Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Printing in Lightroom vs Printing in PS  (Read 11413 times)
MBMPhotography
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2010, 04:02:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Just for those who seems interested. There EXISTS since a few weeks a quite efficient Soft Proof plugin for Lightroom. You can find it here. The free version has some very annoying issues but the paid - cheap - is very useful in my eyes. You can find it --> HERE <--
Logged

Sony ILCE A7r, A900, etc, Minolta and Sony Zeiss lenses
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575


WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2010, 05:35:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Just for those who seems interested. There EXISTS since a few weeks a quite efficient Soft Proof plugin for Lightroom. You can find it here. The free version has some very annoying issues but the paid - cheap - is very useful in my eyes. You can find it --> HERE <--
This link was previously posted but I have not seen anyone review the full version yet.
Logged

MBMPhotography
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44



WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 14, 2010, 06:20:35 AM »
ReplyReply

I do not feel like making a special full review of it but it simply works. You decide that you want to print a selected picture with precise profile selected paper etc and the plugin shows you the effect of it on screen. Then you can choose 4 of your favorite choices for not loosing time selecting profiles next time. The result can be saved and seen apart Smiley For me at that moment it is sufficient or rather would I say this is the best you can get in Lightroom today. It is for me better than nothing Smiley
Logged

Sony ILCE A7r, A900, etc, Minolta and Sony Zeiss lenses
vjbelle
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #43 on: November 21, 2010, 01:33:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I have played around with Lightroom to see if there would be any benefit over my current workflow.  I certainly like the idea of not having to save numerous iterations of my file but the final printed result is inferior to my current method. 

I took a file shot with a 5DII and Zeiss 100 Macro lens live view focused with a loup.  This file is in perfect focus.  I processed it in lightroom and ACR the exact same way with sharpening 100, 0.5.  My goal was to produce a 30 inch print.  In CS5 I used Fractal to upsize to 30 inches with sharpening of radius 1 amount 75.  I then view the image at 50% pixels and apply smart sharpen 200, 0.5.  That is my CS5 workflow for most of my prints from 5DII files.

In lightroom I printed the image with standard and high sharpening to 30 inches.  There is a distinct visual difference between Lightroom and CS5.  The print in CS5 shows finer/more delicate detail that can easily be seen at 20 inches - in other words close inspection.  I also printed the same file in Qimage with Hybrid and Lanczos sharpening.  The distinction between Lightroom and Qimage is much more subtle but I would have to give the edge to Qimage. 

I get the same results with files shot with my P45 - the sharper print always comes out of CS5 with Fractals upsampling.  I'm always looking for a better workflow method and Lightroom is certainly simpler (unless there is a need for layers) but not better than printing out of CS5 with Fractal upsampling.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 21, 2010, 02:15:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I get the same results with files shot with my P45 - the sharper print always comes out of CS5 with Fractals upsampling.  I'm always looking for a better workflow method and Lightroom is certainly simpler (unless there is a need for layers) but not better than printing out of CS5 with Fractal upsampling.

What printer? If an Epson, try setting the resolution option to 720PPI (600PPI for HP or Canon) and then let Lightroom output sharpen. If your capture sharpening settings are correct for the image, you should get optimal output from Lightroom...
Logged
vjbelle
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #45 on: November 21, 2010, 02:57:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm printing with a 9900.  In June of last year I posted a question regarding the Epson "finest detail" setting and that I had experimented printing at 720 vs 360 and that there was a visual difference - most responders thought I was nuts!  However, I was upsampling in Fractals...... those files were really, really big!!  Fractals may be the reason for this visual difference.  Anyway, I'll do as you suggested and let you know what I see.

Victor
Logged
vjbelle
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #46 on: November 21, 2010, 04:04:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,

As you suggested I printed at 720 PPI from LR with my cropped original 5DII file.  Now I realize that this file is smaller than optimal for 720 printing but from my past experience there should be some visual appreciation.  I once again want to stress that this file, as others, are tack sharp and in absolute in focus.  This is extremely important for any upsampling.  The result out of LR was very disappointing..... soft, lack of fine detail - in fact worse than the 360 print. 

I took the same cropped image and upsampled in Fractals - same sharp settings as before - to 720 PPI.  As you know this is over 21000 pixels in the long direction from a file that originally had only 5616 pixels.....that's a lot of upsampling!  I sharpened that file in smart sharpen 300, 1.0.  I viewed at 25% and could barely see a difference but there was some.......  That printed image was almost night and day compared to the LR image with the PS image showing much finer detail and better sharpening.  It appears evident to me that its the upsampling techniques and subsequent sharpening that are directly affecting the printed image.  I have always been unhappy with the standard PS upsampling which is most likely used in LR.  I know that On One has integrated their Fractal program for use with LR so that may offer some alternatives.....I don't know if that file has to be saved or if LR will store that step or if PS has to also be integrated into the mix.  All I know for sure is what my eyes see...... Fractals is very necessary for my workflow.  I really suggest that you try all of this for yourself. 
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 21, 2010, 05:04:18 PM »
ReplyReply

It appears evident to me that its the upsampling techniques and subsequent sharpening that are directly affecting the printed image.  I have always been unhappy with the standard PS upsampling which is most likely used in LR.

Actually no...since you don't say how you upsampled in Photoshop I can't comment but Lightroom uses an adaptive upsampling that Photoshop doesn't have.

You also don't state how your capture sharpening is done in this case...

As far as "Fractal", it has a sharpening component built in so the pre-sharpening before upsampling and the after sharpening is being combined with the upsample sharpening...so what you are seeing is more sharpening overall. You can indeed match up the sharpening either in capture sharpening in Lightroom or sharpening in Photoshop.

All I can do is point to my considerable experience and indicate for my work, proper capture sharpening and LR's output sharpening produce optimal prints for me. YMMV...
Logged
vjbelle
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #48 on: November 22, 2010, 03:43:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,

Luckily there are numerous solutions for a given problem.  Lightroom is a very compelling program - especially for its efficient use of hard drive assets.  You should equally be very proud of your contributions to the program..... I intend to integrate it into my workflow, sometimes having to go back and forth to PS but that can't be avoided in certain circumstances. 

Thanks for you input.....

Victor
Logged
slatchley
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #49 on: November 25, 2010, 02:24:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Could some one please give a more detailed explanation of what people are talking about when they say LR won't print at 100%, and that it changes print size. I ask because almost every print of mine is an odd size and LR seems to print at that size, EXCEPT for one panorama which would not for love or money print at the size that was indicated in LR print module. I had to adjust the indicated size until I got it to print correctly. Normally I wouldn't really care, but in this case I had already had a mat cut for it. Maybe another thread, or maybe this is not at all what people are talking about?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8101



WWW
« Reply #50 on: November 25, 2010, 02:28:13 PM »
ReplyReply

LR can print at 100%, no question. Getting the template setup to do this is not so easy. It has to be exactly configured to do so. So its not impossible. But a check box that would automatically do this from rendered image that has a “size” specified (its resolution) would make this a lot easier. Look at the Photoshop Print dialog and you’ll see that you can easily tell it to print the image at 100% (or change it).
Logged

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

Posts: 315


WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 28, 2010, 08:35:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Could some one please give a more detailed explanation of what people are talking about when they say LR won't print at 100%, and that it changes print size. I ask because almost every print of mine is an odd size and LR seems to print at that size, EXCEPT for one panorama which would not for love or money print at the size that was indicated in LR print module. I had to adjust the indicated size until I got it to print correctly. Normally I wouldn't really care, but in this case I had already had a mat cut for it. Maybe another thread, or maybe this is not at all what people are talking about?
Basically 100% means the printsize on paper equals the size you get by dividing the pixel dimensions of the image file with the printer resolution , e.g. 300pixel/inch. Example: i made a image with pxel size 3000 x 2100 pixels. My printer resolutions s 300 p/inch, so 100% print is 10 x 7 inches.
In LR today you develop an image  of given pixels, and when printing you specifiy the printsize, regardless of the pixel dimensions o f the image. In the printer part you specifiy the printresolution, such as 240p/inch, and leave it to LR to uprez or downrez the image to fit the effective number of pixels needed (printsize x printresolution).

The one thing LR is missing is an option to derive prinsize from pixels in image and prinresolution.
Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
slatchley
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #52 on: November 28, 2010, 08:39:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank-you. That is the explanation I was looking for. Doesn't tell me why LR refused to print my pano at the correct size, but that seems to be a fluke.
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2100


« Reply #53 on: November 29, 2010, 08:16:50 AM »
ReplyReply

The thing to understand about LR's Print module is that it was designed for the common case of printing to a desired output size, specified in physical units (like inches, cm, etc.).

It is not clear to me why printing images at 100%, or being able to derive the physical dimensions from other units (e.g., # of pixels + print resolution) is desirable.
Logged

smahn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


« Reply #54 on: November 29, 2010, 11:48:09 AM »
ReplyReply

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

What then is the recommended approach for files where capture and creative sharpening was applied exclusively in Photoshop (lets call them "legacy" files): apply capture sharpening in LR after the fact, or print from PS?
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #55 on: November 29, 2010, 08:45:28 PM »
ReplyReply

It is not clear to me why printing images at 100%, or being able to derive the physical dimensions from other units (e.g., # of pixels + print resolution) is desirable.

If one has prepped an image in Photoshop and wants to print out of Lightroom without ANY resampling, the current method is suboptimal. You have to know in advance exactly what the pixel destiny is at a given dimensions so you can work arounds Lightroom's lack of 100% output. It would be useful to have a control in Lightroom that allowed you to display the image's current dimensions and pixel density and allow the user to specify that Lightroom output the image without resampling...
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad