Native Printer Resolution - Fact or Myth?

[jrkliny]

Simple answer is use Qimage Ultimate and let a printing expert (Mike Chaney) look after all the complex details for whatever size print you need, border, borderless, interpolation, sharpening, etc.

Most printing app, printer driver combinations will alow you to let them do all the preprinting interpolation, sharpening for border or borderless prints.

Photoshop Elements is another option.

But doing it yourself is not complex.

I also have found that I really appreciate the features of Qimage Ultimate. Adobe products don't even come close and are missing the majority of the QU features that I like.

One main function I like is the use of templates. I have templates in QU for each paper and paper size I use. The templates handle all of the printer settings, ICC profiles, borders, print alignment, sharpening, interpolation, etc. I pull up the template, click on the image file I want to print, then start printing. I don't need to spend time with printer settings and find I made the wrong choice or forgot something. Printing with QU is about as foolproof and easy as possible.

 

[rambet]

That's fine, but I have templates saved in my printer driver for different paper types etc so printing with Photoshop Elements is pretty fool proof as well in my experience.

 

[rambet]

This has more detail than the video (and includes it) ;-)

https://www.northlight-images.co.uk/driver-settings-and-print-detail/

I've done similar tests for the PRO-200 and PRO-300

Thank you for the article.

My understanding of it after reading it, is that you are saying pretty much the same as I have said in this thread but with much more detail.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

Qimage will tell you the printer's native resolution(s). Lightroom 6 requires you to know it / them, but maybe newer versions of LR will report them to you like Qimage does. Also, as a minor point and FWIW, some newer Epsons are 300 ppi (and probably, optionally, 600 ppi)....
Qimage again tells you the score: if you select e.g. to print a borderless 4x6" print on a Canon Pro-100 with the Amount of Extension control set to the second of its four positions, then QImage will tell you that effectively you need 306 or 612 ppi at 4x6", but in reality that's 300 or 600 ppi at 4.08x6.12"--in other words, Qimage knows that with that driver setting, the Pro-100 oversprays 2% in each dimension, and therefore the total pixels the driver actually needs (and if not given them, will resample to) is 1224x1836 or 2448x3672: ...

Qimage will effectively tell you that ....

Simple answer is use Qimage Ultimate and let a printing expert (Mike Chaney) look after all the complex details for whatever size print you need, border, borderless, interpolation, sharpening, etc.

I regard Qimage as one of my best software choices I made many, many years ago.

I was a bit of a Qimage skeptic for years, but then I tried it, and the more I use it, the more I prefer it to Lightroom and its Print module (to say nothing of the printing capabilities in DxO PhotoLab, Serif Affinity Photo, etc.). And now I too recommend Qimage to anyone who asks.

 

[rambet]

I also used Qimage for a while until I realised I could get just as good, if not better prints for some photos, without it.

 

[Keith Cooper]

This has more detail than the video (and includes it) ;-)

https://www.northlight-images.co.uk/driver-settings-and-print-detail/

I've done similar tests for the PRO-200 and PRO-300

Thank you for the article.

My understanding of it after reading it, is that you are saying pretty much the same as I have said in this thread but with much more detail.

I've stopped treating the 'magic numbers' as special... (for current/recent printers)

That and automatically turning 'quality' settings up to 11 is not necessarily the best option for print quality

For a few years I've wondered about all kinds of things that are presented in this area (and other bits of photography) as 'received wisdom'...

I guess it's partly people's resistance to changing established workflows - that and you 'rub against' the fan clubs of some things at your peril ;-)

Any workflow choice made over 3-4 years ago should be fair game for re-appraisal (even my loathing of Lightroom ;-) )

I'm lucky enough to have the resources and time to test some things, but I always say that if you don't like what I've found, test it yourself...

--
bye for now
Keith Cooper

 

[rambet]

Thank you for your thoughts Keith. I appreciate them very much.

As mentioned in my OP, the main reason I started this thread is to try to explain to any "Native Printer Resolution Skeptics" that it is real and how it fits into the printing pipeline according to my understanding.

Indirectly I also wanted to try to highlight the difference between PPI and DPI and their very different roles and uses which many (including some software manufacturers who should know better :-x ) unknowingly incorrectly use interchangeably.

The main thing that has bugged me, and likely others as well, about native printer resolutions is why no printer manufacturer afaik ever states them on any specification sheets for their printers. I can't think of any logical reason why they would want to keep the native print resolution of their printers a "secret".

Are you able to shed any light from your dealings with printer manufacturers as to why they do not include their native printer resolutions in their spec. sheets?.......although at least Photoshop Elements (and so I assume big brother PS as well) and Qimage report the native printer resolution the printer wants for an image about to be printed.

 

[Keith Cooper]

Thank you for your thoughts Keith. I appreciate them very much.

Thanks

Are you able to shed any light from your dealings with printer manufacturers as to why they do not include their native printer resolutions in their spec. sheets?.......although at least Photoshop Elements (and so I assume big brother PS as well) and Qimage report the native printer resolution the printer wants for an image about to be printed.

I'm afraid there is nothing I can put 'on the record'.

Remember that precise dithering algorithms, their implementation and other detailed working of drivers are very commercially sensitive details. Now some may decry that, but that is what it is...

If the 'magic numbers' were that special anymore I'm sure there would be information about that aspect of printers.

If I were to say that there is no good reason to worry about the 'magic numbers' in recent/current printers I doubt many of the people I know would pick me up on it.

It may well have made a difference in the past when there was less computing power available, both in the printers and for the drivers - I'm minded to suggest that things have moved on.

Software that improved things in the past simply may not be that relevant with respect to current printers/drivers - it's relatively easy to test...

15 years ago I used a RIP to drive my Epson SP-9600. If I now had a P9500 here, I'd not use a RIP - maybe some software for controlling layout, but not a RIP

Of course, I'm focusing on the actual print results, not ease of use/familiarity etc. If you like doing things a certain way and are happy with the results then that is always fine. People don't like change - I came up with excuses not to make videos for years. I still regard myself as a photographer first, writer second and maker of videos somewhere around seventh... ;-)

 

[rambet]

OK, thank you

 

[Rob de Loe]

For a few years I've wondered about all kinds of things that are presented in this area (and other bits of photography) as 'received wisdom'...

Photography is definitely prone to this problem, and has been probably since the beginning.

A lot of "wisdom" gets passed on by people who don't check for themselves. Or can't check for themselves. Or don't know how to check properly. etc.

And as you say, the technology moves so quickly that in some cases the "wisdom" was valid a few years ago, but isn't anymore.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

If you only look at the data connection for printers, and how it has evolved from the Parallel port with its unidirectional feed to the varied bandwidths of USB, and add to this the evolution of memory prices and software power.......

We are in no way using anything like comparable technology, and so the methodology evolves too. I am intrigued to see how the leaps and bounds in panel technology and capture abilities will more than ever create a massive rift between the range of tones in a digital image, and the range reproducible with pigment/ink.

 

[Keith Cooper]

For a few years I've wondered about all kinds of things that are presented in this area (and other bits of photography) as 'received wisdom'...

Photography is definitely prone to this problem, and has been probably since the beginning.

A lot of "wisdom" gets passed on by people who don't check for themselves. Or can't check for themselves. Or don't know how to check properly. etc.

And as you say, the technology moves so quickly that in some cases the "wisdom" was valid a few years ago, but isn't anymore.

The whole edifice of '3 stage' sharpening for printed photos is definitely in my sights ;-)

That's awaiting bigger/better printers to arrive...

 

[Rob de Loe]

I am intrigued to see how the leaps and bounds in panel technology and capture abilities will more than ever create a massive rift between the range of tones in a digital image, and the range reproducible with pigment/ink.

As panel technology improves, the gap between what people think a photograph should look like, based on large, high resolution panels, and what a photographic print can look like, will widen.

This could be interpreted as bad news for printing, but I'm not so sure. Two things give me hope.

