Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Clarification on Print Resolution  (Read 55317 times)
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2830


« Reply #220 on: July 05, 2011, 05:39:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I really wonder whether we fit our viewing position to the original perspective all the time and whether it itches when we can not. I would expect it for larger prints and image content that shows enough depth information and the viewer able to find the right place but with smaller prints it becomes quite impractical, lighting etc blocked by the viewer's presence. In the past photos were generally smaller on whatever image carrier. Larger prints made of telephoto lens images would make it difficult too.  I also wonder how image composition and that natural perspective should relate then. It could become a complex research and considering more abstraction in a B&W print versus color there should be testing done for both categories. Magritte's -Ceci n'est pas une pipe- goes beyond painting.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop

http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html


Logged
Passnga
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #221 on: July 10, 2011, 03:38:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi All

I would still like some input on the below:

All this  upsampling etc, seems to based on the final print size then upsampled from there in LR3. That suggests that the end user has control over the orginal image in some form. What if for example, I am given a file that is 8x10 at 360ppi ( from within camera say) but the customer wants it printed to a 16x20? So both the image dimensions and therefore possibly ppi change. Do I change the file dimension in Photoshop leaving the ppi at 360 or resize it and allow the ppi to drop leaving the pixels the same or, from LR set the page to 16x20 and leave the print output at 360ppi? My gut feeling is the later.

Thanks
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2830


« Reply #222 on: July 11, 2011, 02:09:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi All

I would still like some input on the below:

All this  upsampling etc, seems to based on the final print size then upsampled from there in LR3. That suggests that the end user has control over the orginal image in some form. What if for example, I am given a file that is 8x10 at 360ppi ( from within camera say) but the customer wants it printed to a 16x20? So both the image dimensions and therefore possibly ppi change. Do I change the file dimension in Photoshop leaving the ppi at 360 or resize it and allow the ppi to drop leaving the pixels the same or, from LR set the page to 16x20 and leave the print output at 360ppi? My gut feeling is the later.

Thanks

My gut feeling is the same and I would let Qimage resample the 180 PPI on the fly to what the printer requests, in my case 300 PPI for an HP printer. I think that is not in conflict with the conclusions in this thread.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop

http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html
Logged
Passnga
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #223 on: July 11, 2011, 05:34:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated!
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


WWW
« Reply #224 on: July 11, 2011, 05:42:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong here...just did two test prints of leaves and grasses from a Leica M9 shot.  Printed on my 7900 with the correct profile settings in the epson driver.  am printing through Lightroom.  For the size print I printed (letter sized paper) the dpi resolution was 500 dpi something  (can't remember exactly)..anyway, printed one print at 360 dpi through LR and another print at 720 dpi through LR.  Looking at both prints with my 7x loupe, the 360 dpi print is clearly sharper and has better micro contrast.  The 720 dpi print detail in leaves and grasses looks lower contrast and is actually a bit mushy.  Wondering what gives here?  What could I be doing wrong..if anything?? thanks!, Eleanor

No, not really...here's a simpler guideline for Epson printers; if your image's native size is less than 360PPI, set the resolution in LR to 360 for the output resolution, if the image's native size is above 360 but less than 720PPI, set the resolution to 720PPI in LR.

For Canon and HP the numbers are 300/600PPI...
Logged

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

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #225 on: July 12, 2011, 02:58:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong here...just did two test prints of leaves and grasses from a Leica M9 shot.  Printed on my 7900 with the correct profile settings in the epson driver.  am printing through Lightroom.  For the size print I printed (letter sized paper) the dpi resolution was 500 dpi something  (can't remember exactly)..anyway, printed one print at 360 dpi through LR and another print at 720 dpi through LR.  Looking at both prints with my 7x loupe, the 360 dpi print is clearly sharper and has better micro contrast.  The 720 dpi print detail in leaves and grasses looks lower contrast and is actually a bit mushy.  Wondering what gives here?  What could I be doing wrong..if anything?? thanks!, Eleanor

Eleanor

Your experience is completely contrary to my own test results and observations. In one case you are downsampling from ca 500 ppi to 360, in the other upsampling to 720. If the downsampled print to 360 looks sharper, then I am at a loss to suggest why. Except that -

Are you sure that what you are seeing really is sharpness and better detail, rather than edge artefacting which can make the print look a little crunchy and crisp but is not really detail at all? Often a correctly upsampled file with edge smoothing and very moderate output sharpening applied will look softer under a loupe, but actually is a more faithful representation of the original file. With my own work I aim for a “look” which approaches that of my darkroom prints – all the detail is there, but without any obvious digital edge artefacting (or haloes, of course).

Here is another Smith Labs idea. If the ppi reported in LR at your output size is 500 ish, adjust the cell size until you have an exact multiple of 60 ppi – in this case 480 or 540 ppi. Then upsample that to 720 ppi and compare.

John
Logged

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

Posts: 735


« Reply #226 on: July 12, 2011, 09:15:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong here...just did two test prints of leaves and grasses from a Leica M9 shot.  Printed on my 7900 with the correct profile settings in the epson driver.  am printing through Lightroom.  For the size print I printed (letter sized paper) the dpi resolution was 500 dpi something  (can't remember exactly)..anyway, printed one print at 360 dpi through LR and another print at 720 dpi through LR.  Looking at both prints with my 7x loupe, the 360 dpi print is clearly sharper and has better micro contrast.  The 720 dpi print detail in leaves and grasses looks lower contrast and is actually a bit mushy.  Wondering what gives here?  What could I be doing wrong..if anything?? thanks!, Eleanor


Eleanor...

Did you change the print driver to "Finest Detail"?  If not, the driver will take the LR 720 dpi output and then "downsize it" to 360 dpi.  Effectively resulting in manipulations which will damage quality.

John
Logged

John
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


WWW
« Reply #227 on: July 12, 2011, 09:49:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Many thanks to both Johns!  I will do more testing today and report back... I may not have had finest detail checked. Eleanor
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2830


« Reply #228 on: July 12, 2011, 10:55:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Eleanor...

Did you change the print driver to "Finest Detail"?  If not, the driver will take the LR 720 dpi output and then "downsize it" to 360 dpi.  Effectively resulting in manipulations which will damage quality.

John

That was on my mind too but I am less familiar with LR. If LR first upsamples (with good routines) to 720 PPI and the driver still asks for 360 PPI then aliasing etc could happen in the driver's downsampling. While the LR downsampling when everything is kept at 360 PPI should have the correct algorithms. In Qimage the (maximum) upsampling is always done to the driver's requested rendering resolution and not more.  Something I would expect of LR too.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


WWW
« Reply #229 on: July 12, 2011, 11:50:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes yes!! with 720 up res. one needs to check finest detail!!!  Makes all the difference in the world. (I hadn't checked  it before in my test print....  Thanks!!! eleanor
Logged

jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #230 on: July 12, 2011, 01:51:26 PM »
ReplyReply

That was on my mind too but I am less familiar with LR. If LR first upsamples (with good routines) to 720 PPI and the driver still asks for 360 PPI then aliasing etc could happen in the driver's downsampling. While the LR downsampling when everything is kept at 360 PPI should have the correct algorithms. In Qimage the (maximum) upsampling is always done to the driver's requested rendering resolution and not more.  Something I would expect of LR too.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

Ernst...

LR does not query the driver.  You can set it to any dpi you want...let the user beware :-)

I guess that is why we print with Qimage.  Protects us from ourselves....while delivery the best quality prints...+ other great features.

John
Logged

John
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad