Digital Output with Photo Quality

I've been doing photo greetings from digital pictures and placing them into Illustrator

and/or InDesign digital designed cards. I've been doing them on my ink jet printer, but

would like a higher quality output. Can someone suggest what process I could use and or

where I could have it done?

 

PLEASE!! I'm at a loss.

 

Jen:)

Perhaps if you would share what it is that you're not getting or would like to accomplish.

 

It's hard to beat the quality of the right inkjet with the right paper, in photographic terms. The printing is slow and the results easily damaged.

 

A small dye-sublimation printer, like an Hi-Touch or Canon Selphy, produces glossy, photograph-like quality prints, on an heavy fiber or plastic base, that are very durable. The 4x6 printers are good for custom-designed postcards. Text is not so good - limited to about 8pt.

 

A color laser printer can print on nearly any paper surface and moderately heavy stock. Text comes out very well, easily holding 6pt, Roman type, 8pt in reverse on black. Color can be good with calibration, but the resolution is limited - roughly "brochure" quality.

 

If you have enough quantity in mind, you could use letterpress lithography. If the paper you like comes in roll stock, you could have them printed on an Heidelberg press (an inkjet on steroids). Heidelberg setup and makeready is minimal.

Brother makes color lazer printers in the under 1k region but you can get rebuiilt epsons for the same price. at Epsom.com with duel cartrages.

Larry

The "color laser printer" outr shop has costs about the same as 3 new delivery vehicles, and has a service agreement that cost about the same as what most folks here call "color laser printers". About the max file quality it will accept with no apparent quality increase is about 400 to 450 pixels per inch. Typcially this is onkly used with maping. With most photo work we typical downsiz images to say 300 to 350 ppi.

Jennifer,

 

If you're looking for better quality, you need to look beyond the tools typically used in the graphics/prepress arena, and look to what we use in the photo industry: Digital photos. These are what you see at Wal-Mart for 16 cents for a 4x6 inch print; and are available from some professional labs up to 50 inches by roll length.

 

The process is actually quite simple: Conventional color photo paper is negatively exposed with cyan, magenta and yellow lasers or LED's (CMY color space), which yields an RGB image on the paper when processed through conventional RA-4 chemistry.

 

The advantages to this process is that, when the resolution is high enough -- typically 254 to 300 pixels per inch (ppi) you get a true continuous tone print. [For reference, these lasers expose the paper at imagesetter resolutions, typically 4096 DPI; but you size the files at 300 ppi and the RIP handles the rest.]

 

Another advantage is that the cost of paper and chemistry is dirt cheap, and there is no premium (up-charge) for heavy ink coverage, like you get hit from by service bureaus spitting out inkjet posters.

 

The downside to this process is high capital cost and space: Unlike that Epson 9600 printer, a 30" or 50" Chromira, LightJet or Lambda printer is about $100 grand; plus the space for a darkroom to hold it as well as an RA-4 processor wide enough to swallow the paper. You can see more at http://www.zbe.com http://www.durst.it/uk/produkte.asp?pid=2&hid=1 and http://www.durst.it/uk/produkte.asp?pid=11&hid=2

 

What you want to do when preparing your files is to work in the RGB color space -- NOT CMYK -- and deliver them as RGB TIFF files at 300 ppi resolution. Fortunately, using Photoshop in your workflow makes life easier: What I do is create my layout in PageMaker 7 and distill it into a PDF. Then, I RIP the PDF into a 300 PPI document in Photoshop, and then drop in the photos; then save as a flattened TIFF (NO layers!) for delivery to the lab for output.

 

[Even with the Distiller job options set to NOT compress or downsample images, invariably something screws up and I end up with 72 PPI images. Ugh.]

 

Also, be sure to thell the lab you want glossy, satin (E-surface) or matte finish paper.

 

Lastly, if you use color management, you can download profiles from some labs; or just use the freely downloadable files from Dry Creek Photo http://www.drycreekphoto.com/

 

-----------

 

MY SUGGESTION FOR GETTING STARTED: Wal-Mart uses Fuji Frontier printers, which output 8" or 10" width paper; and only cost 16 cents for a 4x6 and $1.99 for an 8x12 print (as well as other prices for other sizes). Send them a TIFF and have them output it for you, and see what you get back.

 

When you add up the cost of paper and (especially!) ink for that Epson photo printer sitting on your desk, the cost advantages of true photo printing start to shine!

 

Hope this helps!

 

Dan Schwartz

 

PS: For dirt-cheap output in bulk quantities, PE Photo in NYC is now at 8 cents for a 4x6, $1.24 for an 8x12, and 18.95 for a 30x40 http://www.pephoto.com/pricing.htm

What Dan said. If you're sick of goofing around with your Ink-Jet printer, then upload your files to a local Walmart to be printed on their Frontier. I've yet to see much difference between Walmart and my local pro shop running Frontiers, other than Walmart will print them in an hour, and they are a lot cheaper.

 

The disadvantage is you don't have many choices of paper type. A Fuji Frontier prints to conventional photographic paper, and that's it.

Jennifer,

 

Neither photo processing (minilab or conventional) nor dye-sub printers reproduce text crisply. I presume text and layout is an issue, because you are using InDesign and/or Illustrator.

 

Your software is color managed (I use both extensively, along with Photoshop), so the issue may be with your printer or the way you use it. Again, what is your issue?

Edward, your contention is patently false: Text and vector graphics render quite crisply at the native 4096 dpi resolution, PROVIDED THAT the graphics file is presented to the RIP as a TIFF, TIFF/LZW, TIFF/ZIP, GIF or PNG file.

 

Text will indeed be fuzzy with ANY output device if lossy compression is used, such as used in JPEG and TIFF/JPEG file formats.

 

Please re-read my post above, and you'll see that I EXPLICITELY told Jennifer to submit her files in TIFF format.

 

Dan Schwartz

Dan, the "native" resolution of minilab and dye-sub printers is 300 dpi, not 4096. It is not a question of TIFF vs JPEG, compression vs non-compression. Both of these processes produce black by superimposing three primary colors, and the registration is not all that great. 300 dpi would be marginal for small type (6 pt or less)even in a black-only laserjet.

Here is an example comparing text printed on an HP 5MP Laserjet (600 dpi) and a Kodak 1400 Dye-sub printer (301 dpi). The printouts are the same size originally (100 percent true point size), scanned at 900 dpi on an Epson 2450 scanner. No sharpening was employed. I possibly should have scanned at 1200 dpi (about the practical limit for the 2450), but even at this resolution, the difference is clear.

 

You will notice that the HP is sharp at 8pt type, and I regularly print at 6pt size. The Kodak is marginal at 10pt and unacceptible at 8pt.<div></div>

Edward,

 

You're making a fundamental mistake confusing pixels per inch and dots per inch. The LightJet & Chromira output at 4096 (microscopic) dots per inch, which means each PICture ELement ("pixel") consists of a matrix of about 186 of each of these dots, in each of the three colors red, green & blue (for Ilfochrome paper) or cyan, magenta, & yellow (for negative paper). [And Yes, Durst Lambda & Epsilon printers support direct digital-to-Ilfochrome Classic printing, even providing calibration target values.]

 

---------------

 

Also, a dye sub printer is an entirely different technology than laser/LED photo printing onto RA4 paper: You're mixing apples & rhubarb on this one. Also, I explicitely did NOT recommed dye sublimation printing, either.

Dan,

 

Cool off! I am using "dots" and "pixels" in the common vernacular. It might be more accurate to specify "pixels", but in this case it makes no difference.

 

A Lightjet printer uses a laser to expose conventional color paper with fixed-size "dots", dithered (randomized) in a 12x12 "dot" matrix to create a "pixel" which emulates 36-bit color. The effective resolution is about 350 ppi. This is analogous to an inkjet printer, which typically dithers "dots" in an 8x8 matrix to emulate 24-bit color. Each process emulates a continuous tone print because the "dots", even the "pixels" are too fine to be resolved with the naked eye.

 

A minilab or dye-sub print consists of "dots" which can be varied with 256 possible shades. A minilab printer exposes conventional sensitive paper (e.g., Crystal C) with an array of lasers. A dye-sub (or dye-transfer) printer heats a plastic foil bearing a solid ink, transferring that ink to a plastic surface on the paper. In either case, A "dot" is produced for each primary color (CMY), superimposed in each position, blending with the other colors. Therefore, one "dot" is equivalent to one "pixel", and can have over 16 million possible colors. These "dots" also spread slightly, which aids in the blending and continuous tone effect, but reduces the acuity for reproducing type (as shown in my example).

 

A color laserjet is in between. Continuous color is emulated by dithering "dots" (mine is 1200 dpi) in an 8x8 matrix much like an inkjet, with an effective (mediocre) resolution of about 150 ppi. Text, on the other hand, does not require dithering (other than as required to reduce aliasing). Unlike a Lightjet, color laser printers have black toner, so black text is rendered crisply. I can hold 6pt type, or 8pt type in reverse. A service agency like Kelly Flanagan's could certainly do better.

 

By the way, I print images with text using InDesign, Illustrator or Photoshop, which maintain the text as vectors. The HP and Tektronix laserjets are Postscript, which recognizes and rasterizes vectors to the native resolution (600 dpi and 1200 dpi respectively). Inkjet and dye-sub rasterization occurs in the print driver.

 

In a more practical sense, it is generous of Dan to recommend a process (Lightjet) that costs about $40 per square foot.

 

Exactly what do I not understand?

Hello again!

 

Thank you all for trying to help me. I'm a graphic designer on permanent maternity leave and am trying to start a home business. I was very unsatisfied with the range of baby announcements that I had available to me when my son was born so I started designing ones that I liked and have friends who have been having me do theirs. I'm printing right not on an Epson 1280 but have completely outgrown that printer. I was looking into a new higher quality Epson ink jet when someone suggested that I farm out to a photo lab or a printer that could do the job "professionaly". My goal is obviously to try and make some money, however I believe in providing a QUALITY product for a REASONABLE price. If I'm going to charge people to do their photo announcements, I would really like them to be the best possible product.

 

I hope I said that clearly. I REALLY appreciate you all taking the time to try and help me. Please feel free to contact me directly if anyone has any further possible solutions to my dilemma!

 

Jen:)

Edward,

 

What don't you understand? To start with, the $40 per square foot price from a LightJet would mean that a 4x6" print would cost over $6.50!

 

Typically, bulk rates for Lambda output are about $7 per square foot, which is the rate I bid them out for.

 

Also, square footage rates go UP with large output: At the 16 cents per 4x6 you see for Frontier prints at Wal-Mart, that translates into only 96 cents per square foot!

 

------------

 

Second, you are improperly extending the FM screening used in imagesetters to the algorithms used in commercial photo printers (at least the methods used in the Durst Epsilon & Lambda, & ZBE Chromira RIP's).

 

Third, Jennifer is making greeting cards, where 6 point text isn't used. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of photo greeting cards are printed for Christmas every season.

 

------------

 

Jennifer,

 

The proof is in the pudding by spending just a buck: Take a couple of your card designs, convert them to PDF's without image downsampling or lossy compression. Then, open it up in Photoshop by rasterizing it at 300 pixels per inch (such as 1500 x 2100 pixels for a 5x7 size), then save as an unlayered TIFF.

 

Upload them to your nearest Wal-Mart http://www.walmart.com/photo-center and look at the results. Then, judge for yourself whether Edward or I am full of sh*t.

 

Cheers! Dan

Just a quick correction:

 

"The process is actually quite simple: Conventional color photo paper is negatively exposed with cyan, magenta and yellow lasers or LED's (CMY color space), which yields an RGB image on the paper when processed through conventional RA-4 chemistry."

 

Actually RA-4 material has Cyan, Magenta, Yellow dyes and is exposed with RGB LEDs/Lasers. I own and operate both types of output devices.

<br>

--

<br>

Jeff<br>

<A HREF="www.prodpi.com">www.prodpi.com</A>