Printing large

Let's say you want to print an image that you've made with whatever camera you have and if you were to print it at the native resolution, your print would wind up being 180 dpi. Would it be better to resize the print and print it at 360 dpi or leave it at 180 dpi and native resolution?

Thanks

Macro guy said:

Let's say you want to print an image that you've made with whatever camera you have and if you were to print it at the native resolution, your print would wind up being 180 dpi. Would it be better to resize the print and print it at 360 dpi or leave it at 180 dpi and native resolution?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Unless you’re using a RIP, you’re much better off resizing it yourself. That way, you get to pick the resampling algorithm. Some drivers use — shudder — nearest neighbor. To print it at 360 dpi assumes certain Epson printers, right?

--
https://blog.kasson.com

I print up to 44"x66" on my Canon pro-4000. I regularly print 24x36 prints. I generally like to print at 300dpi (usually 240dpi for Epson).

But, it really depends on how near/far your viewing distance is going to be. 180dpi is fine if you're standing 6' or further back. But if you're closer than that you can notice some reduction in detail. But it really depends on end use and viewing distance.

I'm assuming you're wondering if you should use something like Sharpen AI, Gigapixels or other software to interpolate your images? Those can be used to good effect, but it does seem you need to really experiment with settings as often times they create over-sharpened images that seem to have artifacts.

To put it in perspective, I have printed a partial frame of an old 8mp Canon 40D 1.6x crop file at 24x36 at 300dpi with no issues. Even a few inches away it looks great. Of course if I printed a full frame GFX100 image at 24x36 I would imagine it would have better DR and sharpness, but again it really depends on your needs and viewing distance.

Hope that helps?

JimKasson said:

Macro guy said:

Let's say you want to print an image that you've made with whatever camera you have and if you were to print it at the native resolution, your print would wind up being 180 dpi. Would it be better to resize the print and print it at 360 dpi or leave it at 180 dpi and native resolution?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Unless you’re using a RIP, you’re much better off resizing it yourself. That way, you get to pick the resampling algorithm. Some drivers use — shudder — nearest neighbor. To print it at 360 dpi assumes certain Epson printers, right?

Click to expand...

What's RIP? My question is more general and doesn't assume Epson printers. I'm just wondering if it's better to resize and print at higher dpi or not to resize and print at lower dpi, but using native resolution.

MikeB_2018 said:

I print up to 44"x66" on my Canon pro-4000. I regularly print 24x36 prints. I generally like to print at 300dpi (usually 240dpi for Epson).

But, it really depends on how near/far your viewing distance is going to be. 180dpi is fine if you're standing 6' or further back. But if you're closer than that you can notice some reduction in detail. But it really depends on end use and viewing distance.

I'm assuming you're wondering if you should use something like Sharpen AI, Gigapixels or other software to interpolate your images? Those can be used to good effect, but it does seem you need to really experiment with settings as often times they create over-sharpened images that seem to have artifacts.

To put it in perspective, I have printed a partial frame of an old 8mp Canon 40D 1.6x crop file at 24x36 at 300dpi with no issues. Even a few inches away it looks great. Of course if I printed a full frame GFX100 image at 24x36 I would imagine it would have better DR and sharpness, but again it really depends on your needs and viewing distance.

Hope that helps?

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I'm asking - whether it's better to interpolate and print at 300 dpi, or leave it at native resolution and print at lower, but still acceptable dpi.

Macro guy said:

Let's say you want to print an image that you've made with whatever camera you have and if you were to print it at the native resolution, your print would wind up being 180 dpi. Would it be better to resize the print and print it at 360 dpi or leave it at 180 dpi and native resolution?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Hi,

Resizing doesn't really add detail, but it smooths out edges. It may also help with sharpening.

In general, I would suggest that most evidence I have seen says that around 180 PPI is needed for an excellent print.

Please note that it is PPI, dots per inch is what the rendering engine in the printer or printer driver uses. Epson devices render using 1440 or 2880 DPI, but resolution is 360 or 720 PPI.

In practice, an image will almost never fit a print perfectly at native size, so interpolation will be always needed.

So, image should always resized to required print size and output sharpening should be applied at that size.

Up to 16"x23", which is my normal print size, I would just use Lightroom and resize to 360 PPI within Lightroom.

Printing larger means sending the image to a lab.

In that case, I would not sharpen in Lightroom, but doing my sharpening in Photoshop, using FocusMagic.

After that I would apply some output sharpening in Photoshop.

Best regards

Erik

Erik Kaffehr said:

Macro guy said:

Let's say you want to print an image that you've made with whatever camera you have and if you were to print it at the native resolution, your print would wind up being 180 dpi. Would it be better to resize the print and print it at 360 dpi or leave it at 180 dpi and native resolution?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Hi,

Resizing doesn't really add detail, but it smooths out edges. It may also help with sharpening.

In general, I would suggest that most evidence I have seen says that around 180 PPI is needed for an excellent print.

Please note that it is PPI, dots per inch is what the rendering engine in the printer or printer driver uses. Epson devices render using 1440 or 2880 DPI, but resolution is 360 or 720 PPI.

In practice, an image will almost never fit a print perfectly at native size, so interpolation will be always needed.

So, image should always resized to required print size and output sharpening should be applied at that size.

Up to 16"x23", which is my normal print size, I would just use Lightroom and resize to 360 PPI within Lightroom.

Printing larger means sending the image to a lab.

In that case, I would not sharpen in Lightroom, but doing my sharpening in Photoshop, using FocusMagic.

After that I would apply some output sharpening in Photoshop.

Best regards

Erik

Click to expand...

So, are you saying that it's better to resize and print at 300 ppi rather than not resize and print at 180ppi?

Macro guy said:

Erik Kaffehr said:

Macro guy said:

Let's say you want to print an image that you've made with whatever camera you have and if you were to print it at the native resolution, your print would wind up being 180 dpi. Would it be better to resize the print and print it at 360 dpi or leave it at 180 dpi and native resolution?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Hi,

Resizing doesn't really add detail, but it smooths out edges. It may also help with sharpening.

In general, I would suggest that most evidence I have seen says that around 180 PPI is needed for an excellent print.

Please note that it is PPI, dots per inch is what the rendering engine in the printer or printer driver uses. Epson devices render using 1440 or 2880 DPI, but resolution is 360 or 720 PPI.

In practice, an image will almost never fit a print perfectly at native size, so interpolation will be always needed.

So, image should always resized to required print size and output sharpening should be applied at that size.

Up to 16"x23", which is my normal print size, I would just use Lightroom and resize to 360 PPI within Lightroom.

Printing larger means sending the image to a lab.

In that case, I would not sharpen in Lightroom, but doing my sharpening in Photoshop, using FocusMagic.

After that I would apply some output sharpening in Photoshop.

Best regards

Erik

Click to expand...

So, are you saying that it's better to resize and print at 300 ppi rather than not resize and print at 180ppi?

Click to expand...

Yes, I would think so. But, my printing service uses Durst Lambda, which is a contone printer and recommends 200 PPI for large prints. So, that is what I send them.

Best regards

Erik

Erik Kaffehr said:

Macro guy said:

Erik Kaffehr said:

Macro guy said:

Let's say you want to print an image that you've made with whatever camera you have and if you were to print it at the native resolution, your print would wind up being 180 dpi. Would it be better to resize the print and print it at 360 dpi or leave it at 180 dpi and native resolution?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Hi,

Resizing doesn't really add detail, but it smooths out edges. It may also help with sharpening.

In general, I would suggest that most evidence I have seen says that around 180 PPI is needed for an excellent print.

Please note that it is PPI, dots per inch is what the rendering engine in the printer or printer driver uses. Epson devices render using 1440 or 2880 DPI, but resolution is 360 or 720 PPI.

In practice, an image will almost never fit a print perfectly at native size, so interpolation will be always needed.

So, image should always resized to required print size and output sharpening should be applied at that size.

Up to 16"x23", which is my normal print size, I would just use Lightroom and resize to 360 PPI within Lightroom.

Printing larger means sending the image to a lab.

In that case, I would not sharpen in Lightroom, but doing my sharpening in Photoshop, using FocusMagic.

After that I would apply some output sharpening in Photoshop.

Best regards

Erik

Click to expand...

So, are you saying that it's better to resize and print at 300 ppi rather than not resize and print at 180ppi?

Click to expand...

Yes, I would think so. But, my printing service uses Durst Lambda, which is a contone printer and recommends 200 PPI for large prints. So, that is what I send them.

Best regards

Erik

Click to expand...

Thanks!

Macro guy said:

JimKasson said:

Macro guy said:

Let's say you want to print an image that you've made with whatever camera you have and if you were to print it at the native resolution, your print would wind up being 180 dpi. Would it be better to resize the print and print it at 360 dpi or leave it at 180 dpi and native resolution?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Unless you’re using a RIP,

you’re much better off resizing it yourself. That way, you get to pick the resampling algorithm. Some drivers use — shudder — nearest neighbor. To print it at 360 dpi assumes certain Epson printers, right?

Click to expand...

What's RIP?

Click to expand...

used in the offset print industry, and have made it to large format inkjet printers, basically a professional way of telling the printer where to spray its dots - a completely different driver to standard drivers.

Macro guy said:

My question is more general and doesn't assume Epson printers. I'm just wondering if it's better to resize and print at higher dpi or not to resize and print at lower dpi, but using native resolution.

Click to expand...

Best to resize and use the native resolution.

By native resolution when printing one would be referring to the native res of the printer (though I think you maybe refering to the image's dpi ? - which doesn't have a native res; only output devices have a native resolution, like monitors and printes). The image dpi that it arrives with from a camera is arbitrary.

With an Epson printer native res is 360, other printers like Canon 300.

So in the image resize dialog of your image editor, say Photoshop, select do *not* resample, then change the dpi to one of the above, for Epson 360dpi, then ok the dialog and close it. This has just set the dpi but not actually resized the image to the output size you wish. No pixels were modified.

Now reopen the image resize dialog, and *check* (tick) resample. Now enter the size in cm or inches you want your print to be. Ok the dialog. The image dimensions will now be resized by modifying pixels, and kept to the output native res of the printer you set earlier.

When the image dpi is matched to the native res of the printer, the printer does not need to do any of its poor quality resizing.

And belive me you can see the difference, the quality gain in detail and smoothness of edges is substantial.

This might help:


Rand

Macro guy said:

JimKasson said:

Macro guy said:

Let's say you want to print an image that you've made with whatever camera you have and if you were to print it at the native resolution, your print would wind up being 180 dpi. Would it be better to resize the print and print it at 360 dpi or leave it at 180 dpi and native resolution?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Unless you’re using a RIP, you’re much better off resizing it yourself. That way, you get to pick the resampling algorithm. Some drivers use — shudder — nearest neighbor. To print it at 360 dpi assumes certain Epson printers, right?

Click to expand...

What's RIP? My question is more general and doesn't assume Epson printers. I'm just wondering if it's better to resize and print at higher dpi or not to resize and print at lower dpi, but using native resolution.

Click to expand...

Jeff Schewe wrote about this a while back:

https://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/photography-workflow/the-right-resolution/2/

Basically he argues that if one does not resample the file to the printer's native resolution, then it will be resampled anyway. He stated that he spoke to Epson and Adobe and both said they did not do any resampling, so he concluded that the resampling occurred in the OS printer pipeline. Others still claim that it IS the printer driver that resamples to the native resolution. In either case, Jeff believes that if you resample yourself - you can control the method and process and arrive at superior results compared to letting the (pipeline or driver or whatever) do the work.

Here is another take on the topic, this time from Qimage, whose claim to fame is resampling to the printer's native resolution,

I would not say "printer native resolution". I would say "driver native resolution". Qimage querries the driver for the following parameters:

Printable area X resolution
Printable area Y resolution
PPI X
PPI Y

The driver answers those querries by returning a "canvas" that is X resolution by Y resolution at PPI X and PPI Y. So the printer is giving you a certain number of pixels to work with: that's the "native" driver resolution. For example, you might be working in borderless on an 8x10 inch page. An Epson driver might return these values when asked:

Printer X resolution: 5760
Printer Y resolution: 7200
PPI X: 720
PPI Y: 720

Even IF the driver didn't return any PPI (it has to: it's a Windows function)... it reports the physical width and height of the paper too: so if it returns a 5760 x 7200 pixel canvas to work with and says that the physical paper width is 8 inches and height is 10 inches, you know it's 720 PPI. So if you ever hear me talking about "native PPI", that's the driver's "native" PPI. If you send the driver anything other than 720 PPI in this case, it will internally resample to 720 PPI so it fits on the driver's defined canvas. And again, you don't want to let the driver do that because it'll use a "cheap" interpolation method: at worse something like bilinear and at best, bicubic.

Mike

The full thread can be found here

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/print-in-native-resolution-possible/

edispics said:

Macro guy said:

JimKasson said:

Macro guy said:

Let's say you want to print an image that you've made with whatever camera you have and if you were to print it at the native resolution, your print would wind up being 180 dpi. Would it be better to resize the print and print it at 360 dpi or leave it at 180 dpi and native resolution?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Unless you’re using a RIP, you’re much better off resizing it yourself. That way, you get to pick the resampling algorithm. Some drivers use — shudder — nearest neighbor. To print it at 360 dpi assumes certain Epson printers, right?

Click to expand...

What's RIP? My question is more general and doesn't assume Epson printers. I'm just wondering if it's better to resize and print at higher dpi or not to resize and print at lower dpi, but using native resolution.

Click to expand...

Jeff Schewe wrote about this a while back:



Even IF the driver didn't return any PPI (it has to: it's a Windows function)... it reports the physical width and height of the paper too: so if it returns a 5760 x 7200 pixel canvas to work with and says that the physical paper width is 8 inches and height is 10 inches, you know it's 720 PPI. So if you ever hear me talking about "native PPI", that's the driver's "native" PPI. If you send the driver anything other than 720 PPI in this case, it will internally resample to 720 PPI so it fits on the driver's defined canvas. And again, you don't want to let the driver do that because it'll use a "cheap" interpolation method: at worse something like bilinear and at best, bicubic.

Mike

The full thread can be found here

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/print-in-native-resolution-possible/

Click to expand...

Which interpolation method would you recommend?

I just let Lightroom match the printer's (driver's) native resolution and have always been happy with the results. I know lots of folks are very happy with the job Qimage does as well. In terms of DIY - can't tell you because I have never bothered.

edispics said:

I just let Lightroom match the printer's (driver's) native resolution and have always been happy with the results. I know lots of folks are very happy with the job Qimage does as well. In terms of DIY - can't tell you because I have never bothered.

Click to expand...

Then how do you know Lightroom isn't using a bilinear or bicubic method?

Macro guy said:

edispics said:

Macro guy said:

JimKasson said:

Macro guy said:

Let's say you want to print an image that you've made with whatever camera you have and if you were to print it at the native resolution, your print would wind up being 180 dpi. Would it be better to resize the print and print it at 360 dpi or leave it at 180 dpi and native resolution?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Unless you’re using a RIP, you’re much better off resizing it yourself. That way, you get to pick the resampling algorithm. Some drivers use — shudder — nearest neighbor. To print it at 360 dpi assumes certain Epson printers, right?

Click to expand...

What's RIP? My question is more general and doesn't assume Epson printers. I'm just wondering if it's better to resize and print at higher dpi or not to resize and print at lower dpi, but using native resolution.

Click to expand...

Jeff Schewe wrote about this a while back:

Even IF the driver didn't return any PPI (it has to: it's a Windows function)... it reports the physical width and height of the paper too: so if it returns a 5760 x 7200 pixel canvas to work with and says that the physical paper width is 8 inches and height is 10 inches, you know it's 720 PPI. So if you ever hear me talking about "native PPI", that's the driver's "native" PPI. If you send the driver anything other than 720 PPI in this case, it will internally resample to 720 PPI so it fits on the driver's defined canvas. And again, you don't want to let the driver do that because it'll use a "cheap" interpolation method: at worse something like bilinear and at best, bicubic.

Mike

The full thread can be found here

http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/print-in-native-resolution-possible/

Click to expand...

Which interpolation method would you recommend?

Click to expand...

Bicubic, you can use Bicubic Smoother to try and avoid any enlarged slight sharpening within the interpolation matrix - which it does avoid, but I prefer the standard Bicubic.

I always apply a noise layer (with gaussian blur) set to Overlay blending mode, and then control the opacity, at the new enlarged size before printing, not what everyone would recommend but I find it conceals obviously soft enlarged pixel units and gives the eye and brain something to engage upon - to invent a new layer of texture at the print resolution. With that trick I can enlarge to just about any wall size and be satisfied with the result - in an analogue way - unlike when I see 'intelligent' enlargement algorithms in action that pick and choose how they act.

I've created a few actions that add 'grain' - actually Overlay noise, with degrees of blur and opacity, so that it's quick to apply.

Macro guy said:

edispics said:

I just let Lightroom match the printer's (driver's) native resolution and have always been happy with the results. I know lots of folks are very happy with the job Qimage does as well. In terms of DIY - can't tell you because I have never bothered.

Click to expand...

Then how do you know Lightroom isn't using a bilinear or bicubic method?

Click to expand...

It is Qimage which is making those remarks about bilinear and bicubic, since they are peddling their own alternative, which by all accounts works quite well.

I am relying on Jeff, In the referenced article he states

"So I really don’t know where or how the resampling is being done. But I’m convinced some sort of resampling is being done. Is it an optimal resampling algorithm, or is it something done for speed? I don’t know, but I suspect, at best, it’s a compromise in favor of speed. I’m pretty sure there are better, optimized resampling algorithms that could do a superior job. In fact, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom resampling is a hybrid Bicubic algorithm that interpolates between Bicubic and Bicubic Smoother for upsampling and Bicubic and Bicubic Sharper for downsampling.

Printing From Lightroom

First off, let me disclose the fact that I’m partial to and perhaps a bit biased toward the Lightroom Print functionality. I had a little something to do with the development of printing from Lightroom. I’ve worked with the engineers to optimize the printing workflow and incorporate output sharpening for printing directly in Lightroom. As a founding member of a company called PixelGenius, LLC, I was involved with former PG member Bruce Fraser when he developed a sharpening plug-in called PhotoKit Sharpener. PixelGenius worked with Adobe to incorporate the PhotoKit output sharpening for inkjet and screen display directly into Lightroom and Camera Raw."

Ultimately best bet is try different methods and choose the one that works for you.

Macro guy said:

JimKasson said:

Macro guy said:

Let's say you want to print an image that you've made with whatever camera you have and if you were to print it at the native resolution, your print would wind up being 180 dpi. Would it be better to resize the print and print it at 360 dpi or leave it at 180 dpi and native resolution?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Unless you’re using a RIP, you’re much better off resizing it yourself. That way, you get to pick the resampling algorithm. Some drivers use — shudder — nearest neighbor. To print it at 360 dpi assumes certain Epson printers, right?

Click to expand...

What's RIP? My question is more general and doesn't assume Epson printers. I'm just wondering if it's better to resize and print at higher dpi or not to resize and print at lower dpi, but using native resolution.

Click to expand...

Some Epson drivers halftone at 360 ppi Some halftone at 300 ppi. It depends on the resolution of the respective marking engines. AFAIK, all Canon drivers halftone at 300 ppi.

--
https://blog.kasson.com

left eye said:

Macro guy said:

JimKasson said:

Macro guy said:

Let's say you want to print an image that you've made with whatever camera you have and if you were to print it at the native resolution, your print would wind up being 180 dpi. Would it be better to resize the print and print it at 360 dpi or leave it at 180 dpi and native resolution?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Unless you’re using a RIP,

you’re much better off resizing it yourself. That way, you get to pick the resampling algorithm. Some drivers use — shudder — nearest neighbor. To print it at 360 dpi assumes certain Epson printers, right?

Click to expand...

What's RIP?

Click to expand...

used in the offset print industry, and have made it to large format inkjet printers, basically a professional way of telling the printer where to spray its dots - a completely different driver to standard drivers.

Click to expand...

Some RIPs halftone at the resolution of the input image.

left eye said:

left eye said:

My question is more general and doesn't assume Epson printers. I'm just wondering if it's better to resize and print at higher dpi or not to resize and print at lower dpi, but using native resolution.

Click to expand...

Best to resize and use the native resolution.

By native resolution when printing one would be referring to the native res of the printer

Click to expand...

No, the native resolution of the printer driver. That is usually, but not always, related to the native resolution of the printer marking engine. The marking engine resolution is measured in dpi or dot per inch, to keep it from being confused with the conton image resolution, measured in ppi.

left eye said:

(though I think you maybe refering to the image's dpi ? - which doesn't have a native res; only output devices have a native resolution, like monitors and printes). The image dpi that it arrives with from a camera is arbitrary.

Click to expand...

I don't understand the last two sentences. See the paragraph from me above.

left eye said:

With an Epson printer native res is 360, other printers like Canon 300.

Click to expand...

Some Epson printer drivers use a native resolution of 300 ppi. The 9570 is an example.

left eye said:

So in the image resize dialog of your image editor, say Photoshop, select do *not* resample, then change the dpi

Click to expand...

ppi!

left eye said:

to one of the above, for Epson 360dpi,

Click to expand...

ppi!

left eye said:

then ok the dialog and close it. This has just set the dpi

Click to expand...

ppi!

left eye said:

but not actually resized the image to the output size you wish. No pixels were modified.

Now reopen the image resize dialog, and *check* (tick) resample. Now enter the size in cm or inches you want your print to be. Ok the dialog. The image dimensions will now be resized by modifying pixels, and kept to the output native res of the printer you set earlier.

When the image dpi

Click to expand...

ppi!

left eye said:

is matched to the native res of the printer, the printer does not need to do any of its poor quality resizing.

And belive me you can see the difference, the quality gain in detail and smoothness of edges is substantial.

Click to expand...

Macro guy said:

Which interpolation method would you recommend?

Click to expand...

Depends on whether you're upsampling or downsampling. Lankosz is god for downsampling. Depends on the image. If you use QImage, you can try a bunch of methods.