Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Native Print resolution above 720ppi  (Read 1700 times)
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 817



WWW
« on: November 01, 2012, 01:56:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I've had great success using the 360/720 method of upresing images to 360 or 720 ppi when the native resolution is below those marks.  Up until now, I didn't have a camera that had high enough resolution to stray from that.  However, now with the D800e, I'm finding when printing smaller prints, I'm well above even the 720ppi native resolution. 

Is there a general 'rule of thumb' when this happens?  Do you downres to 720, go with the native resolution (900+ for a 5x7) or is there another plateau to res-up to (1440?)?
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3767


« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2012, 04:42:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I've had great success using the 360/720 method of upresing images to 360 or 720 ppi when the native resolution is below those marks.  Up until now, I didn't have a camera that had high enough resolution to stray from that.  However, now with the D800e, I'm finding when printing smaller prints, I'm well above even the 720ppi native resolution. 

Is there a general 'rule of thumb' when this happens?  Do you downres to 720, go with the native resolution (900+ for a 5x7) or is there another plateau to res-up to (1440?)?

Hi Mike,

With the quality of current printer drivers, I'd downsample to 720 PPI and let the printer chew on that. The downsampling will make sure you have the control over how much aliasing artifacting will be created. The printer drivers are more likely to use a simpeler (=because it's faster) downsampling algorithm that you can utilize, even though it might require you to take an extra processing step. In addition, it allows you to determine the amount of sharpening you want to use to compensate for output media losses (due to diffusion and such).

A program like Lightroom uses a relatively decent downsampling quality, but Photoshop doesn't. So the downsampling method will depend on which application fits best in your workflow.

Cheers,
Bart

Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2012, 05:00:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I second that. Downsampling in LR is pretty much OK!

Best regards
Erik


A program like Lightroom uses a relatively decent downsampling quality, but Photoshop doesn't. So the downsampling method will depend on which application fits best in your workflow.

Cheers,
Bart


Logged

John Caldwell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 466



« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2012, 05:44:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Being honest, do you think there is any chance whatsoever that you could see in a small print the differences being talked about here? I mean with your eyes. Not being argumentative, but isn't this more about the math than what would be visible?

John Caldwell
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 05:50:19 PM by John Caldwell » Logged
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2012, 05:57:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I've never had any problems with printing small images with the same file as large images without reducing the resolution numbers.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3767


« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2012, 06:44:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Being honest, do you think there is any chance whatsoever that you could see in a small print the differences being talked about here? I mean with your eyes. Not being argumentative, but isn't this more about the math than what would be visible?

Hi John,

If anything, having control over the output sharpening at the actual/downsampled output file dimensions makes a lot of difference. Having control over the downsampling quality will make a difference as well. Having control over both gives superior results because one can avoid sharpening the downsampling  artifacts which would become more visible as a result.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 817



WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2012, 08:55:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I prefer printing from LR.  So, I'd set the print resolution to 720 and sharpen (through LR Print module) as needed.

In most cases, I leave the Print Sharpening set to Standard - sometimes Low if I've had to do tricky sharpening in the Develop Module.  Does the downsampling require a different approach to the output sharpening?
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3767


« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2012, 06:18:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I prefer printing from LR.  So, I'd set the print resolution to 720 and sharpen (through LR Print module) as needed.

In most cases, I leave the Print Sharpening set to Standard - sometimes Low if I've had to do tricky sharpening in the Develop Module.  Does the downsampling require a different approach to the output sharpening?

Hi Mike,

You'll probably be okay with LR, just keep a watchful eye out for creating downsampling artifacts caused by applying too much sharpening at the native size in the Develop module before the downsampling to output. I'm not sure if Lightroom is intelligent enough to not apply or reduce/filter the Develop sharpening before downsampling. You could try just switching off sharpening at the native file size before outputting to a smaller size, then add Print sharpening, and see if it makes a difference.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 817



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2012, 09:43:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Bart
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2012, 09:56:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I prefer printing from LR.  So, I'd set the print resolution to 720 and sharpen (through LR Print module) as needed.

That's what I'd do. I suspect Jeff too. LR will sample the data down to 720 with the check box on so there's no extra work like having to resample in Photoshop then print. But why not make a small print both ways, pull out a loupe (you'll need it) and tell us if you see a difference. In the end, and using LR, I'd stick to KISS.
Logged

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

Posts: 423


« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2012, 01:33:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I even scanned to result at 4800 DPI to test for any real difference with my Epson R3000 for 720 PPI vs native (higher), a magnifying glass is not enough.

Short answer: NO

Even at 720 PPI you really have to tweak the platen gap and the ink percentages to get maximum detail.
If you run vanilla settings (no tweaks on ink percentages), stick with 720 PPI as the maximum resolution*


* actually I always leave 720 PPI as I don't have to benchmark my printing process speed. At worst I get zero benefit. Wink
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad