightroom's Print Job module to upsample?

It should answer your question.  What ever quality you select should be the ppi you send, irrespective of original size, as it will be resized to that in the driver, but with inferior interpolation...relative to what can be used in the computer.

For years, Jeff, and other, would say, adamently, that ~200 ppi was fine and no resizing was needed.  In more recent years, he came over to support resizing.  LR, unfortunately, only supports 360/720 (300/600 for Canon).

[digitaldog]

For years, Jeff, and other, would say, adamently, that ~200 ppi was fine and no resizing was needed.  In more recent years, he came over to support resizing.  LR, unfortunately, only supports 360/720 (300/600 for Canon).

Not really. For years he and other's have stated that if all you can provide is 200PPI, that's fine AND that data has to be resampled somewhere. Where is the question and for many years, Jeff and other's have suggested doing so in LR due to the underlying processing engine, adaptive sharpening (workflow).
Less than 200PPI (I'd submit 180), you may want to rethink how large you wish to divide up those pixels FOR resampling.                 

[jrsforums]

Not really. For years he and other's have stated that if all you can provide is 200PPI, that's fine AND that data has to be resampled somewhere. Where is the question and for many years, Jeff and other's have suggested doing so in LR due to the underlying processing engine, adaptive sharpening (workflow).
Less than 200PPI (I'd submit 180), you may want to rethink how large you wish to divide up those pixels FOR resampling.               

Sorry...either your not going back enough years or your memory is altered.  He, and others (maybe you) said that resampling to what the driver (printer) wanted was not necessary.  For years, he poo-poo’d Qimage doing the resampling...now (article you referenced) he comments that Qimage provides support to higher ppi levels.

[digitaldog]

Sorry...either your not going back enough years or your memory is altered. 

Neither actually.

He, and others (maybe you) said that resampling to what the driver (printer) wanted was not necessary.

Either your not going back enough years or your memory is altered.   
Read his article, he's quite clear about the driver(s) resampling based on OS. Not ideal. Again, resampling has to take place. Where is the important consideration.

For years, he poo-poo’d Qimage doing the resampling...

He did, where?
Do read the actual question here regarding Lightroom (not Qimage). His article makes this all clear, nothing has changed with respect to the actual product being asked about.

[digitaldog]

Plus, one should assume that, in the computer, sharpening will be adjusted for the dpi (really ppi). Qimage does this for you automatically.

Some don't have to assume; Lightroom does this automatically based on capture sharpening applied as well. It IS the product being asked about. 

[digitaldog]

Thanks, John, but that does not really answer my question. If it is best to send files to an Epson printer (P800 soon to be replaced by a P900) with resolutions of either 360 ppi or 720 ppi, if a file is, say, 550 ppi, should I upsample the file to 720 ppi by checking Print Resolution in Lightroom's Print Job module and entering 720 ppi? I guess it's two questions: (1) should I always upsample files >360 ppi to 720 ppi, and (2) any reason not use Lightroom's Print Job module to upsample?

Yes and Yes. Hopefully that answers the question specifically about LR. You may wish to run your own tests however. I did after Jeff's article was released. You'll want to use an image with high frequency imagery (I actually constructed a synthetic image to include in my own images). It may take a loupe, but the differences are visible. And since there's no downside in terms of speed (well clicking on one check box which you can then 'build' into a Print Template), I can't see why anyone wouldn't do so.

[jrsforums]

Neither actually. Either your not going back enough years or your memory is altered.   
Read his article, he's quite clear about the driver(s) resampling based on OS. Not ideal. Again, resampling has to take place. Where is the important consideration. He did, where?
Do read the actual question here regarding Lightroom (not Qimage). His article makes this all clear, nothing has changed with respect to the actual product being asked about.

His article is relatively recent....original 2011, updated 2017.

I did read it.  I made reference to LR still not supporting 1440.  Also, while I have not used LR printing in years, it used to require selection of 360 or 720.  If they have updated to automatically setting based on driver, that’s great....good copy of Qimage which had it from the get go.

[jrsforums]

Yes and Yes. Hopefully that answers the question specifically about LR. You may wish to run your own tests however. I did after Jeff's article was released. You'll want to use an image with high frequency imagery (I actually constructed a synthetic image to include in my own images). It may take a loupe, but the differences are visible. And since there's no downside in terms of speed (well clicking on one check box which you can then 'build' into a Print Template), I can't see why anyone wouldn't do so.

There is a difference in printing speed.  This will be more apparent if you follow Jeff’s recommendation of ‘unidirectional’ for ‘finest detail’ (720).

[digitaldog]

His article is relatively recent....original 2011, updated 2017.

Yes, either 9 or 3 years old. Whatever.

I did read it.  I made reference to LR still not supporting 1440.

Not support?

Also, while I have not used LR printing in years, it used to require selection of 360 or 720.

 
No. The field for PPI can have any value between a number 72 and 1,440 inserted by the user.

If they have updated to automatically setting based on driver, that’s great....good copy of Qimage which had it from the get go.

The question is about a product you don't seen to have used in years nor fully understand. The  question and appropriate answers are and have nothing to do with Qimage.

[digitaldog]

There is a difference in printing speed. 

Yes, an 8x10 prints faster than an 12x18 and you've again missed the point; the speed of printing is moot, setting an ideal configuration in LR with a print template isn't.

[jrsforums]

Yes, an 8x10 prints faster than an 12x18 and you've again missed the point; the speed of printing is moot, setting an ideal configuration in LR with a print template isn't.

I was commenting on your statement....which was wrong.  You were taking about ppi settings. You are changing the subject and parameters, which is normal for you.

[jrsforums]

Yes, either 9 or 3 years old. Whatever. 
Not support?   
No. The field for PPI can have any value between a number 72 and 1,440 inserted by the user. The question is about a product you don't seen to have used in years nor fully understand. The  question and appropriate answers are and have nothing to do with Qimage.

I stated I had not used LR printing in years.  However, I had been answering the OP Question, before you came in on your usual attack mode.

[digitaldog]

I was commenting on your statement....which was wrong.  You were taking about ppi settings. You are changing the subject and parameters, which is normal for you.

No it's not wrong; setup LR Print Template ideally and it is no slower than setting it up for a less ideal setting. But as someone who has admitted a lack of experience and misstatements about LR, not surprising.
Have you yet located Jeff ”poo-pooing” the product no one asked about here? 

[mearussi]

Try it for yourself and see if you can see any difference. I have and can't.

[digitaldog]

I stated I had not used LR printing in years.  However, I had been answering the OP Question, before you came in on your usual attack mode.

Providing correct answers about the product actually asked about and pointing out you misunderstanding of that product is not an attack.
What do we owe people who are wrong (and off topic)? 😂

[digitaldog]

I stated I had not used LR printing in years.

That's quite clear.

However, I had been answering the OP Question, before you came in on your usual attack mode.

And then there's this:

Thanks, John, but that does not really answer my question.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken