Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: print vs LR resolution  (Read 15896 times)

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2282
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #40 on: December 19, 2013, 10:08:48 am »

Possible exceptions are… or Photozoom Pro which adds edge resolution that really helps certain images by actually adding high resolution detail.

Bart,
Yes, I do use Photozoom Pro, having moved onto it from Genuine Fractals (as it was known then). But could you expand on how it 'actually adds high resolution detail' - as opposed to simply interpolating the data ?

M
« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 10:12:33 am by Manoli »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15851
    • Flicker photos
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #41 on: December 19, 2013, 10:12:53 am »

Thanks Jeff and Bart.  It doesn't appear that Photokit sharpener 2 is compatible with LR3 which I'm using.  I forgot to mention that I want to scan 6x7's chromes that will be printed.  So I guess the best things would be to meet with the pro scanner/printing company (in NYC) and get their advice directly for both processes before I waste a lot of time and money.  Any suggestions along  that line for the right questions to ask them?

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #42 on: December 19, 2013, 10:32:03 am »

Thanks Jeff and Bart.  It doesn't appear that Photokit sharpener 2 is compatible with LR3 which I'm using.  I forgot to mention that I want to scan 6x7's chromes that will be printed.  So I guess the best things would be to meet with the pro scanner/printing company (in NYC) and get their advice directly for both processes before I waste a lot of time and money.  Any suggestions along  that line for the right questions to ask them?

Alan,

Why are you still using LR3? LR5.3 is vastly improved and reasonably priced either as the cloud version with Photoshop or as a perpetual license. It incorporates the functionality of Photokit2. It would seem a no brainer to me.

Bill
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20297
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #43 on: December 19, 2013, 10:32:10 am »

Thanks Jeff and Bart.  It doesn't appear that Photokit sharpener 2 is compatible with LR3 which I'm using.
Not sure what you mean. PhotoKit has never been part of the LR workflow. Now LR's sharpening workflow IS based on PhotoKit Sharpener! Capture and Output Sharpen either in Photoshop using PKS or Capture Sharpen and Output Shapren in LR using it's tools, based on PKS. What LR doesn't really have (certainly no where near the degree of Photoshop and PKS) is creative sharpening.

You could mix and match depending on your workflow. Capture Sharpen raws in LR, apply output sharpening in Photoshop and print there (or LR without adding more sharpening).

PKS is a Photoshop plug-in and to be used only there but when you decide to use it is up to your workflow.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author “Color Management for Photographers”.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8911
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #44 on: December 19, 2013, 10:59:29 am »

Bart,
Yes, I do use Photozoom Pro, having moved onto it from Genuine Fractals (as it was known then). But could you expand on how it 'actually adds high resolution detail' - as opposed to simply interpolating the data ?

Hi M,

Maybe you've seen this thread, where I've measured and plotted some MTF response curves and up-sampled image crops. Poster Joofa added a FFT overlay which demonstrated that indeed more high spatial frequency detail was added by Photozoom.

The high spatial frequency that was added is two-fold. Edge transitions are sharper, as another poster mentioned those features are thinner than expected from pure magnification. In addition, the underlying spline algorithm attempts to make smooth connections between pixels instead of getting blocky. Where possible (and plausible) new detail is invented. It may look a bit unusual from up close on a monitor display, but it prints just fine.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2282
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2013, 11:07:59 am »

Maybe you've seen this thread, where I've measured and plotted some MTF response curves ...

Bart,
I hadn't but I'll read it with interest. Many thanks and all best seasonal wishes.

Manoli
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #46 on: December 19, 2013, 02:45:55 pm »

Hi,

I would love to have a parametric version of PKS integrated into Lightroom. I try to avoid going into Photoshop if I don't need to.

Best regards
Erik

Not sure what you mean. PhotoKit has never been part of the LR workflow. Now LR's sharpening workflow IS based on PhotoKit Sharpener! Capture and Output Sharpen either in Photoshop using PKS or Capture Sharpen and Output Shapren in LR using it's tools, based on PKS. What LR doesn't really have (certainly no where near the degree of Photoshop and PKS) is creative sharpening.

You could mix and match depending on your workflow. Capture Sharpen raws in LR, apply output sharpening in Photoshop and print there (or LR without adding more sharpening).

PKS is a Photoshop plug-in and to be used only there but when you decide to use it is up to your workflow.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20297
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2013, 02:49:13 pm »

I would love to have a parametric version of PKS integrated into Lightroom.
It's been there for years. Again what's 'missing' is creative sharpening and since you may be doing a lot of selective work here, painting and masking, best done in Photoshop. At least with the current technology (do lots of local parametric editing, you see how things bog down).
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author “Color Management for Photographers”.

jferrari

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 484
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2013, 04:10:00 pm »

Why are you still using LR3? LR5.3 is vastly improved and reasonably priced either as the cloud version with Photoshop or as a perpetual license. It incorporates the functionality of Photokit2. It would seem a no brainer to me.

Well, Bill, Maybe it's because it doesn't run on Vista. And Win7 won't run well on existing hardware. And new hardware is expensive. And maybe your wallet is larger than others. It would seem a no brainer to me...


- Jim
Logged
Nothing changes until something changes.

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2013, 04:16:06 pm »

Win 7 should run on anything that ran Vista, just as aside - and run better.
Logged
Phil Brown

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #50 on: December 19, 2013, 04:30:46 pm »

Win 7 should run on anything that ran Vista, just as aside - and run better.

Roger that.  And LR5's develop controls are head and shoulders above LR3 for that matter, not to mention other new retouching features.  This is an instance where it would be well worth it to scrape together the $90 for Win 7 and $110 for LR5, IMO.
Logged

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2013, 06:32:23 pm »

I have a crappy Acer netbook that I bought years ago, just to experiment with assorted hacking strategies. It has a first generation Atom processor, and only 1.5G of ram. For the longest time, it had a small (100G?) drive, but I recently replaced that with an SSD.

I ran Snow Leopard on it for a couple of years. When the original W7 beta came out for free use, I installed that too. Ran ok with each. Lightroom worked fine under both operating systems as well, but I was only using it to tag and rate photos in the field, not do extensive edits and manipulations. When W7 was finally released, I installed that, and still use it for a number of purposes.

My point is that W7 is very tolerant of weak hardware; more tolerant than Vista was. If you're running Vista now, you really should consider updating to W7, and then update LR.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15851
    • Flicker photos
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2013, 07:20:20 pm »

Quote
Why are you still using LR3? LR5.3 is vastly improved and reasonably priced either as the cloud version with Photoshop or as a perpetual license. It incorporates the functionality of Photokit2. It would seem a no brainer to me.

Bill:  I bought LR5 and tried to install it only to learn that I need to upgrade to Windows 7 and  need more memory.  So it's sitting on a shelf because I don't want to hastle with replacing my computer.  Do you know anyone would like to buy LR5 (new not the upgrade version.  Product code never used)  Thanks.

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3985
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #53 on: December 20, 2013, 03:12:27 am »

Perhaps Bart can clarify.

Bill

He probably will.

Output sharpening in my case is done by Qimage Ultimate with its Deep Focus Sharpening algorithm that is used in a smart way on the smart resampling done at print time. All on the fly and non destructive. Qimage gives a choice of resampling algorithms, Fusion is the latest addition. The resampling ratio is based on the original pixel quantity, image in print size, the driver's requested input resolution in PPI that Qimage Ultimate automatically picks up from Windows. That by the driver requested input resolution is based on the printer quality settings which relate to the number of dots placed by the printer (DPI), size of the droplets, weaving complexity, number of inks used, etc etc. Per media choice in the driver the choices in print quality shift too. Low quality paper coatings whether gloss or matte do diminish resolution goals so the driver more or less restricts the print quality choices accordingly. May still be nice to get MTF numbers for inkjet papers. At the Qimage website there are some test targets to see what is possible in quality on the papers you have.

The whole route from improved RAW demosaicing algorithms along better deconvolution sharpening methods, better resampling algorithms, output sharpening with less halo effect, etc, makes this resampling ratio answer a moving target in time. The camera resolution improved, the quality of camera pixels improved and the route to the print improved. And the population's eyesight degenerated :-) Print a strip of the image at the print size intended with all tools used and decide whether it does meet your goal. If not make the size smaller. Proofs build experience.

Studying an Adobeless image editing route these days; RawTherapee>Photoline>Qimage looks promising. The three link well in the workflow and Photoline is amazingly flexible on plug-ins and in its side links to other image editors. At layer level or the total image. All three have (mainly) non destructive editing at each phase. In the end Qimage Ultimate copes best with a flattened Tiff but it is unwise to do any resampling along the route including that last stage. A flattened 16 bit Tiff is probably also the best archive format for edited images. Photoline may allow the Photokit Sharpener plug-in, I am not familiar with that one. Neat Image works without issues in Photoline. Wonder whether my Canvas Wrap Actions can be imported in Photoline.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
July 2013, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3985
Re: print vs LR resolution
« Reply #54 on: December 20, 2013, 03:40:44 am »

Hi M,

Maybe you've seen this thread, where I've measured and plotted some MTF response curves and up-sampled image crops. Poster Joofa added a FFT overlay which demonstrated that indeed more high spatial frequency detail was added by Photozoom.

Cheers,
Bart


In that thread it is said that even with images below 360 PPI at print size should be upsampled to 720 PPI and printed that way at 720 PPI requesting printer quality settings. I think it is often the case that printers suffer a bit in their 360 PPI print quality settings (old heads) and improve when the higher print quality settings are used, even when the papers are not up to it. I know a 11880 that needs it and experience the same sometimes with my Z3100. Smaller droplets, more weaving, longer drying times, etc. In that thread the suggestion is made that the improved upsampling is the cause of the better print quality. Was that also tested by sending 360 and 720 PPI images to resp 360 and 720 PPI printer quality settings? I could imagine that the 720 PPI input printer quality setting already improved the print of a 360 PPI image even if the driver did the last upsampling to 720 PPI in nearest neighbour mode.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
July 2013, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up