Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Printing in Lightroom vs Printing in PS  (Read 12168 times)
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #20 on: November 09, 2010, 08:49:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I am not doubting the excellence of LR's sharpening. The point I was making is that it is done automatically and I don't get any say in it. But, maybe I should play around with it some more. If it's really as good as you suggest, maybe I can relinquish control over this aspect of print making.

What I find slightly puzzling is that you get extensive and very complete control over capture sharpening in LR, but only three basic levels of output sharpening. Does this mean that capture sharpening is actually rather more significant in some way? Like Peter, I am not grumbling about the results, though.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8635



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2010, 08:55:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I am not doubting the excellence of LR's sharpening. The point I was making is that it is done automatically and I don't get any say in it.

Because you don’t need to IF you did an adequate job of capture sharpening of which the output sharpening is also based upon.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5426


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 09, 2010, 10:25:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Does this mean that capture sharpening is actually rather more significant in some way?

Yes...capture sharpening depends on the image source and image content both of which may actually have conflicting aspects. There is no way of determining how to sharpen for both.

Output sharpening is determinate-meaning the optimal sharpening is only dependent on the proper capture sharpening and then the resolution and the media. Both the resolution and the media are known once set so the sharpening can be automatically applied.
Logged
CDL
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #23 on: November 09, 2010, 11:39:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Although it is not DIRECTLY related (i.e. to sharpening), may I nevertheless slip in a question please.

Is there any possibility to define presets for parts only of all the print options, leaving all the other print options unchanged to what they were set before applying the preset? Similar to “Synchronize” where you can select the options which shall be synchronized, the others remaining unchanged.

With different papers and different layouts I would find it useful to have one preset which only applies to the printer settings (basically the “Page setup” in the left panel and the “Print Job” in the right panel) and one preset which only applies to the layout (basically the remainder of the right panel). Like this you could very flexibly select a printer/paper and layout combination without needing to have a combined preset (which can of course be done, but errors might easily slip in and number of presets increase a lot).

Any ideas about this?
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5426


WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 09, 2010, 11:42:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Is there any possibility to define presets for parts only of all the print options, leaving all the other print options unchanged to what they were set before applying the preset?

Not at this time...if you can made a compelling use case, write up a feature request in the Lightroom Feature Request Forum.
Logged
CDL
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #25 on: November 09, 2010, 11:48:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the quick answer, Jeff. Don't you think this would be a compelling feature?
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5426


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 09, 2010, 12:57:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't you think this would be a compelling feature?

Not really...I don't mind making lots of presets to handle my two printers and the paper sizes and types I print with.

You realize that you CAN create base presets for printer/paper size (the left panel controls) with "defaults" for the right panel and select the preset and modify the right size settings you need to modify for a given print? Selecting a preset will be an absolute set of parameters but you are free to alter those settings at will. Whether or not you choose to create a new preset will be dictated by whether or not you may want to use those same settings later.

I've got about 18 different presets to handle printer, page size, color or B&W, rendering intent and profile and resolution. Those handle 90% of the prints I do. The rest are custom prints that I set up as needed.

So, no, personally, your idea isn't compelling to me. It may be to others–can't speak for them. That's why I suggested posting on the feature request list to see if you can get the support of others...
Logged
CDL
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #27 on: November 09, 2010, 01:06:55 PM »
ReplyReply

... write up a feature request in the Lightroom Feature Request Forum.
Thanks Jeff. I'll check into this the next days and will maybe try it.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 09, 2010, 10:47:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Output sharpening is a precompensation for the smearing in the printing process. So how and how much to sharpen depends on process and media.

Another issue is that you cannot previsualize output sharpening on screen, the only way to that is actually printing.

The third point is that Lightroom can resize the image for printing, and resizing almost always also demands sharpening.

When printing from Lightroom the program knows about image size and PPI and can select the best combination of sharpening methods. What Lightroom lacks is more options for non inkjet printing, like continuous tone. Durst Lambda and Lightjet are examples for contone.

I'd really recommend the Bruce Fraser/Jeff Schewe book on image sharpening.

Best regards
Erik

What I find slightly puzzling is that you get extensive and very complete control over capture sharpening in LR, but only three basic levels of output sharpening. Does this mean that capture sharpening is actually rather more significant in some way? Like Peter, I am not grumbling about the results, though.

John
Logged

John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2010, 02:06:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you, Jeff and Erik, for clarifying sharpening for me. That was most helpful.

I am afraid that I am somewhat lazy when it comes to these technicalities, just like I was in the darkroom. As long as I can get the thing to work and get a decent result in my print, I tend to stick with the method that I am comfortable with and I am not then terribly interested in the why. Poor attitude, I know.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
brandtb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 362


WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 11, 2010, 07:51:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks to J.S. for contribution to thread.  LR's print module is just brilliant...anything I could say would be understating it somewhat...but presets, and general simplicity of workflow/speed cannot be matched by PS or other.  The thought of printing through PS again just causes my brain to go into pre-implosion...
Logged

Brandt Bolding
www.brandtbolding.com
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 11, 2010, 08:57:11 AM »
ReplyReply

...  LR's print module is just brilliant...anything I could say would be understating it somewhat...but presets, and general simplicity of workflow/speed cannot be matched by PS or other.  ...

Just curiosity, not trying to pick a fight ... What does LR's print module offer that Qimage has not done for years?  

My workflow is BreezeBrowser, Capture One and Qimage.  I've tried to move to LR because I like the NR (and to a lesser extent the sharpening) so much better than C1's, but the workflow change has buffaloed me so far, and I'm only using it now for RAW conversion of certain critical high ISO images.

Nill
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 09:11:36 AM by Nill Toulme » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 11, 2010, 10:25:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

What about:

  • Works in a parametric workflow
  • Works on Mac OS/X

I have nothing against QImage, I used it on Windows in my PC-days. I may still use it sometimes would it work on the Mac. On the other hand, Lightroom is a great workflow application that does also print and does it really well.

Best regards
Erik


Just curiosity, not trying to pick a fight ... What does LR's print module offer that Qimage has not done for years?  

My workflow is BreezeBrowser, Capture One and Qimage.  I've tried to move to LR because I like the NR (and to a lesser extent the sharpening) so much better than C1's, but the workflow change has buffaloed me so far, and I'm only using it now for RAW conversion of certain critical high ISO images.

Nill
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 10:27:28 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5426


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 11, 2010, 11:06:51 AM »
ReplyReply

My workflow is BreezeBrowser, Capture One and Qimage.

Three separate apps without an integrated workflow sounds like a inefficient workflow to me...

As far as the print output from Lightroom vs Qimage? Easy, I'm on Mac so there's no point in discussing differences, I've not used Qimage.

Well, actually I did test it out a couple of years back after Mike Chaney, Bruce Fraser and I had a debate on the merits of upsampling to 720PPI for Epson output. Ironically, I've actually come around to that way of thinking recently for high resolution images with lots of textural detail. Which is one reason that LR 3 can now upsample to 720 using it's adaptive upsample and then output sharpen.

The only shortcoming I still see in LR is the inability to soft proof so that requires a trip into Photoshop for serious prints. Hopefully that will change in a future version...
Logged
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 11, 2010, 01:57:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Three separate apps without an integrated workflow sounds like a inefficient workflow to me...
...

You might be surprised.  If you guys ever give us proper configurable keyboard shortcuts, I might be able to match it in LR... ;-)

Nill
Logged
BertWaife
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #35 on: November 12, 2010, 12:33:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is a 'new' product to review.  It is being sold in the US by dtgweb.com

http://www.dinax.de/mirage/
Logged
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2010, 03:16:08 AM »
ReplyReply

What does LR's print module offer that Qimage has not done for years?  
UI understandability.  Grin
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7790



WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2010, 07:54:00 AM »
ReplyReply

UI understandability.  Grin
+1!
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 13, 2010, 09:20:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting.  I find LR's UI generally to be most opaque I have encountered since I last slogged my way up Capture One's long steep learning curve.  Different strokes.  ;-)

Nill

p.s.  Which is not to argue, mind you, that Qimage's UI is particularly straightforward.  It definitely has its own learning curve — steep, yes, but short — and it certainly gets the job done.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 09:26:59 AM by Nill Toulme » Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3463


« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2010, 10:21:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Three separate apps without an integrated workflow sounds like a inefficient workflow to me...

Hi Jeff,

That's an interesting remark, but yet I wonder ...

How do people work in LR in practice? I've used earlier versions of Lightroom, and liked some parts, but not the integrated workflow. It's even different enough from Photoshop to make it less than intuitive to switch between the two of them. Maybe it's due to the way I work, and it makes me wonder how others do. Mind you, this all has nothing to do with shaking old habits, but efficiency!

When I open the results of a shoot, my first action (after making a backup of the Raws) is culling of the files based on general usability for the intended goal. Secondly I mark my shots based on technical quality, and thirdly I flag the best composition/potential wise. There are three iterations I go through almost all of the time. It makes no difference whether I do that in Capture One or Lightroom's Develop module. I most certainly do not do a full workflow run all the way to print as soon as I ingest the Raws into the workflow.

Based on the remaining list of candidates, I will do more postprocessing to strengthen the things I like, or reduce the things I don't. I can do that quite well in Photoshop, and some other tools I might need. I most certainly do not finish the workflow run all the way to print yet.

After all preliminary work, I revisit if I still agree with my earlier vision, maybe a tweak here and there is needed. I most certainly do not print yet.

After setting up the printer, check for cleanliness, check ink levels, perhaps do nozzle cleaning, what have you, only then I am ready to print in the most efficient way possible, including selecting different sizes per images nesting, grouping by paper type, other special requirements, and then send the files of to the printer. I have no problem doing that with Qimage, I can even print teststrips, and if need be tweak the output for that specific paper, even if I print to several paper types. The printjobs and settings get saved for future/repeat use automatically.

This is just as easily, perhaps more efficiently, done with separate applications that are individually the best suited for their part of the workflow.

Where is the benefit of a Leatherman tool with its inevitable Jack of all trades shortcomings in that, efficiency wise?

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 10:26:26 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad