I know this topic is a sensitive issue with some photographers, and each has their own techniques on how they do this, so I'm just curious how each of you handle this topic. I was trained and brought up in the early digital age that the magic resolution to print at was 300DPI and common acceptance was that you could always reduce an image file with little to no image quality loss, BUT, enlarging an image was questionable your basically making up information that isn't there. I know and have seen people take photos from a 5d mark 2, 7d's, 50d's and even the 40 and 30D's and print 20x30's or larger. What is YOUR technique to do such prints given that the 5d mark 2 native resolution when converted at 300DPI is only 13"x19" or the 7D's resolution is roughly 11"x16". Do you interpolate the file so they are that size @300 DPI? If so what program do you use? Do you print at 150 DPI? Have some other method? Me personally I try never to print below 240DPI and if I need to, then I interpolate my image in photoshop. What do you do to your files?
Large Prints
- Thread starter awinphoto
- Start date
- Status
S
sb
Guest
Funny, I just went through this last week for some billboard ad gig...
First of all - here is the ad I shot (this is just the photo without the text portion of the ad):
http://www.bn-photography.com/lifestyle/?p=3703
The required billboard size was roughly 10x10 feet, and I shot it with 5DMk2. The printing place required a PSD file @150DPI. Needless to say, 10 feet of width @ 150 DPI - you're talking about 16,000px+ horizontal resolution. So I up-sized my Mk2 file using photoshop's "bi-liner smoother" algorithm I believe, and dropped it in the 150DPI template file that the printing place provided. Then I sharpened the hell out of it.
The reason I figured I could get away without shooting medium format here is because 60% of the billboard real estate was taken up by text. So the dog artwork only needed to occupy about 40% of the 10 foot backdrop. Therefore I didn't need to up-size it more than about 200%.
Now of course, the 150DPI requirement helped out too. Such large prints are meant to be viewed from a distance, so you don't need anywhere near 300DPI at all. Of course if you were to come close to the billboard and pixel peep, it wouldn't look all that great, but that's not normal viewing distance, so it doesn't matter.
First of all - here is the ad I shot (this is just the photo without the text portion of the ad):
http://www.bn-photography.com/lifestyle/?p=3703
The required billboard size was roughly 10x10 feet, and I shot it with 5DMk2. The printing place required a PSD file @150DPI. Needless to say, 10 feet of width @ 150 DPI - you're talking about 16,000px+ horizontal resolution. So I up-sized my Mk2 file using photoshop's "bi-liner smoother" algorithm I believe, and dropped it in the 150DPI template file that the printing place provided. Then I sharpened the hell out of it.
The reason I figured I could get away without shooting medium format here is because 60% of the billboard real estate was taken up by text. So the dog artwork only needed to occupy about 40% of the 10 foot backdrop. Therefore I didn't need to up-size it more than about 200%.
Now of course, the 150DPI requirement helped out too. Such large prints are meant to be viewed from a distance, so you don't need anywhere near 300DPI at all. Of course if you were to come close to the billboard and pixel peep, it wouldn't look all that great, but that's not normal viewing distance, so it doesn't matter.
Upvote
0
That's a great image!
I rarely print, and almost never large, so I'm looking forward to reading an interesting discussion on this topic.
Thanks!
I rarely print, and almost never large, so I'm looking forward to reading an interesting discussion on this topic.
Thanks!
sb said:
Upvote
0
Agreed. I've been meaning to ask about this topic for a while as well. Doing some limited research I'm getting the sense that for most things you can get away with doing a lot less than 300dpi depending on viewing distance. I'd love to hear the limits everyone uses and the workflow you use to get the best results.
Upvote
0
So i´m not a Profi with this DPI thats some kind of logical thing, and this i can´t copy very well, just like calculating with variables, so one time about 3years ago and my EOS400D i went out to a sunflower field took some photos, send that to posterjack, for a size of 100cm x 70cm As far as i remeber I don´t see pixels infront of a half meter or so, it looks well and sharp,
So this went on, my lightroom or photoshop ever told me my Pictures are good for size 130*90 or so, than i make this russian Flash with and since that Lightroom and Photoshop tells me my pictures are max Size 30 x 45 i dont know why and also for my 7d it isn´t larger altough the pixels are higher than 400d don´t know why this is so but i know it has to do with the dpi, but why it changed from yesterday to today i havent figured out,
But back to topic
as i said I´d never had a problem with 100x70 with my 400D
With friendly Regards
Colin
So this went on, my lightroom or photoshop ever told me my Pictures are good for size 130*90 or so, than i make this russian Flash with and since that Lightroom and Photoshop tells me my pictures are max Size 30 x 45 i dont know why and also for my 7d it isn´t larger altough the pixels are higher than 400d don´t know why this is so but i know it has to do with the dpi, but why it changed from yesterday to today i havent figured out,
But back to topic
as i said I´d never had a problem with 100x70 with my 400D
With friendly Regards
Colin
Upvote
0
Eric said:
I think, in theory, that has the potential to work cleaner, IF, you sharpen along the way. I believe if you take an image, increase it 200%, sharpen, increase by another 200% sharpen, etc... you may get a better result than if you took an image and ask photoshop to enlarge 400% in one go. While I never have shot for billboards, the largest I shot for was a tradeshow booth mural which was 10 feet by 3-4 feet tall (photo blended into graphic design display that went 8 feet tall.) It was also printed at 150 DPI, but I was paranoid enough when doing it in which I set it up on a stage, everything was still life, no moving objects, shot telephoto to crop it in and basically shot 7-10 images overlapping 50% or so and in photoshop, create basically a large freaking panorama which file size, almost crippled my computer. But with my calculations, with the increased horizontal pixels and such, printed at 150 DPI, gave me a native file without enlarging it, to fit the booth as is.
The one thing I'm still trying to grasp is exactly how much people are willing to enlarge/deduce DPI IF lets say you are wanting to print a large wall photo for a client or lets say a friend or your house where you know to view the entire piece you have to be back a bit, BUT, want maximum quality.
Upvote
0
I just bought On One Perfect Resize 7 (Genuine Fractals 6 was it's predecessor) for upsizing large prints. They claim resizing with clarity up to 1000% but I haven't tried any prints to verify that. I do intend to try something in the 4'x6' size though, so will let everyone know when I get that result.
Upvote
0
R
RileyJoseph
Guest
I really have no idea as I did not print this image.. some ad company did that I licensed my photo to. But it shows how a file taken with a 10mp 40D can be cropped and printed to 16'x6' and still remain sharp. I was amazed when I first saw it in person the detail that still remained if you looked at the photo from 6'-10' away.
http://flic.kr/p/4nEGCc - Original
http://flic.kr/p/9XLcuz - The big as print
http://flic.kr/p/4nEGCc - Original
http://flic.kr/p/9XLcuz - The big as print
Upvote
0
I just finished viewing a 12+ hour training series on the process of printing. (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/tutorials/camera_to_print_and_screen.shtml) It was very comprehensive and I highly recommend it, even for experienced printers. The training is done by Jeff Schewe and Michael Reichmann. Jeff actually helped write the sharpening algorithms licensed for use in Lightroom 3 and 4. He was also the author of the original article that discussed the benefits of enlarging images in steps. It was because of this article that Adobe's Thomas Knoll reworked the resizing algorithms in Photoshop, making this process unnecessary. (If memory serves, this happened around the time the first CS Suite was introduced so it's been unnecessary for a while now.) Jeff is sponsored by EPSON and has been heavily involved in their printing workshops as well. Of course, Reichmann operates the popular Luminous Landscape website.
All of the topics raised in this thread were discussed in depth. I'll give the broad strokes of what was said.
1. Resizing in steps is no longer necessary as explained above.
2. Some input sharpening at 100% (at the original resolution) is always beneficial. It compensates for the softening that occurs in every digital image due to the demosaicing process. This is not to be confused with output sharpening which only happens at the time of printing or saving for display on screen.
The amount and type of output sharpening depends on the final use of the image. Will it be on screen? Will it be in print? If in print, on what type of surface? All of this affects output sharpening. If you are printing or exporting out of LR, then LR adjusts the sharpening for you to compensate for all these factors—one of the benefits of using LR to print or export.
If resizing in PS, sharpening along the way is also no longer necessary. The resizing algorithms take care of this as well. Three different algorithms (bicubic, bicubic sharper, bicubic smoother) allow you to vary the results to taste.
3. Printing at a preset DPI is completely unnecessary and resampling from, say 290 dpi or 310 dpi to get to a perfect 300 (or whatever) can actually degrade image quality (because of the resampling). HOWEVER, upsampling can be beneficial. Today's higher end printers can take advantage of high DPI files to print additional detail.
The old rule of thumb was that if the print was between 180-480 dpi then do nothing. Just send it to the printer. The new rule is that if the DPI of the final print is less than around 300, upsample it by 50%. If it is above 300, upsample to get to 720dpi (EPSON) or 600dpi (Canon, HP). The difference is subtle to be sure but it can be seen upon close inspection. Again, this can be done effortlessly when printing out of LR. (As an interesting side note, it used to be impossible to print out of LR at a DPI higher than 480. Schewe is the person who convinced Adobe's Eric Chan to get this limitation removed.)
4. The goal of these techniques is to maximize image quality regardless of viewing distance. At a reasonable viewing distance most of this stuff borders on imperceptible, particularly on matte art paper. However, it remains current best practice.
Going back to this training series, one of the things I enjoyed about it is the "inside baseball" talk that you get because Jeff is so closely involved with the engineers at Adobe that develop Photoshop and Lightroom. If you're interested in maximizing the quality of printed output (as well as minimizing the differences between screen and print) it is a great resource.
All of the topics raised in this thread were discussed in depth. I'll give the broad strokes of what was said.
1. Resizing in steps is no longer necessary as explained above.
2. Some input sharpening at 100% (at the original resolution) is always beneficial. It compensates for the softening that occurs in every digital image due to the demosaicing process. This is not to be confused with output sharpening which only happens at the time of printing or saving for display on screen.
The amount and type of output sharpening depends on the final use of the image. Will it be on screen? Will it be in print? If in print, on what type of surface? All of this affects output sharpening. If you are printing or exporting out of LR, then LR adjusts the sharpening for you to compensate for all these factors—one of the benefits of using LR to print or export.
If resizing in PS, sharpening along the way is also no longer necessary. The resizing algorithms take care of this as well. Three different algorithms (bicubic, bicubic sharper, bicubic smoother) allow you to vary the results to taste.
3. Printing at a preset DPI is completely unnecessary and resampling from, say 290 dpi or 310 dpi to get to a perfect 300 (or whatever) can actually degrade image quality (because of the resampling). HOWEVER, upsampling can be beneficial. Today's higher end printers can take advantage of high DPI files to print additional detail.
The old rule of thumb was that if the print was between 180-480 dpi then do nothing. Just send it to the printer. The new rule is that if the DPI of the final print is less than around 300, upsample it by 50%. If it is above 300, upsample to get to 720dpi (EPSON) or 600dpi (Canon, HP). The difference is subtle to be sure but it can be seen upon close inspection. Again, this can be done effortlessly when printing out of LR. (As an interesting side note, it used to be impossible to print out of LR at a DPI higher than 480. Schewe is the person who convinced Adobe's Eric Chan to get this limitation removed.)
4. The goal of these techniques is to maximize image quality regardless of viewing distance. At a reasonable viewing distance most of this stuff borders on imperceptible, particularly on matte art paper. However, it remains current best practice.
Going back to this training series, one of the things I enjoyed about it is the "inside baseball" talk that you get because Jeff is so closely involved with the engineers at Adobe that develop Photoshop and Lightroom. If you're interested in maximizing the quality of printed output (as well as minimizing the differences between screen and print) it is a great resource.
Upvote
0
here is a link that adorama had about print sizing. Pretty basic info but it might help! http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/Print-Sizes-AdoramaTV
Upvote
0
I appreciate all this great input. I downloaded the Perfect Resize 7 demo and tried it. I initially tried using high resolution TIF files thinking it would give the best results but the software crashed frequently. I tried jpeg and still had crashed but it worked better. The end product did not look good to me so I used Photoshop CS5 and it worked great. I did have to sharpen after upsizing. Now I am going to be interested in seeing what the prints look like.
Upvote
0
Really, the only person who should be worrying about this sort of thing is the one who owns and operates the printer.
If you're not that person, leave well enough alone and don't touch a thing. You're paying the shop to get the best possible print out of that piece of equipment, so either trust them to do their job or take your business elsewhere.
In other words, don't do any resizing or final output sharpening or anything else like that. Leave all that to the pros.
Of course, if you have your own large format printer...well, in that case, what are you doing here asking for advice on how to get the most out of it?
Cheers,
b&
If you're not that person, leave well enough alone and don't touch a thing. You're paying the shop to get the best possible print out of that piece of equipment, so either trust them to do their job or take your business elsewhere.
In other words, don't do any resizing or final output sharpening or anything else like that. Leave all that to the pros.
Of course, if you have your own large format printer...well, in that case, what are you doing here asking for advice on how to get the most out of it?
Cheers,
b&
Upvote
0
G
Gothmoth
Guest
TrumpetPower! said:
well at mpix, adorama, cewe and co. they process probably over a million images a day... who will look at your images and sharpen/resize it?
i tell you : NOBODY.
the resizing will be done by the printer driver.
they will apply a default sharpening for the print size and when you are lucky they give you the choice if you want that sharpening or not.
your advice is a good one for people who do fineart prints and where each image is treated individually.
but i guess that´s not the case for everyone here who wants to print his images at poster size for 6 bucks....!!
so i can only advice people to do their own sharpening and resizing when using a company that does not treat images individually.
Upvote
0
Gothmoth said:
You get what you pay for. If you're buying "fillet mignon" at bulk chuck prices and wondering why the meat is tough as shoe leather and has an off taste to it, I ain't got nothin' for ya.
Cheers,
b&
Upvote
0
First, can we all use DPI and PPI correctly? They're being tossed around in this thread incorrectly, and may be confusing to the OP. Image resolution is defined in PPI - pixels per inch. DPI, or dots per inch, is a function of the print machine itself, and has nothing to do with the image. I think most people here are referencing DPI when they mean PPI. Here's a basic primer... http://www.andrewdaceyphotography.com/articles/dpi/
Now, with that mess out of the way, the method for enlarging/printing varies from printer to printer. For example, most modern LightJet printers can print images at 150 PPI with no quality loss whatsoever. I print most of my larger art prints at 150 PPI, which helps a lot with native print dimensions.
If I do need to enlarge it, I can usually get some significant upsizing from PerfectResize before I start seeing any type of resampling artifacts. I know one world renowned fine art landscape photographer who shoots exclusively with a 5D Mark II and relies solely on PerfectResize to get his 10' wide prints and larger. I won't do any name dropping here, but he explained his editing process to me from camera to print (which I have totally adopted), and this is it in a nutshell:
- Import to Lightroom from camera body
- Basic exposure/correction edits within Lightroom
- Export image at 150 PPI with embedded printer profile (I use TIFF at this stage)
- Open in Adobe Photoshop to softproof and enlarge with PerfectResize (if enlarging is needed)
- Perform any final color edits/corrections as needed
- Apply final sharpening within Photoshop (sharpening is always a final step - apply NO sharpening in LR!)
- Save final version as max. quality JPG and send to printer
I have enlarged a photo I took 3 years ago with my 40D to 60" in the longest dimension with no quality reduction whatsoever. PerfectResize is the schitt.
Now, with that mess out of the way, the method for enlarging/printing varies from printer to printer. For example, most modern LightJet printers can print images at 150 PPI with no quality loss whatsoever. I print most of my larger art prints at 150 PPI, which helps a lot with native print dimensions.
If I do need to enlarge it, I can usually get some significant upsizing from PerfectResize before I start seeing any type of resampling artifacts. I know one world renowned fine art landscape photographer who shoots exclusively with a 5D Mark II and relies solely on PerfectResize to get his 10' wide prints and larger. I won't do any name dropping here, but he explained his editing process to me from camera to print (which I have totally adopted), and this is it in a nutshell:
- Import to Lightroom from camera body
- Basic exposure/correction edits within Lightroom
- Export image at 150 PPI with embedded printer profile (I use TIFF at this stage)
- Open in Adobe Photoshop to softproof and enlarge with PerfectResize (if enlarging is needed)
- Perform any final color edits/corrections as needed
- Apply final sharpening within Photoshop (sharpening is always a final step - apply NO sharpening in LR!)
- Save final version as max. quality JPG and send to printer
I have enlarged a photo I took 3 years ago with my 40D to 60" in the longest dimension with no quality reduction whatsoever. PerfectResize is the schitt.
Upvote
0
First time posting here – but I have been reading for some time now.
I have worked in graphic arts for about 20 years and file sizing for printing is a reoccurring issue. The 300 pixel per inch (PPI) recommendation comes from pre-press work for offset printing. Most commercial offset printing is printed at 150 line screen and the rule is to double the line screen to avoid seeing individual pixels in the print. Hence the 300 PPI.
Dots per inch (DPI) is a completely different measurement and is device dependent. For example, most consumer ink jet photo printers list a DPI output. That doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to match your PPI setting to the exact printer DPI setting to see the best results. Most consumer inkjet printers will print perfectly fine prints at 240 PPI. Lightjets will print great results with a 150 PPI files (for a large format print).
The best thing to do is run tests on the device you are aiming to print on and find what works for you. In the end, the results are subjective and as long as you are not seeing individual pixels and the detail looks acceptable, there really is no reason to create an oversized file.
I have worked in graphic arts for about 20 years and file sizing for printing is a reoccurring issue. The 300 pixel per inch (PPI) recommendation comes from pre-press work for offset printing. Most commercial offset printing is printed at 150 line screen and the rule is to double the line screen to avoid seeing individual pixels in the print. Hence the 300 PPI.
Dots per inch (DPI) is a completely different measurement and is device dependent. For example, most consumer ink jet photo printers list a DPI output. That doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to match your PPI setting to the exact printer DPI setting to see the best results. Most consumer inkjet printers will print perfectly fine prints at 240 PPI. Lightjets will print great results with a 150 PPI files (for a large format print).
The best thing to do is run tests on the device you are aiming to print on and find what works for you. In the end, the results are subjective and as long as you are not seeing individual pixels and the detail looks acceptable, there really is no reason to create an oversized file.
Upvote
0
There are several packages on the market as photoshop add-ins that do an excellent job of resampling.
My favorite is Genuine fractals- developed at Pasadena's space lab to enhance data streams from satellites
)think photos from mars) and later made commercially available. Extensis and Corel both had similar programs
and each was about 100-150 bucks. I've used them to take low res web files (like gif logos) to put in business
show displays at about 3 feet square with excellent results. Routinely take 8 -10 meg digital camera files to
print at 24X36 or 30X40 sizes with excellent results. Photoshop's getting better at resampling, but these programs specialize in it and do an excellent job.
My favorite is Genuine fractals- developed at Pasadena's space lab to enhance data streams from satellites
)think photos from mars) and later made commercially available. Extensis and Corel both had similar programs
and each was about 100-150 bucks. I've used them to take low res web files (like gif logos) to put in business
show displays at about 3 feet square with excellent results. Routinely take 8 -10 meg digital camera files to
print at 24X36 or 30X40 sizes with excellent results. Photoshop's getting better at resampling, but these programs specialize in it and do an excellent job.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
