November 5th, 2012, 02:57 PM
Question regarding image size and printing. Help
I have a quick question. I print the majority of my photos in 4x6 and I read somewhere in a book regarding the image size (resolution ) which affects the outcome of the final print. Now I know that sounds pretty logical but what the book was saying was completely opposite to what was logical. It was saying that having the highest possible resolution can actually make the image look not as sharp (when printing small).
What is the truth of the matter and what should I do? What would be the best setting to export my files.
Thank you one and all who contributed and made the mundane question interesting.
The answer and conclusion to the question is (from what I've put together from the discussion)
I print my shots 6x4.
Workflow: Raw shot as 3:2 crop ratio > imported into aperture and my preset or profile added (at import) > little individual tweaks added (such as shadows, highlights, recovery, ect > export from Aperture using the following settings:
6x4 = 1800x1200 pixels
For 300DPI which is the best and most optimum printing resolution multiply the picture size by 300. For 180 DPI, multiply by 180.
For a 5x7 photo you want printed
5 X 300 (dpi) = 1500 pixels
7 X 300 (dpi) = 2100 pixels
in summary: 2100 pixels long and 1500 pixels wide
8x10 = 2400 x 3000 and so on.
Last edited by Iconindustries; November 8th, 2012 at 03:18 PM.
November 5th, 2012, 03:13 PM
i'm interested in this as well
My M43 Stuff: Lumix GX1, Panny PZ 14-42mm, Panny 20mm, Jupiter-8 50mm, Fujian 35mm CCTV
My Links: Blog, Flickr
November 5th, 2012, 04:06 PM
I don't know if this will help but:
Clearing up the myth of higher resolution, shot discipline and image quality once and for all
His observation No. 1 about downsizing may be part of the answer if you're downsizing and printing at 300 dpi. At 300 dpi, a 6" print equates to an 1800 pixel width, less than half the pixel width of an M43 image and also an uneven fraction of the full image width in pixels.
Of course I could be completely wrong since I have no idea what you read, but Ming Thein put this article up on his blog overnight and I just read it this morning so it was fresh in my mind when I read your query.
November 6th, 2012, 01:07 AM
Thanks and David. The link is a great read but it doesn't really touch on what reslution to print. Maybe I'll have to experiment.
November 6th, 2012, 01:58 AM
I don't print but I remember seeing something in one of the books on Lightroom I've been reading saying you should print at a resolution which is native to the printer but at least 300 dpi, for some printers that means 360 dpi, and let Lightroom do the scaling to that resolution. Don't know if you use Lightroom, and also don't know if I'm remembering everything with complete accuracy. I kind of glossed over it since it isn't immediately relevant to me at the moment. One of these days I should get around to printing again. The last time I printed was in a wet darkroom using a Durst enlarger, Schneider lens, and lots of chemicals sometime around 40 years ago. I don't think I'll go back to that even though it would let me avoid all those fancy resolution issues.
November 6th, 2012, 04:12 AM
Printing is broken into two major parts. The file size and the printer resolution. You can't do much about the first but generally speaking you want to have a resolution that exceeds the human eye at the intended viewing distances. At a couple of feet that's around 200dpi. More resolution can be good. We can recognise it's there but we can't render the additional detail. 200dpi is enough for normal prints.
Printer resolution is directly related to the native dot pitch of the printer. For example an Lambda printer prints at 400ppi, so that's what you should give it. An Epson inkjet prints at around 1440ppi (don't confuse ppi and dpi). That's the nozzle spread. The printer resolution is a divisible of that. 360 dpi is recommended by many. Canon printers apparently use 300 dpi, but I don't own a canon printer.
So if the file can produce a file "natively" at the priner resolution and size (say a 10" print on an Epson @ 360 ppi) then just use that. If not then as long as you exceed the resolution of the eye (between 180 and 240 dpi- yes that "retina" stuff from Apple isn't real) then you should interpolate the file up to the native printer resolution for best results (360 for Epson and 300 for Canon, 300 for most mini labs and 400 for a Llambda) you "should" get the best file, if you also sharpen appropriately.
For the record the LR print module does all of this on the fly and modern print drivers do a very good job of coorecting you "mistakes" In the real world sending a 300 dpi file to an Epson doen't make a huge amount of difference.
November 6th, 2012, 04:46 AM
Yes, this all makes sense. I have just bought a printer and started printing so I have gained a bit of 'internet' knowledge without actually knowing much.
Originally Posted by flash
Things have probably progressed a bit of the numbers above. The Canon I bought 9500 has a 4800 x 2400 dpi nozzle and prints at 600dpi. The top of the range Pro 1 prints at 1200 dpi. The '300 dpi' rule is there because it is generally accepted that if you print at any higher resolution you cant make it out with the human eye in any case.
However, I dont think the resolution of a print determines how sharp it looks when printed. I have 'Nik Sharpener Pro' which sharpens for 'print'. You input the 'size' you are printing (say 4x6), type of printer (say inkjet) and its resolution (4800 x 2800) and it 'sharpens' the details in the photo. (For viewing on your monitor you would generally regard the resulting output as overly sharpened.)
November 6th, 2012, 04:59 AM
my nose bled
Originally Posted by flash
7-14 f4 30 f2.8 25 f1.4 14 2.5 17 2.8 40-150 f3.5-5.6
Jupiter-3 Jupiter-8 Industar-69 Industar-61 Industar-50 / M 'Lux 50 'Cron 35
November 6th, 2012, 05:03 AM
Absolutely. But your canon printer is still working in multiples of 300ppi versus an Epson which uses multiples of 360ppi. If you give your Canon printer a 300ppi file it'll do a pretty good job of interpolating to 600 or even 1200 ppi without much help from you. Give it a 360ppi file and the interpolation may suffer, although the differences in modern printers would be slight. If you sent a 300 ppi file and then the same file at 600ppi it would be quite difficult to notice ant differences, although they may exist, unless there is actually data available from the sensor at that larger size.
Originally Posted by robbie36
LR does the same thing with it's output sharpening as Nik sharpener. It uses the printer resolution and the file size to determine appropriate sharpening. When I first started printing digitally, well before capture/effect and output sharpening were even an idea, we were taught to make things look a bit "crunchy" on screen to get great sharpness in print.
November 6th, 2012, 05:07 AM
What a stupid comment. Why bother? Were you at altitude or something?
Originally Posted by Adubo
The OP asked about resolution and printing, or did I miss something?
Links on this page may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.