Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: UPsize in LR or other software?  (Read 2519 times)
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 706


« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2013, 03:02:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I did a Webinar last year on sizing up and tested PR along with Photoshop and LR. The "winner" when viewed on a print was LR thanks to proper capture sharpening. Photoshop came in 2nd with PR dead last (along with the slowest processing by a mile). Everything was rendered out of LR of course. So considering LR can do this within it's own system if you will, and do it faster, I'd resize in the Print Module and be done. The upsize was 400% of native 5DMII.

Andrew...

I am not quite sure the steps of the testing you did.

If you used RAW out of the 5dII, how was the default capture sharpening in LR different from ACR in PS?  Or did you turn it off when you "rendered" the PS & PR....why?

WHile I like the improvemnets in LR's print sharpening, it does not compare to the quality and ease of use of Qimage's interpolation and print sharpening....easily seen wth side-by-side comprisons.

I do not have a vested interest in these products.
Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8064



WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2013, 03:33:35 PM »
ReplyReply

If you used RAW out of the 5dII, how was the default capture sharpening in LR different from ACR in PS?  Or did you turn it off when you "rendered" the PS & PR....why?

The raw was exported out of LR with it's capture sharpening set to Default if memory serves me. Then upsized in Photoshop. In addition, a version was upsized in Lightroom itself (with the same capture sharpening). This was to illustrate apples to apples leaving just the upsizing in those two applications to a test. That was key to getting the best results on print. Then the Perfect Resize was fed a rendered image with the LR default sharpening on as well as one without any capture sharpening.
Logged

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

Posts: 282


« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2013, 03:38:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you, Jim and Andrew.  I can tell I'm in for some more experimentation with my sharpening techniques.  I've started printing some images larger on a new 8300, and sharpening has become an even more significant component of the final print.  Although, I've always been picky about it, customizing it to the individual image.  I'll add another question here, if everyone doesn't mind.  An earlier poster noted that he did his low-level/high-radius sharpening as the last step in his sharpening workflow (for local constrast enhancement).  When I have used a low-level/high radius step, I've done it before my final sharpening.  What is the advice of you gurus?  Comments are much appreciated. --Barbara
Logged
Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 537


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2013, 03:52:20 PM »
ReplyReply

When I have used a low-level/high radius step, I've done it before my final sharpening.

Barbara, my advice is to do those image editing steps that don't change with the output device, resolution, size, paper finish, viewing distance, etc. early and let that image become your finished computer file. If you're printing from LR, let it apply the sharpening (you pick the amount) as it renders and resamples the image as part of the printing operation. If you're applying print-dependent resharpening yourself, wait until just before you print to do it. If I'm sharpening for printing in Photoshop, I always save the file first as temp.psd so I don't accidentally overwrite the finished computer file. After I print, I delete the file.

I consider the kind of contrast-adjustment unsharp masking (low amount, fuzzy "mask") you're talking about to usually (but not always) be independent of the output device, paper, etc. If you do too, do it early and make it part of your finished computer file (or virtual file, in a nondestructive editor like Lightroom). If you don't, do it at the end.

Does that make sense?

Jim
Logged

Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 537


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2013, 06:29:37 PM »
ReplyReply

When I have used a low-level/high radius step, I've done it before my final sharpening.  What is the advice...

Barbara, upon rereading your question, I think I may have answered a different one than the one you asked. If you are asking if you'll get different results if you perform the two unsharp masking operations in different order, I doubt if you will. If the images were quantized with infinite precision, there was no risk of the results clipping, and neither filter had a threshold or some "smart" component, I can assure you that it would not matter. The order of linear filter operations is immaterial to the result. It's like audio: if you want a bandpass filter, you can get it with a lowpass followed by a highpass, or a highpass followed by a lowpass.

So now you have two answers. I hope one of them is to your actual question.

Jim
« Last Edit: March 02, 2013, 09:50:19 PM by Jim Kasson » Logged

BarbaraArmstrong
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 282


« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2013, 09:27:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Jim. thank you for your responses.  Your second answer was actually the one that related to the question I had posed; however, I also appreciated your other comments.  When I am inclined to use the low-amount/high-radius "sharpening" contrast adjustment, I have applied it just before my substantive sharpening, to a file that has been sized for print, and my sharpening settings are customized for that print size.  You now have me thinking about applying it earlier, as part of my master file before I have sized it for print.  For each photo file I work on, I save an unsized edited master, and also save a separate file sized and sharpened.  For additional sizes, I go back to my master, sizing and sharpening from there, and save a new file sharpened to my liking for that size.  After becoming comfortable with the settings in Unsharp Mask in Photoshop many years ago, I have continued to do my sharpening in PS, fine-tuning with adjustments among the three parameters.  I like the control this gives me, and have been happy with the results.  I've been using Canson Platine and similar papers for so long now that I haven't been driven to distraction by needing different sharpening settings for different media.  I've begun to experiment with canvas, so that will be a new experience.  Again, many thanks for your responses. --Barbara
Logged
enduser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2013, 04:51:54 AM »
ReplyReply

A couple of Qimage points.  You can choose the sharpening algorithm, the dpi,  and the degree of sharpening before telling Qimage to print.  Something else it allows is nesting of prints at various sizes on one sheet or roll.  It also allows you to use a different profile for each of the nested prints.  Finally, one of the most useful attributes is that you can choose to "Print-to-file", and then just see on screen how your choices have come out before using paper or canvas.

A close comparison between Qimage and Perfect Resize in my case had Qimage just ahead.  No connection by me with any commercial printing software company.
Logged
daz25
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 12, 2013, 05:47:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for all the replies, they've helped me greatly.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2726


« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2013, 07:26:44 AM »
ReplyReply


Anyone else with experience using this "one file fits all sizes" approach, particularly with newer printers?

Pete



For almost a decade with Qimage.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Logged
enduser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2013, 05:56:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Many here are Mac users, so Qimage is unavailable to them.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3013


« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2013, 06:22:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Many here are Mac users, so Qimage is unavailable to them.

Hi,

Qimage apparently runs fine under Parallels or Fusion ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 706


« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2013, 06:23:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Many here are Mac users, so Qimage is unavailable to them.

Which is a shame as Qimage is that good.

If you do a lot of printing, it might just be worth it to have a small PC, just to do printing.
Logged

John
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad