Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Up-res in Lightroom or Perfect Resize 7 (Geniune Fractals) and other questions?  (Read 8468 times)
sbrewell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2012, 04:07:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Jeff

Just for my clarity - which of my options is that 1,2 or 3. I'm having a dim moment! I'm guessing its 1 or 3.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2012, 05:15:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I would do the work in Lightroom in the Print module...
Logged
alain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2012, 03:28:47 AM »
ReplyReply

...
My current thinking is in the current/recent issue of Digital Photo Pro magazine article "The Right Resolution".

Thanks for the article.
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2012, 10:36:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff

Thanks for the link to your article, which rather neatly summarises the outcome of our last marathon debate on this topic, back in June. Since then I have done a bit more testing, and I find that for the very, very most picky results when using an Epson printer -

* Always upres to 720 ppi

* And I can see a difference in result depending on the starting resolution. For best results I re-size the image to a multiple of 60, rather than a random figure, thus - 180, 240, 300, 360 (of course), 420, 480, 540, 600, 660. So if my image native res was 454 I would re-size it to 480 (smaller) or 420 (bigger). Then up-res it in LR to 720 ppi on its way to the printer.

John
Logged

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

Posts: 17


« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2012, 11:05:08 AM »
ReplyReply

By the way....what happens if one prints through a traditional system, i.e. not ink printers but at a custom lab using normal photographic paper? How should I proceed if I want to print my D300 files on papers of size 16x24 or above? Nowadays I set in LR a resolution of 300 dpi in the print module and export as jpg....

Agustin
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1100



« Reply #25 on: January 06, 2012, 12:39:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm sorry, I am having a little brain lock on this as I am not very familiar with Lightroom.  Is the workflow that I should take my OOC DNG in LR and do capture sharpening and global adjustment, and then creative sharpening and local adjustments with the adjustment brush, and then just print at 360 dpi if the native rez of the image at the target print size is <360 and print at 720 if the native rez of the image at the target print size is >360 (assuming Epson printers).  That seems too easy.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 06, 2012, 12:47:43 PM »
ReplyReply

That seems too easy.

Yep...it is pretty easy largely because of the advantages of Lightroom. In the Print module, be sure to check the option in the Guides panel for Dimensions...there you'll see the dimensions that the image is being printed. If you uncheck the Resolution, the dimensions and native resolution of the image at that size will be displayed. If under 360, upsample the resolution to 360. If above 360, upsample to 720...set your output sharpening and print. Easy...without having to spawn off multiple files of different sizes and resolutions as you would have to do using Photoshop.
Logged
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 791



WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2012, 06:55:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I have been following this advice for a while now, since a discussion of similar sorts I started back in the summer, and must say that I'm very pleased with the results. Like Jeff says... "Yep... it is pretty easy".  Don't tell everyone though... my customers think I'm a printing wizard!! Wink
Logged

Mike Guilbault
MG Photography
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2012, 08:00:52 AM »
ReplyReply

No actually, it was earlier...when Mike and I shot the first series of the C2PS vids in April, I was still thinking upsample at least 50% if under 360PPI and keep native rez if over 360...that came about when Lightroom 3 was released. With further testing I changed my mind and thought if under 360 upsample to 360 and if over 360, upsample to 720. That was further refined by adding the addition of using Finest Detail option in the Epson driver. The second round of shooting we did in May covered upsampling to 720 for images whose native rez was above 360 but below 720.

Jeff,

Much has been written about the print module in Lightroom. However, some us still work in Photoshop. Is there any reason features of the print module of Lightroom could not be incorporated into the print function of Photoshop?

Regards,

Bill
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2012, 12:29:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there any reason features of the print module of Lightroom could not be incorporated into the print function of Photoshop?

No reason except for engineering time...and a willingness to put the stuff in.
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2012, 02:56:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Much has been written about the print module in Lightroom. However, some us still work in Photoshop. Is there any reason features of the print module of Lightroom could not be incorporated into the print function of Photoshop?

No reason except for engineering time...and a willingness to put the stuff in.

In another thread addressing the imminent demise of Kodak, it was noted that even though Kodak arguably invented digital photography, they did not develop it for fear of cannibalizing their cash cow: film. It was brave for Adobe to develop Lightroom, since it could and has cannibalized Photoshop to some extent. One of the major advantages of Lightroom is the printing module, and I would think that Adobe would place this functionality in Photoshop so as to avoid further defections to LR from PS. Or perhaps they figure that many photographers will buy both Smiley

Regards,

Bill
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2012, 03:35:56 PM »
ReplyReply

One of the major advantages of Lightroom is the printing module, and I would think that Adobe would place this functionality in Photoshop so as to avoid further defections to LR from PS.

Photoshop has had it's own set of challenges that Lightroom hasn't faced...the major one was being forced to switch from Carbon APIs to Cocoa. It was a MAJOR coding challenge just to get everything working in CS5 and the printing engine was one of the most difficult to work on. As a result, the guys working on the Print function really didn't have any time for substantial new functionality.

