| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2014 11:33:13 PM · #1 |
I have to do three expensive 20x30 prints (mounted...around $100 each)...and no time to really proof it (it's a long story)...but the shots the customer picked are not high resolution (they're 6-7 years old).
I've done a fair amount of large prints, but it makes me nervous ordering them for the first time "large". But every time I've asked WHCC whether the prints were ok, they call me and tell me that they want 300 dpi ideally.
Well 20x30 at 300 dpi is 6000x9000, and I don't know what APS-C and 35mm FF cameras do that. So I've always just gone with it as is without resampling. It's generally come out well.
So I was wondering this time though, if it would be a good idea to upsample and let the final export sharpening be done on the larger image. I watched a class recently where the photographer said that he thought the LR output sharpening was near perfect.
Anyway, I tried it, sent in my three **files** (edit...i didn't mean canvases in the original), I wrote a note asking them to check them, and I still got a call. So now I'm trying to figure out whether to keep those, or send original size.
I know some of you have printed REALLY large...something I tell my clients I can't do...I usually draw the limit at 20x30. What do you do when you print really large? Is it better to upsample, or let the printing process do it?
Oh, here are the original sizes:
2592 x 3872
1776 x 2675
2572 x 1723
And I'll throw in another question...how much do you sharpen when you print large? More than looks good on screen? (I always just sharpen to look good on screen.)
Message edited by author 2014-03-19 23:55:44. |
|
|
|
03/19/2014 11:53:06 PM · #2 |
I have nothing to say here, except to say that I'm quite interested in what everyone else has to say about this.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2014 01:09:56 AM · #3 |
| Ideally, you would resample the smallest file and print a 4x6 crop of that and the original for comparison, but with no time I would simply ask WHCC directly. My hunch is that they'll say sharpen to taste, but don't resample. 300dpi is overkill for a print that size, especially on canvas. I would say 150dpi is a good baseline, but I've seen surprisingly good printer-interpolated output at 80dpi. |
|
|
|
03/20/2014 08:33:20 AM · #4 |
I always upsample myself to the exact resolution that the printer needs and sharpen while viewing at approximately the same size on the screen as the print will be. That way you control everything. I have also assumed that Photoshop has much better upsampling algorithms that some simple printer driver.
I'd imagine any differences would probably not be visable at normal viewing distances, so I would not sweat over it too much. |
|
|
|
03/20/2014 10:19:11 AM · #5 |
I too am interested in this thread.
One question I have for Neil, when you say you have no time to really proof it, how would you proof something like this if you did have time? Would you pay to get a sample made or is there a way to electronically see what the print will turn out like?
I am testing the water with a small selection of photos as cards and had samples made at a few different printers and was astonished how much difference there was in the final results despite using the same file and choosing the same finish. I can now see it is very important to see the results before allowing customers to buy prints that are shipped directly from a third party printer. |
|
|
|
03/20/2014 11:30:04 AM · #6 |
I've had pretty good results printing large Neil. On the high end I've taken a 22MP image to about 14 feet wide on metal using OnOne Perfect resize (spread over three panels)- that was scary!!! But that one did not get pixelated or jaggy though the trees and such took on a slightly more whimsical look maybe, and some people process that look into their images, so it worked out fine and the customer was happy. The bulk of the up sampling I have done has been to 24X36 or so and they always work out great using Perfect Resize and I recommend this Plug-in.
Adobe has taken great strides in the upsampling capability of Photoshop CC though. I had several images I need to upsample recently, I used CC for some and could not tell the difference from the ones I did with Perfect Resize. Adobe doesn't give you the custom controls the other has, but the results seem good. Next time I am in LA I look forward to seeing that print job (all on metal) and comparing the ones I did with Adobe to the ones I did with Perfect Resize.
I totally agree with Shannon that 300dpi is overkill. I meet with my local printer in person and he tells me 240dpi is all they need for metal prints. I don't do canvas much anymore, but 150dpi should be plenty of resolution for those.
I do the sharpening on upsampled images myself before sending them off. I'd say I was rather conservative with that, and then more recently started using Nik's output sharpening plug-in. It calculates the distance people will be viewing the image from based on it's size and adjusts the sharpening accordingly. I'd say it makes you a little braver as some parts of the image will look a bit crunchy on screen- but they look great printed big. I would however use the Nik adjustment points to remove any sharpening of tree branches and such it sharpens- or remove it manually from a sharpened layer.
Good luck! :) |
|
|
|
03/20/2014 12:11:06 PM · #7 |
| Simply Color Lab currently has Buy one get one free on 40x60 gallery wrapped canvas. The code is BOGO4614. Just in case you're interested. :D |
|
|
|
03/20/2014 03:49:37 PM · #8 |
Ok, I'm testing these out on my ink jet now...I wasn't sure how but with some help from Shannon I can get a ink-jet proof.
My first image is this one...I'll document for my benefit (and hopefully others).
It's a D90 file, cropped fairly significantly and the part I cropped to needs sharpening.
2572 x 1723, 88 dpi at 20x30
With sharpening, it has some noise/pixelation that gets amplified.
After spending a heck of a lot of time, and printing it about 12 times on my ink jet in various ways, I settled on 300 dpi, Perfect Resize, with some additional High Pass sharpening. Still not perfect. But it will have to do I think.
|
|
|
|
04/25/2014 12:56:36 PM · #9 |
Thought I'd follow this up...I was in Virginia last week and visited the office where these are hanging.
I ended up upsampling with OnOne's PerfectResize. Two to 300 dpi, one somewhat smaller (200 dpi). All three were printed 20x30 on a lustre standout.
They all came out great and the people in the office love them.
My synopsis: I do think they come out somewhat sharper if you do the upsampling rather than letting WHCC do it. That's because you're sharpening at the final size, rather than at the lower size, which is then blown up. But both techniques seem to be fine (they have a number of prints I didn't upsize hanging there too).
I would have taken some pics of them hanging, but it's a Dr's office, and there were patients in the waiting room when I was there, so I couldn't shoot. |
|
|
|
04/25/2014 01:31:06 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Neil:
I would have taken some pics of them hanging, but it's a Dr's office, and there were patients in the waiting room when I was there, so I couldn't shoot. |
On the other hand, if you'd had a pocketful of model releases you might've have gotten some nice stock shots ... :-) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:42:55 PM EDT.
