|
Terry-M
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2010, 03:14:03 PM » |
|
Did you try printing the pdf's from the acrobat reader print function? No, I did not try that, I'll see if I get a moment later today to do so. I'm using an R800, so basically the same as yours, just smaller. Terry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2010, 03:23:13 PM » |
|
Just a little extra information. About 18 moths ago I gave a presentation to my Photo Club on Qimage. I prepared some "real world" images to demonstrate the advantage of using the printer native resolution. Another interesting related fact related that was noticed by someone else at the club, and demonstrated, is that it is best to prepare images for projection with the same size as the projector resolution, e.g 1024 x 768 pixels. When a a higher resolution version of an image was projected, it was not as sharp. So again, don't let the driver mess with the pixels  . Terry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2010, 12:11:37 PM » |
|
Did you try printing the pdf's from the acrobat reader print function? iirc you have a r1800, which will give higher resolution than my 4000. Among other things, At this time I am interested in what happens when it attempts to print beyond its native resolution. On close inspection, I get the pink tone that I mentioned starting at 380, but at 720 upwards there is hardly any black ink at all. I would not expect that to happen with your printer with these charts - maybe beyond 1440lpi? I have now printed the pdf version of the InkjetArt test images. I made sure any scaling was turned off and set the printer driver (R800) to the correct paper (archival matte) with the colour control neutral/standard. The results on resolution were as expected and as Mike explained with reference to simple fractions of the native resolution. There was no pink appearance anywhere. The main difference between printing the pdf and the individual images via colour managed Qimage was that the pdf images were quite dark, especially the higher resolution ones. Thus it was difficult to see the pattern lines on the darker section of the 720ppi blocks. 960 & 1440 were just complete dark grey blocks. My conclusion would be that going above the 720ppi native resolution is a waste of time & resources. It makes me wonder whether the "fine detail" setting on some HP printers that give 1200 ppi, rather than the usual 600ppi, is worth it too. Terry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rayw
|
|
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2010, 01:13:46 PM » |
|
Thanks, Terry.
The native res of my printer is 360, whereas yours is 720. Also, of course, the printer drivers will be different, and most likely will handle 'errors' differently. I expect, given a fine enough lpi, all printers would give what at first site would appear to be odd results.
Best wishes,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Seth
|
|
« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2010, 04:31:38 PM » |
|
This has been one of my pet irritations for years.
We would have debates at our club meetings week after week and the folks that cut their teeth on Photo Shop just never understood that ppi means pixels per inch, and without inches specified, you don't have ppi.
As I have seen, Photo Shop opens images with an arbitrary selection of a ppi. Lately they tell me the default is 180. It used to be 72, and the initial print size showed in Photo Shop as 42 x 28 inches (something like that depending on the image resolution divided by 72.
Fred- I agree with you there. People many have not understood the difference between PPI and DPI for years. The camera manufacturers tend to cloud the issue even more in their advertising. OTOH, PS really will let you open a file at many different resolutions. (I think the old 72 was a by-product of screen resolutions.) That said, and being an avid believer in "let Mike do the interpolation"  , I now leave the PS sizes at whatever the cameras spit out. We know we can do the math of LXWxPPI=X and get different size/resolutions of the same equivalent--but why? I can edit a (hypothetical) 24x36 at 120 using "fit to screen" just as easily as anything. Then hand it to "Mike" to make it a 12x18 print. Less is more with interpolation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Seth
<CWO4 (FMF) USN, Ret.>
|
|
|
ChasP505
Newbie
Posts: 46
|
|
« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2010, 03:10:14 PM » |
|
Can anyone comment on my situation? I have been using an HP 8750 for a long time now and previously I always used 300ppi for prints. After reading this thread, and some other similar info from various photography forums, I've been printing with 600ppi. I use the printer's "Best" quality setting and usually print with Qimage. I honestly am not really sure if I'm seeing a difference between 300 and 600ppi.
Should I continue with 600ppi? Should I be printing at "Maximum Quality" (interpolated 4800x1200) setting instead of "Best" quality? I print from 16 bit Tif files in Adobe RGB, and use the canned HP paper profiles with HP Premium Plus paper.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chas
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2010, 03:41:06 PM » |
|
Can anyone comment on my situation? I have been using an HP 8750 for a long time now and previously I always used 300ppi for prints. Start by reading Mike's latest article here. http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/march-2010-smart-photo-printing/It tells you why you should use Qimage for ALL printing, see also his comments in this article: http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/september-2009-digital-photography-reality-check-308/especially those related to 16 bit printing! Should I continue with 600ppi? Should I be printing at "Maximum Quality" (interpolated 4800x1200) Your comments give the impression you are sizing images before printing in Qimage. If so that is a definite NO NO. You must let Qimage do all the interpolating and never re-size in another program. That could explain you not seeing any difference between 300 & 600 ppi. I assume your "Best" and "Maximum Quality" setting are driver settings. They determine the ink spray pattern "density", the latter being much slower to print. "You pays your money and takes your choice" - try the different driver settings, with identical Qimage settings, and check the print, with a magnifier if you need to. Whatever, look at the Web site and do the quality challenge to be convinced about using the full native resolution. See http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/Qimage will determine the "Native" resolution from your driver; I'm not familiar with your Canon printer but Canon's native resolution is normally 600ppi. Just use your original image and print using that. You can see what native resolution Qimage is using by looking just above the page preview on the main screen; both the printable area and resolution are given. Hope that helps. Come back if all is not clear. Terry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ChasP505
Newbie
Posts: 46
|
|
« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2010, 05:06:53 PM » |
|
Terry, you're making some assumptions which are incorrect. When I print with Qimage, I don't resize at all, but I may crop slightly for composition purposes. And I will continue to work with 16 bit Adobe RGB Tifs (from the original Canon CR2 Raw files converted with ACR 5.6). My printer is the 9 ink, 13x19 predecessor to the HP B9180 and B8850.
I just want confirmation that even if I don't notice it, I'm probably better off using 600ppi.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chas
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2010, 07:20:33 PM » |
|
Chas, Terry, you're making some assumptions which are incorrect. I'm pleased to hear it.  I just want confirmation that even if I don't notice it, I'm probably better off using 600ppi. It is worth doing that little check given on the Qimage web site, it's quite revealing even though it's not a real-world image. And I will continue to work with 16 bit Adobe RGB Tifs I appreciate there are advantages at the editing stage but from Mike's articles, the jury is still out with respect to printing especially when there are few 16 bit drivers around.  Terry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ChasP505
Newbie
Posts: 46
|
|
« Reply #24 on: March 30, 2010, 03:54:45 PM » |
|
OK... I've been printing for several years and have always:
Shot in Raw
Converted to 16 bit Tifs, Adobe RGB
Printed from 16 bit Tifs (300 ppi)
Gotten excellent prints at every size from 4x6 to 13 x 19.
The only change I recently made was setting the ppi to 600 to match the native resolution of my specific HP printer. Previously I used 300 ppi.
Mike's articles are written in a scatological style and I'm not sure of what he is recommending. Should I convert from 16 bit to 8 bit files before printing? Should I go back to using 300 ppi? Does it make a difference? Yes or no answers will suffice.
The thing is... I don't have a "problem" per se. I'm an advanced Photoshop user, I know my way around color management, I use a professional level photo printer and my prints are excellent.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 30, 2010, 04:19:54 PM by ChasP505 »
|
Logged
|
Chas
|
|
|
ChasP505
Newbie
Posts: 46
|
|
« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2010, 05:10:59 PM » |
|
Doing some research on 16 bit printing, I think I answered one of my own questions. My HP 8750 printer specifications say it can handle "TIFF 24-bit RGB Uncompressed Interleaved". These are 8-bit files (8x3=24). My understanding though, is that the driver automatically downsamples the 16bit files to 8bit, AT THE POINT OF PRINTING. I also found this article by Mr. Chaney: http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/hype-or-hero-take-2-16-bit-printers.htmlI think my course of action is to continue to work in a 16 bit environment right up to printing, and then convert from 16 to 8 bit before printing, regardless of whether I print from Qimage or Photoshop CS4. Comments? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chas
|
|
|
|
Fred A
|
|
« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2010, 05:11:42 PM » |
|
OK... I've been printing for several years and have always:
Shot in Raw
Converted to 16 bit Tifs, Adobe RGB
Printed from 16 bit Tifs (300 ppi)
Gotten excellent prints at every size from 4x6 to 13 x 19.
The only change I recently made was setting the ppi to 600 to match the native resolution of my specific HP printer. Previously I used 300 ppi.
Mike's articles are written in a scatological style and I'm not sure of what he is recommending. Should I convert from 16 bit to 8 bit files before printing? Should I go back to using 300 ppi? Does it make a difference? Yes or no answers will suffice.
Maybe I can help a little although from your scatological post, there's not much you don't already know. The choice of 600 or 300 ppi is made by you in your driver. Qimage only reports that selection to you. Qimage will interpolate your image to the native input ppi that you have chosen. What Terry has been trying to tell you, but your mind is already made up and closed, is that you are making 300 ppi images in Photo Shop unnecessarily, which is doing an extra unnecessary interpolation. If you are using Windows and Qimage, your image is changed to 8 bit anyway before it will print through Windows. Again, another unnecessary step to make 16 bit images. The best method it to convert your raw images to TIF or JPG in your current Raw processing app,and open them in Qimage. Set the print size, and Qimage does all the interpolating with the best interpolation algorithm, and matches the required native input resolution for your printer. 600 vs 300? I would use 600 unless my image was so large (like a stitched pano) that the file would be too large for your computer's resources. Fred |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ChasP505
Newbie
Posts: 46
|
|
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2010, 05:49:45 PM » |
|
...The choice of 600 or 300 ppi is made by you in your driver. Qimage only reports that selection to you.
Qimage will interpolate your image to the native input ppi that you have chosen.
What Terry has been trying to tell you, but your mind is already made up and closed, is that you are making 300 ppi images in Photo Shop unnecessarily, which is doing an extra unnecessary interpolation. No, I'm not... I'm making 600ppi images. And, it's done automatically through the export presets in Adobe Camera Raw. If you are using Windows and Qimage, your image is changed to 8 bit anyway before it will print through Windows. Again, another unnecessary step to make 16 bit images. Again, 16 bit is in the ACR presets. It's not another step for me. I do a lot of editing and retouching in Photoshop CS4 and prefer to edit in a 16 bit environment for as long as possible before printing. The best method it to convert your raw images to TIF or JPG in your current Raw processing app,and open them in Qimage.
Set the print size, and Qimage does all the interpolating with the best interpolation algorithm, and matches the required native input resolution for your printer. Please re-read my previous reply. And you don't have to sell me on the benefits of Qimage. I own it, I use it, I love it! 600 vs 300? I would use 600 unless my image was so large (like a stitched pano) that the file would be too large for your computer's resources.
Fred
Now that's the answer I was after. Thank you Fred! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chas
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2010, 06:16:57 PM » |
|
Chas, You said previously: Terry, you're making some assumptions which are incorrect My assumptions do now seem to be correct because you now say: No, I'm not... I'm making 600ppi images. And, it's done automatically through the export presets in Adobe Camera Raw. This is what I was trying to get at previously and do as Fred suggests and leave Adobe's crude interpolation algorithms alone. Let Qimage do the work with its superior algorithms. Did you read Mike's latest article and look the samples and the "Reality" article, it's all very clear to me? Terry |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ChasP505
Newbie
Posts: 46
|
|
« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2010, 06:36:34 PM » |
|
No, I'm not... I'm making 600ppi images. And, it's done automatically through the export presets in Adobe Camera Raw. This is what I was trying to get at previously and do as Fred suggests and leave Adobe's crude interpolation algorithms alone. Let Qimage do the work with its superior algorithms. Did you read Mike's latest article and look the samples and the "Reality" article, it's all very clear to me? Terry So, are you saying that I shouldn't set the presets from ACR to open the file in Photoshop as 16 bit, 600 ppi? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chas
|
|
|
|
Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