(1) I have Net Pratt's book, One Wave, beside me. Ned is a Newfoundland (Canada) photographer whose work I think is superb. The quality of the book is high, so the photographs are not much diminished by the commercial book printing process.

While I was leafing through it again last night, at no point did I want to get out a loupe and inspect details. I did what we're actually supposed to do: looked at the whole image from a normal reading distance.

I think printing -- in books, and for walls and portfolios -- will be around for a while because it creates a different (better in my view) way of looking at images.

(2) Each fall I take a couple dozen university students through a course I teach called Photography for Sustainability. One of the things that makes this course distinctive for the students is that we make a lot of prints. They shoot three small skills-building projects (6 prints each), and they create and print a final project with 6 images that are displayed at an open house at the end of term, and then left on the walls until the next group takes them down a year later. The final project involves multiple drafts.

We're not making fine art prints here. Their work is printed on 12"x18" paper on a big Xerox press, effectively a giant laser printer. Nonetheless, when these tech-savvy students hold physical prints of their photographs in their hands for the first time, they are blown away. Even though the quality of the on-screen image is objectively "better", they appreciate the print more. That's hopeful.

Visitor to the ERS 318 final project at the Open House. Photographs by Fiona Main, Allotment Garden Revival.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

Yes Rob, you only have to look at the crap that Joe Public was willing to accept from the mail order printers in film days.

I refer, however, to the chasm that will appear between a HDR1000 screen with "true black" and paper prints on pigment that can not manage anything lower than 3 tones above black today. Selling paper printers will always have its followers ( like us ) , but for many enthusiasts the " downgrade " to 20th Century technology will seem poor.

We hear of cameras that will almost " multi expose" to ensure a dynamic range in excess of the native capture, and the constant cry of 15 stops and more, will alienate ink more.

I wonder is there anything lurking in the halls of the imaging technology that will at least try to keep up.

 

[Rob de Loe]

Yes Rob, you only have to look at the crap that Joe Public was willing to accept from the mail order printers in film days.

I refer, however, to the chasm that will appear between a HDR1000 screen with "true black" and paper prints on pigment that can not manage anything lower than 3 tones above black today. Selling paper printers will always have its followers ( like us ) , but for many enthusiasts the " downgrade " to 20th Century technology will seem poor.

We hear of cameras that will almost " multi expose" to ensure a dynamic range in excess of the native capture, and the constant cry of 15 stops and more, will alienate ink more.

I wonder is there anything lurking in the halls of the imaging technology that will at least try to keep up.

I get that Ken. But my poorly expressed point is that these students do have access to screens that already are much better than prints, and they still loved the prints.

In other words, my hope is that maybe -- just maybe -- printing will not always be judged in comparison to those HDR1000 screens.

However, your more pessimistic appraisal is probably also more realistic. If someone only consumes images via screens, then physical prints may seem decidedly bland.

Meh, I will continue to enjoy the physical form as long as I can.

 

[Euell]

This has more detail than the video (and includes it) ;-)

https://www.northlight-images.co.uk/driver-settings-and-print-detail/

I've done similar tests for the PRO-200 and PRO-300

Thank you for the article.

My understanding of it after reading it, is that you are saying pretty much the same as I have said in this thread but with much more detail.

I've stopped treating the 'magic numbers' as special... (for current/recent printers)

That and automatically turning 'quality' settings up to 11 is not necessarily the best option for print quality

For a few years I've wondered about all kinds of things that are presented in this area (and other bits of photography) as 'received wisdom'...

I guess it's partly people's resistance to changing established workflows - that and you 'rub against' the fan clubs of some things at your peril ;-)

Any workflow choice made over 3-4 years ago should be fair game for re-appraisal (even my loathing of Lightroom ;-) )

I'm lucky enough to have the resources and time to test some things, but I always say that if you don't like what I've found, test it yourself...

Before we throw away all past assumptions as shibboleths, I suspect that most of us are uprezzing our photos when we print (to larger sizes). Keith, you have suggested that the algorithms in today’s printers are probably as good as uprezzing using software. However, another assumption is that sharpening is best done at final resolution. False? Obviously, that cannot occur if the resolution adjustments are left to the printer. It follows that it is important to know the best resolution for uprezzing, which logically would seem to be the printer’s native resolution.

 

[Keith Cooper]

This has more detail than the video (and includes it) ;-)

https://www.northlight-images.co.uk/driver-settings-and-print-detail/

I've done similar tests for the PRO-200 and PRO-300

Thank you for the article.

My understanding of it after reading it, is that you are saying pretty much the same as I have said in this thread but with much more detail.

I've stopped treating the 'magic numbers' as special... (for current/recent printers)

That and automatically turning 'quality' settings up to 11 is not necessarily the best option for print quality

For a few years I've wondered about all kinds of things that are presented in this area (and other bits of photography) as 'received wisdom'...

I guess it's partly people's resistance to changing established workflows - that and you 'rub against' the fan clubs of some things at your peril ;-)

Any workflow choice made over 3-4 years ago should be fair game for re-appraisal (even my loathing of Lightroom ;-) )

I'm lucky enough to have the resources and time to test some things, but I always say that if you don't like what I've found, test it yourself...

Before we throw away all past assumptions as shibboleths,

'All' is a bit of a mis-characterisation I'm minded to suggest.

I suspect that most of us are uprezzing our photos when we print (to larger sizes).

Ah, that is not what I'm looking at in this particular test.

Keith, you have suggested that the algorithms in today’s printers are probably as good as uprezzing using software.

No I definitely don't make that suggestion ;-)

However, another assumption is that sharpening is best done at final resolution. False?

An open question - not addressed in this particular testing

Obviously, that cannot occur if the resolution adjustments are left to the printer. It follows that it is important to know the best resolution for uprezzing, which logically would seem to be the printer’s native resolution.

No - I don't necessarily feel there is any 'logically' about it... ;-)

One of the reasons I did this was to test the idea that there is even such a thing as a 'native resolution' any more...

I make no observations about upsizing (see the details in the actual article)

The test was about seeing how different resolutions of image fed through to the printed image.

The matter of printing images that are naturally at a lower resolution and upsizing images to higher resolution by various means, and any applications of sharpening (locally/general) are also questions not addressed.

As of this test, if I have an image, which at the size I want it, comes to to some odd number of PPI I'll happily send it to the driver.

I've so far looked at this for the P700/900, PRO-300 and PRO-200

At some point I'm wanting to look at big prints, resizing, sharpening and a host of other things. This test was to see if there was anything special about the 'magic numbers' and as a result of looking at those prints, I don't think there is.

 

[Rico Tudor]

Obviously, that cannot occur if the resolution adjustments are left to the printer. It follows that it is important to know the best resolution for uprezzing, which logically would seem to be the printer’s native resolution.

Not true. I write image-processing software, and have done so since the late 1970s for such classic hardware as Versatec printers and the original Canon CX print engine. These really had fixed pixel-pitch and the dots (more like squares) were full black or absent. At these dot densities the use of dithering was essential, and still looked awful by modern standards. Even OEM-tuned italic font looked bad. Photoprinters today like my Canon Pro-2000 have high native dot pitch, and fancy dithering algorithms backed by 12 carts and color science. Up close, the dither patterns are frankly amazing. Resolution of the incoming print job is completely irrelevant so long as the detail is sufficent for the artist's purpose.

Sharpening is eye candy. All sharpening is a falsification of the base image. Since the eye-brain system is designed to seek edges and local contrast, we sharpen images to feed the addiction (hopefully in moderation). Analog photogs know that grain gives the impression of detail, and it's a convincing illusion—except in the sky! As for the sharpening parameters of contrast level and radius, the former is dialed up or down according to good taste. The latter is dictated entirely by the PrintSize/ViewingDistance factor, a.k.a. subtended angle of the print to the eye. DPI and other such measures are irrelevant to sharpening. In analog space, a gelatin print or projected slide can deliver the same eye-candy satisfaction if you take the (considerable) trouble of goosing those media "in post": the original USM process.

--
Canon, Nikon, Contax RTS, Leica M, Sony, Profoto

 

[rambet]

...

I think printing -- in books, and for walls and portfolios -- will be around for a while because it creates a different (better in my view) way of looking at images.

...

I agree and judging by some of the comments in the current "Who else doesn't print anymore?" thread in the Open Talk forum there seems to still be enough interest/demand for printing to keep printing "alive" for quite a while yet.

The smallest size I print now is A4 (297mm x 210mm) but more commonly A3 (297mm x 410mm) and the largest is stitched panoramas up to ~1.5 metres wide. A high quality largish size print of a photo or panorama print looks so much better on paper than on a relatively much smaller screen imho.

Hardcopy prints and digital copies for screens both have there pros and cons for me.

I can see myself continuing with my home printing for quite a few years ahead.

Having a good grasp and understanding of the concepts, techniques and what is happening under the hood in the entire photo making process from -

Scene capture -> Post processing -> Output to screen -> Output to print

can only help the viewer experience/appreciation of the output at screen and/or print.

 

[Euell]

This has more detail than the video (and includes it) ;-)

https://www.northlight-images.co.uk/driver-settings-and-print-detail/

I've done similar tests for the PRO-200 and PRO-300

Thank you for the article.

My understanding of it after reading it, is that you are saying pretty much the same as I have said in this thread but with much more detail.

I've stopped treating the 'magic numbers' as special... (for current/recent printers)

That and automatically turning 'quality' settings up to 11 is not necessarily the best option for print quality

For a few years I've wondered about all kinds of things that are presented in this area (and other bits of photography) as 'received wisdom'...

I guess it's partly people's resistance to changing established workflows - that and you 'rub against' the fan clubs of some things at your peril ;-)

Any workflow choice made over 3-4 years ago should be fair game for re-appraisal (even my loathing of Lightroom ;-) )

I'm lucky enough to have the resources and time to test some things, but I always say that if you don't like what I've found, test it yourself...

Before we throw away all past assumptions as shibboleths,

'All' is a bit of a mis-characterisation I'm minded to suggest.

I suspect that most of us are uprezzing our photos when we print (to larger sizes).

Ah, that is not what I'm looking at in this particular test.

Keith, you have suggested that the algorithms in today’s printers are probably as good as uprezzing using software.

No I definitely don't make that suggestion ;-)

However, another assumption is that sharpening is best done at final resolution. False?

An open question - not addressed in this particular testing

Obviously, that cannot occur if the resolution adjustments are left to the printer. It follows that it is important to know the best resolution for uprezzing, which logically would seem to be the printer’s native resolution.

No - I don't necessarily feel there is any 'logically' about it... ;-)

One of the reasons I did this was to test the idea that there is even such a thing as a 'native resolution' any more...

I make no observations about upsizing (see the details in the actual article)

The test was about seeing how different resolutions of image fed through to the printed image.

The matter of printing images that are naturally at a lower resolution and upsizing images to higher resolution by various means, and any applications of sharpening (locally/general) are also questions not addressed.

As of this test, if I have an image, which at the size I want it, comes to to some odd number of PPI I'll happily send it to the driver.

I've so far looked at this for the P700/900, PRO-300 and PRO-200

At some point I'm wanting to look at big prints, resizing, sharpening and a host of other things. This test was to see if there was anything special about the 'magic numbers' and as a result of looking at those prints, I don't think there is.

If there is nothing to magic numbers, then you are, in essence, suggesting that the printer algorithms work just as well as resolution adjustment in software, at least when down-rezzing. Few really care about this, by the way, because up-rezzing is where the question of native resolution becomes more important. Should we up-rezz with specialized software or let the printer handle it? If there is no difference, then why take the extra step? Well, for one thing, up-rezzing with software allows sharpening at final resolution. We, of course, realize that your experiment was limited, as you indicate above. However, your conclusion that there are no longer magic numbers is also misleading, except in the limited context of your down-rezzing experiment. It may be that the same conclusion would apply where uprezzing, but, again, allowing the printer algorithms to adjust resolution either up or down from the original resolution of the photo file precludes sharpening at the final resolution of the print.