Since Lightroom started life using Cocoa APIs, Lightroom was able to take advantage earlier and go further than Photoshop. Don't think for a moment that there isn't a "Lightroom Envy" for the Photoshop team...it's just that the way Photoshop is developed takes a more evolutionary track than revolutionary as Lightroom was able to do.

Photoshop WAS able to do some things in CS5 Printing–some of which ticked people off–removing the No Color Management option while adding other things such as the ability to completely script the Print command in an action–which most people don't even realize...but they didn't get saved presets nor auto output sharpening in. Personally, I would love it if Photoshop wanted Lightroom's output sharpening in Photoshop :~) but Adobe doesn't currently have that option since PhotoKit Sharpener was licensed only for Lightroom and Camera Raw. Photoshop also doesn't have Eric's auto-Bicubic resampling yet either. So, in my mind, Photoshop is lagging as the best place to print from. Hopefully they'll catch up. In the mean time, printing from Lightroom is pretty optimal.
Logged
JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 706


WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 07, 2012, 03:58:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, I have to ask: is there a print size limit for uprezzing to 720? (or even 360 come to think of it)
Thanks, John
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 07, 2012, 04:03:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Not sure what you are asking...in Photoshop? Lightroom? The Epson print driver? As far as I know, recent Epson drivers, Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3.x don't have a hard limit per se...
Logged
JohnHeerema
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 07, 2012, 04:53:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I've found that some of my larger pieces can't be resized to 720 dpi in Lightroom.  The job seems to execute, but produces blank output.

I haven't tried to be scientific about determining a maximum print dimension that works. It seems to be at around 32,000 pixels in the long dimension, even though that particular number (2^15) should not be an issue with a 64-bit workflow (I'm using Mac OS 10.6 with Lightroom 3 in 64-bit mode, and 24 Gb of RAM). Having said that, it could easily be something specific to my environment, rather than a Lightroom or Epson driver limitation.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2730


« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2012, 04:56:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I've found that some of my larger pieces can't be resized to 720 dpi in Lightroom.  The job seems to execute, but produces blank output.

I haven't tried to be scientific about determining a maximum print dimension that works. It seems to be at around 32,000 pixels in the long dimension, even though that particular number (2^15) should not be an issue with a 64-bit workflow (I'm using Mac OS 10.6 with Lightroom 3 in 64-bit mode, and 24 Gb of RAM). Having said that, it could easily be something specific to my environment, rather than a Lightroom or Epson driver limitation.

The best upsampling routines, smart print sharpening, etc will increase print data compared to applications that do not have those features. To check that difference you should keep the print spooler data and compare some jobs that go through and some that do not. It does not have to be the pixel number. With Qimage Ultimate and the HP Z3200 driver on Vista 64 there can still be issues that are strange. For example at the same print resolution one image on 44" x 16' will not go through, 4 leporellos 11" x 16' that cover the same print area will print, total print data the same, print data flow should be the same. I agree with the rule that upsampling above 360 PPI to 720 PPI (in my case above 300>600 PPI) is a good strategy but in case the difference is not worth it; enough print quality already available below 300 PPI, good anti-aliasing in the downsampling routine available. possible memory issues, etc then I will downsample a 350 PPI at print size image to 300 PPI on the fly with the driver settings and Qimage's smart adaption to those settings. There is the old trick of print data stitching at print time to overcome any limits in the application, driver, memory but that one does not work with HP Z drivers. For Epson and Canon it works with Qimage's Poster/Tiles method as described in the manual, 6a of the Learn by example section.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Logged
Nigel Johnson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 122


« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2012, 07:59:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Would you mind sharing where these quotes are from? I'd love to read or listen to the whole discussion. Thanks.

If you are referring to the Jeff Schewe quotes I included in my post, you can go to the relevant threads by clicking on the small green text starting 'Quote from:' above each quote box.

Regards
Nigel
Logged
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 791



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2012, 09:08:45 AM »
ReplyReply

It was brave for Adobe to develop Lightroom, since it could and has cannibalized Photoshop to some extent. One of the major advantages of Lightroom is the printing module, and I would think that Adobe would place this functionality in Photoshop so as to avoid further defections to LR from PS. Or perhaps they figure that many photographers will buy both Smiley

Regards,

Bill

I think it was quite smart of Adobe to introduce LR. PS is used by photographers, yes, but more so by graphic artists in many more fields. That market wouldn't have been affected by LR at all. In fact, it may have added to that market by graphic artists purchasing LR as well as PS. I would be willing to lay odds that many (not necessarily the majority) photographers were using pirated copies of PS but have since purchased a copy of the much lower priced Lightroom. 
Logged

Mike Guilbault
MG Photography
Randy Carone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2012, 03:37:06 PM »
ReplyReply

On what are you basing your statement about piracy? Was this info from Adobe? Sounds high.
Logged

Randy Carone
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5032



WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2012, 04:05:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I think it was quite smart of Adobe to introduce LR. PS is used by photographers, yes, but more so by graphic artists in many more fields. That market wouldn't have been affected by LR at all...

It is worth noting that photographers represent less that 10% of Photoshop users. LR, however, appears to be exclusively aimed at photographers.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad