Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Trying to get more out of the iPF5000  (Read 5350 times)
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1734



« on: August 23, 2006, 09:28:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I would appreciate any advice which would help improve my prints on the Canon iPF5000. They are quite good already but if I can improve all the better. My typical work flow is as follows:
Shoot raw with EOS5d
Process raw with DXO optics, prophoto colorspace, sharpening .25 (typical) output a 16 bit TIFF
Make adjustments in Photoshop CS2, prophoto colorspace
Adjust file to 6 by 9 inch 600ppi image (bicubic)
Use canons 16bit print plugin with custom icc profile (16bit 2400dpi)
Let the plug in scale to fit media size and get very nice results
Most of my prints are from 11x17 to 17x22

1. I was thinking improvements could be made by scaling to each paper size in Photoshop using bicubic smoother?
2. Most shots are tack sharp but for the few soft ones I use smart sharpen in Photoshop. Should this be done after the resizing?
3. Is 600 ppi the optimum input file resolution for the iPF5000?
4. Do most store one finished original file or one for each paper size?
5. I have NIK sharpener pro (upgraded from an old copy I used to have) is this any improvement over Photoshops smart sharpen? is the raw sharpening  redundant to what DXO optics is doing when processing the raw file?

Thanks for your constructive advice in advance-Marc
« Last Edit: August 24, 2006, 06:49:03 AM by marcmccalmont » Logged

Marc McCalmont
Gary Damaskos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2006, 08:26:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I really don't want the "wisdon" on this one will be.
I use 300 dpi for my image rez, print at 16pass unless experimenting shows 8 or 6 is fine (usually is for smaller prints), and I happen to be using Genuine Fractals for like 5 years so I use it to uprez and I size my images in it to the actual size I am printing at 300 dpi (or whatever term is suppossed to be used that I am not). That is working to my eyes wonderfully and I am not entirely sure how it might improve, maybe in more detail for images that would benefit from more - but may I have would not need that. Gradiants, like skies, sunsets, those all are doing great, especially with 16 pass when printing 16x20. Generally rule of thumb I follow is no sharpening until the last step before printing - and of course you (or I) could experiment with using the sharpening feature in the 16b PS print plugin module - and skip sharpening maybe in PS altogether. That said, personally I have started using Photokit sharpener Pro I think it is, and I love the versatility it provides at controlling the sharpening process in general, so I probably will continue to use it as my last step before being ready to print. Thats me workflow today...tomorrow is another day...Oh yeah, I am currently working with files created from scanning with a coolscan 5000.
Gary

Quote
I would appreciate any advice which would help improve my prints on the Canon iPF5000. They are quite good already but if I can improve all the better. My typical work flow is as follows:
Shoot raw with EOS5d
Process raw with DXO optics, prophoto colorspace, sharpening .25 (typical) output a 16 bit TIFF
Make adjustments in Photoshop CS2, prophoto colorspace
Adjust file to 6 by 9 inch 600ppi image (bicubic)
Use canons 16bit print plugin with custom icc profile (16bit 2400dpi)
Let the plug in scale to fit media size and get very nice results
Most of my prints are from 11x17 to 17x22

1. I was thinking improvements could be made by scaling to each paper size in Photoshop using bicubic smoother?
2. Most shots are tack sharp but for the few soft ones I use smart sharpen in Photoshop. Should this be done after the resizing?
3. Is 600 ppi the optimum input file resolution for the iPF5000?
4. Do most store one finished original file or one for each paper size?
5. I have NIK sharpener pro (upgraded from an old copy I used to have) is this any improvement over Photoshops smart sharpen? is the raw sharpening  redundant to what DXO optics is doing when processing the raw file?

Thanks for your constructive advice in advance-Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74293\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1734



« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2006, 03:19:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Gary
Thanks for your input, I had hoped some experts would be able to enlighten us as to the optimum setup for the iPF5000 saving lots of subjective experimenting. Like is inputting 300ppi file with less upsizing better or worse than inputting a 600 ppi file with more upsizing? Is the DXO optics sharpening correcting for lens softness only or is it doing some sharpening to prepair for printing? What is NIK RAW presharpening doing? is it redundant to the DXO sharpening? Is upsizing in CS2 better or worse than letting the plugin do it? Is the plugin better or worse than CS2 or aftermarket sharpeners? I guess I will continue to experiment. This is my first good inkjet printer and my first year getting into digital photography so Ive made a lot of mistakes in my learning curve so far and will continue to learn the hard way. The problem is most of the differences are slight and subjective, I usually print several options and let my wifes unbiased and artistic eye render an opinion.
Thanks-Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Gary Damaskos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2006, 11:31:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Much of this probably has been discussed ad naseum on the epson wideformat yahoo groups list. Epsons 360, Canons 300, sharpeing, workflow etc. Go over and do some searches. Believe me much of this has been endlessly discussed and will be relevent for you...
Gary

Quote
Gary
Thanks for your input, I had hoped some experts would be able to enlighten us as to the optimum setup for the iPF5000 saving lots of subjective experimenting. Like is inputting 300ppi file with less upsizing better or worse than inputting a 600 ppi file with more upsizing? Is the DXO optics sharpening correcting for lens softness only or is it doing some sharpening to prepair for printing? What is NIK RAW presharpening doing? is it redundant to the DXO sharpening? Is upsizing in CS2 better or worse than letting the plugin do it? Is the plugin better or worse than CS2 or aftermarket sharpeners? I guess I will continue to experiment. This is my first good inkjet printer and my first year getting into digital photography so Ive made a lot of mistakes in my learning curve so far and will continue to learn the hard way. The problem is most of the differences are slight and subjective, I usually print several options and let my wifes unbiased and artistic eye render an opinion.
Thanks-Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1734



« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2006, 01:12:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Gary
Thanks Ill go look
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1734



« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2006, 03:17:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I had little luck finding information specific to the iPF5000 in the forums so I took time to do a little testing and although the observations are subjective I am pleased with the results. All tests were done with the following constant. 17"x22" Ilford smooth gloss, 16 bit 600ppi, 8.5x11" file.
1) Printed with the Canon windows print driver, Qimage and the Canon 16 bit plug in (16 bit, high accuracy, 16pass 2400dpi); the 16 bit plugin was superior.
2) Used canon profiles and custom profiles (Cathy's Profiles); The custom profiles were superior.
3) sent the 16 bit plugin a 300 ppi 17"x22" file, a 600ppi 8.5"x11" file (let the plugin size to fit) and sent the plugin a  600ppi 17"x22" file upsized twice in CS2 using bicubic smoother;  the latter was superior.
4) Used both perseptual and relative colorimetric rendering; relative colorimetric was superior.
In summary use the plugin, a custom profile, upsize the file in photoshop to 600ppi resolution, actual print size and use relative colorimetric, The difference between the drivers, rendering intent and profiles was more than subtle, the difference in upsizing method was slight but noticable. My conclusion is sending the printer 12 bits of data makes a difference. I hope this saves others some paper time and ink.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
tbonanno
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2006, 12:11:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Good information Marc.  Thanks.  I also found that uprezing in PS to 600dpi also resulted in better prints with the 16-bit plugin... We all just have to keep sharing our experiences..

Tony
Logged

Tony Bonanno Photography
ASMP General Member
Santa Fe, New Mexico
http://www.bonannophoto.com
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7121


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2006, 09:45:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Good information Marc.  Thanks.  I also found that uprezing in PS to 600dpi also resulted in better prints with the 16-bit plugin... We all just have to keep sharing our experiences..

Tony
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74657\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Up to now the generally received wisdom for optimal print quality has been that one should avoid up-rezzing as much as possible altogether regardless of the technique, and that nothing you send the printer above 360 PPI will be visibly better to the naked eye than is 360 PPI, or even less. My tests have confirmed that - on an Epson 4800. Is there something about the enhanced capability of the Canon that changes all this?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Gary Damaskos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2006, 10:48:29 AM »
ReplyReply

for an earlier post:
On the Epson wide format list searches using "native resolution", "printer resolution", "input resolution printer driver" - produce a lot of discussion about what Epson (but they discus HP and Canon also) printer drivers seem to do and want. What I gather is that desk top models (13" wide and less) seem to accept 600/720 and do better than with 300/360 printing images (which I find interesting since the images are smaller and harder to see detail??). And the wide printers - 17" and more) drivers want 300/360 and more will not help. There has been no definite answer to all this that I can see beyond that many have an opinion - often that theirs is the right one of course - but no real proof. I think if you believe it is better one way over the other - then do it.

UPrezing:
Same thing here - opinions and opinions. I suspect that technically uprezing is bound to hurt image quality. Rather that matters is dependant on lots; like how you do it, how big you do it (what % are you going), quality when you started, and on and on. What I observe is that Genuine Fractals, Qmage (sp?) controls, and stepped uprezing in PS are often perceived as the better choices. Probably are some other avenues I missed. Again there has been several and long discussions/debates about this on the EWF list, encourage doing some searches and reading if you want a great introduction to choices and perceived differences of choices.
Gary

For me so far - feeding images into the iPF at 300 are so great in regards to gradients and grasses, I never even thought for a moment that doubling my file size was something there was any point in doing. For me like saying when something is great, what is super great? I imagine I will come to some images where experimenting will seem logical and will see what happens, but so far the quality of what I have been printing just is so good at 300. Using 16 pass over 6 or 8 certainly makes a big difference - especially with the full size images (16-17" x length), with long narrow gradients, with many things that might not otherwise be smooth- but especially gradients I notice.


Quote
Up to now the generally received wisdom for optimal print quality has been that one should avoid up-rezzing as much as possible altogether regardless of the technique, and that nothing you send the printer above 360 PPI will be visibly better to the naked eye than is 360 PPI, or even less. My tests have confirmed that - on an Epson 4800. Is there something about the enhanced capability of the Canon that changes all this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75305\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1734



« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2006, 03:04:26 PM »
ReplyReply

My motivaton for this discussion was specifics for the iPF5000, I have found a lot of general info and specifics for the epsons but of course little for this printer. This is a hobby for me not a profession so when I print a picture I want the best not the quickest or most economical. When I design loudspeakers many minor improvements add up to a stunning loudspeaker. I have found the iPF5000 to be similar. A quality print from the windows driver with Canon paper and a canon profile was fantastic. (compared to my Kodak 1400, Costco or the local custom lab) Then I tried different papers and the Fuji Pro was better. Then I found the 16 bit driver a little better yet. Then I used a custom profile better yet. Then I tried an experiment, sent the printer a 600ppi file and let it resize, sent the printer a 300 ppi file without resizing and third a 600 ppi file resized twice in PS (bicubic smoother). The latter was a bit better yet. If I go back and print with the 8 bit windows driver Canon paper and compare it with a print from the 16 bit driver, custom profile, fuji pro and upsized with PS wow a real improvement. So any others with specific improvements for this printer and answers to why it seems to like a 600ppi file better than a 300 or 360 ppi file would be appreciated.
Thanks
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
TiX
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2006, 06:35:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I had little luck finding information specific to the iPF5000 in the forums so I took time to do a little testing and although the observations are subjective I am pleased with the results. All tests were done with the following constant. 17"x22" Ilford smooth gloss, 16 bit 600ppi, 8.5x11" file.
1) Printed with the Canon windows print driver, Qimage and the Canon 16 bit plug in (16 bit, high accuracy, 16pass 2400dpi); the 16 bit plugin was superior.
2) Used canon profiles and custom profiles (Cathy's Profiles); The custom profiles were superior.
3) sent the 16 bit plugin a 300 ppi 17"x22" file, a 600ppi 8.5"x11" file (let the plugin size to fit) and sent the plugin a  600ppi 17"x22" file upsized twice in CS2 using bicubic smoother;  the latter was superior.
4) Used both perseptual and relative colorimetric rendering; relative colorimetric was superior.
In summary use the plugin, a custom profile, upsize the file in photoshop to 600ppi resolution, actual print size and use relative colorimetric, The difference between the drivers, rendering intent and profiles was more than subtle, the difference in upsizing method was slight but noticable. My conclusion is sending the printer 12 bits of data makes a difference. I hope this saves others some paper time and ink.
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74623\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with some of your findings, but I fail to see the benefit of increasing ppi from 300 to 600. The prints I have made from my 1DMKll at 300ppi are superior to those at 600ppi when printing a 16x20 print. Maybe with smaller print sizes, 600 is better, but I have not tried to find out. If you watch George Lepp's videos on The Canon Digital Learning center, they are only sending files to the printer at 200ppi, although I do not remember the size print they were making. But, if it looks better to you, then do it.
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1734



« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2006, 02:46:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I still see a slight improvement upsizing the print to 600 dpi (say a 15"x 20" image) over a 300 dpi input file. I however prefer perceptual intent for most photos, relative colorimetric worked better for the test image I used for evaluation. The edges of objects are better defined and more "Palpable". This observation is with Fuji Pro paper (Japan only) don't see much of a difference with lesser papers, Canon, Ilford, epson and all the fine art papers though.
The Fuji pro (not the Fuji hunt) is by far the highest resolution paper I have printed on, the IJA gloss is second best.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad