How to ensure no resampling during printing?

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by ant_nio_marques, May 19, 2010.

  1. Hi.
    I have large scans of 35mm film. I mean quite large, up to 10344*6888, 48 bits per pixel. This sometimes includes a number of pixels that can/should be cropped out. The point is, that the files are large. In fact they are above the effective resolving power of the scanner, and the film itself, so they can be shrunk without loss of detail, if done properly.
    My question is, once I prepare them for printing, I wouldn't want them to be further resampled in the photo lab. I mean, I'd like to do all the processing myself, and then just have the photo lab print them. Now the problem is I worry that lab printers may have a specific pixel count for a given size, and will either up- or downscale any photo that doesn't have the exact dimensions. So I'd like to feed them exactly the pixels they need, or at least an approximate number if they do have some tolerance. But since 1) I don't really know how they work, 2) I don't know their exact DPI, 3) print size options are often only approximate, I'm at a loss.
    - Does anyone know how lab printers operate in this regard?
    - Can I consult their DPI specs anywhere?
    - Can they work with 48-bit material?
    - Should I look for printer-specific profiles or use sRGB? Is Adobe RGB useless? CIELAB?
    - In case one can create chemical prints from digital material, does any of the above worries apply?
    My first guess would be: downscale to 300dpi (2400px height for a 12x8 print), embed 24-bit sRGB, cross fingers.
    These are an awful lot of questions, but I'm thankful for any info. I suspect experience dictates wisdom here and I have little of the former. Thanks!
     
  2. This may be useful to you: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/using_printer_profiles.htm
    If you have questions about a specific lab's process, it would be worth your while to ask them.
     
  3. I don't think you ever need to resample a file downward in order to print it.
     
  4. @ Mendel - I think the OP needs to downsize to make the file size manageable. 10,344 X 6,888 X 48 is a whole lot of bits to be moving around and sending to a print vendor.
    <Chas>
     
  5. My question is, once I prepare them for printing, I wouldn't want them to be further resampled in the photo lab​
    Ask to lab the PPI value for their printer and resample using this value for the print size.
     
  6. I've read, more than once, that printer drivers and RIPs do a better job of interpolation than Photoshop. So the advice usually is to let the printer handle it by just giving it the unresampled data. That way it only gets messed with once instead of twice since the lab is going to process the file anyway.
    If you need to reduce the file size beyond the conversion to 8bits per channel, then resampling by an even divisor (such as 2) should give you the cleanest result.
     
  7. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Images should be sampled to a fixed pixel dimension based on the output device to size because output sharpening is necessary and that’s based on size (see http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html).
    There is no reason to worry about Photoshop doing this (sample down, use BiCubic Sharper).
    Few if any printers (drivers) will handle more than 24 bit color. Some of the newer Canon and Epson ink jets do. The benefits if any are nearly impossible to see. High bits are useful for editing to overcome data loss so you can send the best 24 bits to the printer.
    There is no such thing as an sRGB (or for that matter Adobe RGB (1998)) printer. These are synthetic RGB working spaces for editing images. They are not output color spaces. You need an ICC profile of the printer to get to that space (and soft proof, decide on rendering intent etc). See:The Role of working spaces in Adobe applicaitons
    You or someone scanned the images, what color space are they in (scanner RGB tagged with some profile hopefully). Convert from that to the output color space if possible. Many, many labs will not provide this essential profile or if they do, they will then tell you to send them the data in sRGB (stupid non color managed workflow).
     
  8. @ Charles: I see now.
     
  9. Learn to WORK WITH the service you are using to make the print. If you are using a high quality service, they will tell you exactly what they need in a file to make the best print. Depending upon the output device, the requirements will vary. An Epson printer needs one thing, a Canon or HP another, and a Ligthjet or Lambda something else. If you are trying to do this on the cheap using a low cost printing service you won't see much of a difference if you just resample (as Andrew Rodney has suggested) to a multiple of the device's native format.
    As an example, the native format for an Epson printer is 720 dpi so you could resample to 360 ppi. If it is a Canon or HP printer the native format is 600dpi so you could resample to 300 ppi. If it is a Lightjet or Lamda, you'll have to contact the service because the machines work at different dpi settings and you'll have to know what they're using.
    However, you have to understand that if you're sending the data to an inkjet printer, at a multiple of the native format, the printer is still doing some interpolation to get it to 720 dpi, and then applying dithering - so the printer driver is never really out of the equation unless the printer is being sent data by a RIP, and then the RIP is doing the interpolation to the device's native format.
     
  10. Thank you all, and thanks Don and Andrew for the links. And Steve for the advice. I haven't yet settled on a lab, but there's one or two in my area that maybe will turn out to be good. It's something I hadn't thought of, but if indeed the lab is good, the people will be pleased to give you the info you need. And complementing that with what I can learn here, I think I may be able to get exactly what I want. Conversely, if the people in the lab are unable or unwilling to talk to you, then the odds are that they aren't the best bet for a quality service.
     
  11. <Printers rant on:>
    Unless you know the target printer's hardware and software and the person running it and how their settings are set and software and hardware versions; there is *no answer to a question like this.*

    Here I am a printer
    *****follow Steves words: "Learn to WORK WITH the service you are using to make the print."

    Here our scan back from 1997 makes a 50 megapixel image. A common 24x36 color map scanned 400 dpi with our 36" RGB scanner is 9600 x 14440 pixels; our scanner 10 years ago did this. Your image is large; but really nothing new. It was new say about in 1996 when our best computer held 1 gig of ram and had a 200Mhz cpu on a server board.

    Even us printers who have worked with digital for over 20 years do not know what a new printer or rip does inside.

    The long term trend is to have a doofus filter inside the black box. Thus if you send a 9600 x 14440 pixel image to make a 4x6" print the doofus filter chops down you useless pixels. The 9600 pixels cannot be mapped on the 4 inch width; a lessor amount is used.

    In a lay sense if is like going to Home Depot and have them cut up a 4x8 foot piece of plywood into 6 pieces to build a dog house; but you give them dimensions of 24.000 inches by 32.000 inches. Their cuts may be only good to 1/10 inch; they ignore your 1/1000 inch wishing. If you make a big deal about the 1/1000 inch value; you get talked about later; we had one that was confused.

    In a way today everybody is an expert; when the long term trend is the average input is worse.
    A typical input like " 10344*6888, 48 bits per pixel 48 bits per pixel" comes across as oddball; ie warning. It is odd because printers (hardware/softwre) do not usually 48 bits. It is like bringing in something on a jazz drive; or some other fool thing to get like missing fonts; or some password. ie we have to get your file to be normal number of bits; something that printers use.

    If the 10344*6888 pixels is for a small print; this is less odd. With some rips the useless pixels are dumped and the internal file is a practical one that works. If you give your accountant your income data to 1/1000 of a cent; he will think you have a screw loose; since he will round all your data to cents; or even dollars on the returns.
    Every printer that has accepted a digital input for the last 20 years has limits. As the public's usage of digital has grown; the average input is stupider.
    Today a lot of a printers time is with "talking about printing". The printer drivers and printers have added doofus filters that make absurd inputs be practical ones. The software on some settups is with sane/rational input; the filter is not used. If you breach the limit; the filter can hack it down and actually make a poor copy.
    Thus if one sends a 16x20" image at a practical 300 ppi to an ACME printer; it might sail right through. If you send a 16x20" image at 1800 ppi; the doofus filter might hack it down to 240 ppi or less; and the saved file in the RIP is less than the 300 ppi.
    In the photo.net world; you want a simple model; there is only one 50mm lens; only one beer; only fishing lure; only one rip and printer.

    In reality it is super complex; and there can be software bugs too.
    Some print set ups when the bloaded file is hacked down to size; the software weanies did not use the printers current calibration; they used the prior one. Thus bloaded file that gets hacked in the RIP can in weird cases make a poorer print due to software issues; your bloaded file got sent to the dunce area for downsizing and they software is applying the wrong color calibrations. I have seen this twice; on different machines.

    I have seen where if I send a TIFF and JPEG to the same printer/rip; one gets messes with at XXX ppi and the other at YYY ppi.

    Like fixing a car if you take up the car repair guys time all the time being an expert; he will charge you more. The same goes in printing. If one guys input requires a mess of stuff; micromanaging; zillion goofy questions; you charge him more.

    What we really want is a decent input. Folks who bring in bloaded inputs tend to to have bloaded egos and want a black and white 1 bit model to a complex question. Thus makes dealing with certain customers is difficult; they no nothing about the ins and outs of using the stuff; but want to dicate how to use it. the long term trend is worse every day. At some point there is no use scanning that average 35mm sunset or cat image at a zillion dpi! :)
    Look at plumbing versus printing; you tell the plumber what you want; in printing you tell the plumber to level hot water pipe to a nano-radian!:)

    ****Tattoo Steves advice on your arm :
    *****"Learn to WORK WITH the service you are using to make the print. If you are using a high quality service, they will tell you exactly what they need in a file to make the best print.".
    The BEST customers of ours tell us what they want; the WORST dictate how to do it with tools they really know only enough to be dangerous

    Any input that is "In fact they are above the effective resolving power of the scanner, and the film itself," is a giant red flag.

    ***What you want is the best print and NOT tie our hands with goofy requirements that reduce the final prints quality. have too many pixels is NOT the best thing aways. Resampling upward or downward can often make a better print

    <printers rant off>
     
  12. Saying:
    "How to ensure no resampling during printing" is like saying:

    (1) you only want a plumber to use blue wrenches; or a
    (2) wedding photographer has to use iso 100 film; or a
    (3) author/writer has to use a computer or a
    (4) math major has to use a pen only

    You just box in the persons control of their task at hand. It means you think you know more than they do; the things they do everyday. It starts off the customer/client relationship in a bad way.
     
  13. Hi Kelly,
    <intrigued>
    So now that you've basically restated my problem - my files will need processing, and I'm unsure offhand what is the best input to give the photo lab -, do you have any particular advice, given your experience in the field?
    (I'm also wondering how could I get information from the photo lab people if they abhor questions as you say.)
    (But you also seem to say they don't know either what their equipment does, though I guess they can always look at the output and form an opinion.)
    You mention using 9600*14400 files. My impression was that printing equipment wouldn't accept files that large. Do you mean to say that a Lightjet, for instance, will be glad with the 10344*6888? Because in that case there would indeed be little point in downsampling them.
    And I'm really sorry that those files are above the effective resolving power of my scanner and film, not to mention the cameras that took most of the shots, but unfortunately that's the way it goes. Not all of us scan Nikon-shot Velvia on an Imacon.
    </intrigued>
     
  14. So what you're saying is that if they need a file that's 5k pixels wide, and I can give them exactly that, since I have a 10k pixels original, I should instead give them a 4k or 6k pixels one, and let them resample it since it's their job and they resent the customer interfering with it and asking questions. Doesn't sound intuitive, but...
     
  15. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Again, ideally you size the image to what you want on output, based on a PPI (DPI for output) the printer will use because output sharpening is based on this exact size (and output device) and sending them more than necessary is useless and excessive in terms of file handling.
    Proper output sharpening is going to produce a far more helpful effect on your print than sending them more than 24 bits by a large amount. Sending them data sized and in the appropriate color space will as well.
     
  16. "I have large scans of 35mm film. I mean quite large, up to 10344*6888, 48 bits per pixel."
    Antonio, how were these scans produced?
     
  17. "I have large scans of 35mm film. I mean quite large, up to 10344*6888, 48 bits per pixel."
    Antonio, how were these scans produced?​
    Hi, Don. With Silverfast and this: http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS7200.html, which seems to be the same as this: http://www.scanace.com/en/product/pf7250pro3.php, which looks like an mkII of the Kodak RFS 3600.
    It doesn't do anywhere near 7200dpi, of course. With luck, it goes almost to 4000 when in scanning at 7200. Scanning at 3600 yields a little less. The dynamic range is imo quite reasonable if one uses multi-exposure, and one reason to use 48 bits. ICE works ok, again imo. Scanning time is actually small.
    Of course, it's hard to justify 8x the size of 3600/24 just for a little more detail, but size is the thing that gets less important year after year. Conversely, very little if anything of a good 3600/24 scan is bloat.
    Negative strips are not mounted but just fed through a motor. It can scan whole strips in batch mode, in fact whole rolls if you have them uncut. No wet mounting, of course, and only good for 135 film. You can scan 126 film, but the batch mode doesn't seem to work, and it will be cropped - needlessly, since the sensor reads from top to bottom, so it could perfectly read the whole 35mm if they had just thought of that. As it stands, it can read almost but not exactly 36.5*24.3mm.
     
  18. "Of course, it's hard to justify 8x the size of 3600/24 just for a little more detail"
    Is there a little more detail? My guess is the scanner has added pixels which contain no additional information -- 'upsampled', 'padded' the image.
     
  19. Annoyingly, few of the commercial printing services will tell you exactly what pixel dimensions to send for a specific print size. The only one I know of that does is Winkflash; see http://www.winkflash.com/content/pro.asp#2. For example, if you send them a 2456 x 3070 pixel file and request an 8 x 10 inch print, presumably they, their software, and their hardware do absolutely no resampling or scaling of any kind.
    I'm sure that Mpix and Shutterfly and whomever could tell you the same thing. I've explicitly asked them to. But as far as I know, they have not.
    Now be aware that all of these printers print a hair beyond the borders of the paper, to avoid possible white edges, so not all of the pixels you send will be printed, regardless of how many you send. Also, the sizes and resolutions are nominal. I suspect that Mpix's nominally 250 ppi printers are really 254 ppi (10 ppmm), and Shutterfly's nominally 300 ppi printers are really 304.8 ppi (12 ppmm). Also, that 8 x 10 inch might really be, say, from a 200 or 250 mm-wide roll, and really be, say, 7.87 x 9.84 inches (200 x 250 mm). Between resolution, paper-size, and full-bleed / over-print issues, it's pretty hard for you to know unless they tell you explicitly.
     
  20. Antonio;
    I suggested after Steve that you deal with the printer you are going to have print your stuff.
    What you are asking is for others opinions on the size file to send to an unknown printer; in an unknown town; using an unknown coarseness of paper; with an unknown type of image; using a file yourself said is bloaded; ie has useless pixels.
    Re " In fact they are above the effective resolving power of the scanner, and the film itself"
    The really is no black and white anwers to questions like this; your image might just be a 10344*6888 that really holds only 1034 by 688 pixels; since you shot has some blur. A local printer can tell you this; we cannot; none of us have a crystal balls. Thus you might actually be sending in a file that is 100 times too big; ie has 100 times the pixels.
    Typically customers who get all wrapped up in pixels worries and micromanaging a service bureau have teh worst inputs; bloaded and have little soul.
    There is really not rational way to say your 35mm original has 10344*6888 pixels worth of info. I have scanned slides since 1989 and *NEVER* seen one have that amount of info; that is a 7200 dpi scan. Only a B&W Microfilm piece of film gets near this; with a great lens at F8 with the rig on a granite block.
    Useless pixels do not matter.
    Printers want customers to get out of their heads all the gobble gook of making bloaded files with useless info,
    One can make a better giant poster out of a iPhones cellphones great image; than yours if your 10344*6888 image is really just poor and thus has only 400 by 300 pixels worth of info.
    What matters is the usefull pixels; not the made up bloaded ones
    THERE ARE A MESS OF UNKNOWNS:
    (1)a bloaded digital file of unknown bload; probably at least 5 if a tack sharp best case original; maybe by 20 if an average one; maybe by 100 if a fair or slightly blured one.
    (2) unknown printer
    (3) unknown printer settings; high quality; average; draft
    (4)unknown RIP or driver settings
    (5)unknown paper type. Super coarse canva might only support 60 to 100 ppi; fine glossy 400 to 700 dpi.
    (6)unknown viewing distance
    (7)unknown viewing light level
    (8)unknown purpose of the final print
    (9)unknown budget
    (10)unknown color balances and printer calibrations
    (11)unknown printer ink if inkjet; dye or pigmented
    (12)unknown life of final output
    (13)unknown after unknown
    ****You are basically asking a public forum how to bring raw food to an unknown master cook to cook a GREAT unknown meal; with an unknown kitchen; with unknown tools.
    Thus again here is STEVES comment:
    "Learn to WORK WITH the service you are using to make the print. If you are using a high quality service, they will tell you exactly what they need in a file to make the best print. Depending upon the output device, the requirements will vary."
    If you are scared; then ask them; they want to make you happy. If you want to tie the cooks hands; you might get a plate full of poor food. If you bring in a bloaded 10344*6888 pixel file to a printer and it really only looks like a VGA image; he should tell you that it does not have much usefull info. It is really quite common; many folks somehow thinking bloaded files help.
    When you ask another cook what type of stuff he needs; or printer it often is different. There are many thousands of printers in use and kitchens too.
    In the old days with films; one did not spend an hour talking about enlarging lenses; staples; how to adjust for focus; how a safelight works with each print customer. Today the major expense in prinring is often NOT the inkjet ink or paper; it is the customers all wrapped up in a tar ball over pixels. Today everybody is an expert; even on another shops settup they have never used. Thus when customers image for a 24x36" print really only is about 50 ppi in details; many folks want it printed at 600 dpi. As Truman said you cannot polish a turd.
    Find a local printer; focus on providing unbloaded file, Try to focus more on a image with impact instead of pixels. There is a direct correllation better poor images and pixel worry warts. Folks who worry the most about pixels create the worst inputs; all the brains power is on what mostly doent matter.
    Try a local printer; talk to them; get samples made; that is what matters.
     
  21. Thanks again.
    To Don: yes, the detail is there (provided the film has got it, of course), I've measured it, and I can see notice it. The reason scanners don't ever achieve their nominal resolution hasn't necessarily to do with interpolation but is that the effective resolution is the product of several factors, only one of which is the nominal resolution. Optics, sensor layout, focus, motor precision, all of these influence the final result.
    The sensors are in a linear array that moves along the film (let's say from top to bottom):
    - horizontal resolution is obtained in each line by reading the value captured by all the cells and resampling that to the desired output resolution. If one uses the same resolution as there are cells, then hopefully no resampling is done, but good luck finding the specs for the number of cells in the array. Anyway, this may not matter as much as it seems, because regardless of the number of cells, they will overlap in their reading of the original, and that will ultimately determine the sharpness of the scan.
    - vertical resolution is given by the motor steps, but here again the overlap of the cells' readings will determine it. If you ask for 7200dpi, then samples are taken at each 1/7200 inch (that's why scanning takes longer, but only 2x the time of a 3600dpi scan, not 4x). But since the readings overlap - not with those of the adjoining cells, in this dimension, but with those made by the same cell in the stops before and after, you never get as many true dpi as there are motor steps (notice in this case it's not a matter of interpolation, though the end result is similar).
    So the only way imo to determine whether a given DPI setting is worth it is 1) to measure it with resolution targets and 2) to look at the pictures and decide whether you like them or not. In this case, the 7200 scans do have a bit more detail than the 3600 ones (and the 48 bits do have their use), and do look better. The real issue is whether the admittedly small improvement is worth it. The only drawbacks are scan time, which isn't very important and file wieldiness, which will improve with time.
     
  22. Hi Kelly,
    Thanks for all that effective info (each lab person is different - each equipment is different - different situations require different approaches). I don't quite understand what the remaining 96% (mostly about p*x*ls) have to do with what I asked, but certainly that's just me.
    Again, you seem to imply that lab equipment can eat large files. In that case I'd be glad to leave all resampling to the lab. But can it really? From what I read here (thanks again to all of you with your links and info) and elsewhere, most machine have certain limits.
     
  23. Ask your lab what they require. If your scanner will give you 4000ppi of real resolution from 35mm film then send them 4000ppi scans or smaller if you are making small prints like an 8x12inch print. If you want to make a 40inch wide print give them the full 4000ppi scan and let then do the rest. They will either let the rip resize it or they will use software to resize it. There is no point in sending a 7200ppi scan if it is bloated.
     
  24. Hi Dave,
    Now be aware that all of these printers print a hair beyond the borders of the paper, to avoid possible white edges, so not all of the pixels you send will be printed, regardless of how many you send.​
    I've heard that some people introduce padding or margins in their image files to account for this. What's you own opinion?
    Also, the sizes and resolutions are nominal. I suspect that Mpix's nominally 250 ppi printers are really 254 ppi (10 ppmm), and Shutterfly's nominally 300 ppi printers are really 304.8 ppi (12 ppmm). Also, that 8 x 10 inch might really be, say, from a 200 or 250 mm-wide roll, and really be, say, 7.87 x 9.84 inches (200 x 250 mm). Between resolution, paper-size, and full-bleed / over-print issues, it's pretty hard for you to know unless they tell you explicitly.​
    Yes, I've come to that conclusion. I guess that one must just accept such imprecisions with the change of medium.
     
  25. António what exactly are you trying to get printed as it seems you are making this more complicated than it needs to be. I assume you have negs that you have scanned and you want to make some prints. When you print say an 8x12 from a 35mm neg you will usually lose something from around the edge but unless you had a camera with a 100% view finder you did not see it when you shot the photo in the first place. One easy way would be to give your neg to the lab and let them do the whole job.
     
  26. Antonio;
    Re 7200 DPI SCANS;
    Here I have scanned 35mm since 1989 and have over bought over 100k worth of scanners over the last 21 years.
    If somebody sends in a 35mm scan they say has 7200 dpi worth of info; that comes across more like a religion; believing in Bigfoot than actual experience.
    I have seen his done several hundred times by many many dozens of folks; and have *yet to see* that 7200 dpi is more than BS or hokem or a dream; or a want. Maybe someday it will happen. Nikon and Canons 35mm scanners are only 4000 dpi device for a reason
    Thus *HERE* the BS red light flashes extremely high with 7200 dpi claims; or with bull dozers getting 1 liter per kilometer' or tri-x being pushed to iso 20,000. It somebody says the 7200 dpi scan is from a flatbed we light up the entire Christmass tree's red lights!
    ****One can argue until the end of time whether a 35mm frame really is 69 megapixels.
    If I compare Mr Guru's 7200 dpi 35mm scans to my two 35 and 50 megapixel 4x5"scan backs real usefull pixels; all I see is total hokem, wild claims; total BS; made up pixels; ie BLOAD.
    No 35mms scans of any type even drum scans hold as much info as my 50 megapixel scan back captures; no 35mm scan inhouse or farmed out going back 21 years; over many hundreds of thousands of scans.
    Thus we differ. You believe in Bigfoot and 7200 dpi scans were I just see claims and no real evidence.
    7200 will look better than a 3600 scan. The point I am making is that typically 4000 pulls out about most; and say 5400 might work better on 1 in 10000 and that 7200 is a more of hokem; it basically brands you like if you claimed to push tri-x to 20,000; folks wonder.
    ****All this stuff matters. If Andrew's Acme printer according to Andrews great experience works for your 24x36" print at 350 ppi; he might assume that your input is not upsized to the moon; or over scanned a bunch; or gobble gook.
    Many times 35mm stuff can be printed at 24x36" at all sorts of different ppi levels sent to the printer and *most all looks the same.*
    Your UNcropped 7200 dpi 35mm film scan is about a 300 ppi 24x36" image. *If then you crop it alot* and only have a 100ppi 24x36" image; you might upsize it to 350 ppi to meet Andrews Acme printer.
    The image then is like a 25,200 dpi scan. ie (350/100)*7200 dpi . Inputs like this are done every day by guru customers; they over scan; then upsize and wonder why the final print is not a masterpiece.
    (1)You should work with a local printer and get samples at your target print sizes.
    (2) A 7200 dpi scan implies bload; thus in trying to figure what ppi to make a print you are dealing with goofy/hokey pixels numbers anyway. This further blurs dialog; you have a ruler that is rubber but want machinist accuracy of what ppi to use; or a totally unknown printer.
    Scanners will probably not get better with time; they already peaked 10 years ago in performance.
    The real issue with printers is dealing with ill digital files; each year there is more bload. The cost of dealing with this issue is far greater than inkjet ink; which here is many thousand per year. Thus I charge different; if customer A's stuff is always a hassle; you charge more; if B's is easier you can pass on the savings. If every job we do for client "A" MrGuru requires 1/2 hour dealing with his confusion about pixels; and there is no learning; it gets old after while. It is a real cost; GREATER than the ink or paper. It is a delicate situation there egos are huge an there is no end to the bload and upsizing. They bring in 35mm scans that require 1 per CD; or will not fit on a CD; ie a DVD is required.
    Again; the almost perfect correlation is that pixel worry warts have the worst images; ones without any impact or soul; 99.99 percent of their concern is about dpi and ppi; thus only 0.01 percent is about soul and impact.
    The best giant posters we every printed were shot by a teenager with a 35mm disposable on a white water rafting trip
     
  27. Hi Stuart,
    I don't know about making anything complicated. I'm just trying to know what is there to know about all of this.
    You're right that the images on the negatives seem to have a bit more field than what was in the viewfinder (of course no one knows exactly with such precision what was there). As to what I have, mostly all sorts of stuff - good film, not-so-good film, shot with very nice Canon and Pentax SLRs, shot with an Instamatic, very good shots from a P&S Kodak I once had... I'm not looking for the exact recipe for a given picture to print perfect, rather trying to get the knowledge required to form my own recipes.
     
  28. Hi, Kelly,
    I just suggest you should take time to read/hear what others say before you reply. I've noticed you fail to do so often in these forums. I don't know if you've been given that advice before, but it's well meant and you'd only benefit by taking it.
    'In fact they are above the effective resolving power of the scanner, and the film itself, so they can be shrunk without loss of detail, if done properly.' - What does this suggest to you?
    'With luck, it goes almost to 4000 when in scanning at 7200. Scanning at 3600 yields a little less.' - What does this suggest to you?
    Another suggestion is that you cut interpolated stuff from your replies - there is information there, but what's the use of a 1000-word post when only 50 words are informative? Please take this constructively. I'm convinced there is valuable information on what you write, all the more given your experience in the field, but no one benefits if it is hard to find.
    The best giant posters we every printed were shot by a teenager with a 35mm disposable on a white water rafting trip​
    I can believe that.
     
  29. Antonio;
    The recipes can vary by the cook and kitchen and printer person and print shop.
    A recipe is a good analogy
    Thus if you ask cook #1 on how to do stuff and take your stuff to cook#2 and preach "do it this way or else" you come across as somewhat odd. The two cooks can have different equipment; forcing cook#2 to use cook#1's methods can backfire if you tie his hands or limit his options.
    If your break down and deal with cook#2 directly; you can learn what inputs works best for cook #2's kitchen ways; and thus get better results; ie you have not tied his hands; insulted him or brought in rotten eggs and foul meat to work with.
    As far as resolution; print shop #3 might get mostly bloaded or low res files and Print shop #4 might get more high end stuff; or a mix too. If print shop #3's stuff is mostly the bloaded or low res stuff; there is no reason to calibrate the heads as much; they can be way off and it doesnt matter. Shop #4's better printer might have selected heads; ultra calibrations and used for mapping and printing fine details; a lessor printer for the typical sunset and cat fine fart stuff that has not much info.
    ****Dealing with the actual print shop will give you better results; but you will *have to talk* to them.
    Bload is a real issue with printers; a vexed one. Folks will read this thread and then scan a 1950's box cameras 6x6cm negative shot with a single element lens with a flatbed at 7200dpi and want a tack sharp poster; from a crummy/fair original. This not unusual; more like the norm and is getting worse each day.
    If you take your work to cook #2 or printer #4 and preach to use cook #1's and printer #3's methods; it does not always work well. It is like if you shot wedding for 20 years and bride and groom tell you to only used SD cards; or Fuji film or an XYZ zoom. They are the customer; but they want you to use another shooters recipe; if you do not use their recipe; you are viewed as wrong! :)
    What matters is good result; and not tying folks hands. If you actually talk to your target print shop; the recipe can be better since it is for their equipment
    I would suggest you actually talk to your target printer and learn something; ie the proper receipe.
    I haved on this thread you find it really difficult to understand that different places have different requirements
     
  30. If you have to resample for a 8x12 print starting from your big image, pay attention to aliasing artifacts.
     
  31. Hi Kelly,
    I haved on this thread you find it really difficult to understand that different places have different requirements​
    Golly, have I given such an impression? Was it when I wrote
    'each lab person is different - each equipment is different - different situations require different approaches'?
    Or
    '[Thank] Steve for the advice. I haven't yet settled on a lab, but there's one or two in my area that maybe will turn out to be good. It's something I hadn't thought of, but if indeed the lab is good, the people will be pleased to give you the info you need.'?
    Or
    'I'm not looking for the exact recipe for a given picture to print perfect, rather trying to get the knowledge required to form my own recipes.'?
    Again, I must point out that you seem to make a lot of assumptions that are not only unwarranted but actually dis-warranted. It's as if you didn't take the time to read things and only scanned for a few dreaded keywords ('pixels', '7200', &c). I think that's a pity. I wouldn't care if you didn't look like you actually know stuff, but since you do, it's a bit frustrating.
     
  32. Kelly,
     
     
    You seem to be arguing with nobody but yourself. The idea of huge image file with little real detail would seem in part to be what has set you off, but if you read the OP's first post his is suggesting, sensibly, that it might be best to down size the image to 300ppi for the rather modest print size he was looking at. In short he was suggesting resizing his image to just over 8MP for an 8 x 12 inch print, the short answer is this would be a very reasonable image size to send to a printer.
     
    But somehow you seem to be stuck on the huge file size he is starting with, but he never suggested sending that size image to the printer.
     
     
    Take a couple of deep breaths and relax just a bit.
     
  33. Hi Antonio; I understand you frustration. It is equal on both sides of the counter too!
    For many printer hardware a 250 to 300 ppi image is a good target. If in doubt; ask; test. It is *GOOD* to have doubts and question too; since this is a complex thing.
    What amount of info is actually in a 35mm slide varys all over the place. It is on probably 1/10 of photo.nets threads; and is an endless discussion. Like dog chasing its tail. My point about the 7200 dpi levels it is outerspace numbers; thus it points to a bloaded image. It does have a bearing in a discussion. This is because the input to a printer is not all good usable pixels; but of many made up ones.
    The thread naturally opens up a can of worms. It starts off with a "hands tied" situation and a bloaded input.
    It asks (1)"How to ensure no resampleing during printing" but then mentions the input is 35mm (2) "10344*6888, 48 bits per pixel."


    (1) and (2) cause a conflict to a print shop ; it is not an assumption.


    If the image is sent to make a 8x10" print; the rip; printer; print engine is not going to use all those pixels; they get tossed out. This happens too if you are at Walmart making 4x6" prints at a Kiosk too; the software will not use pixels it cannot deal with. Too big a file will even crash some systems. Many consumer stuff cannot even handle a 48 bit file too.


    The subject is even more vexing if one has printed digital stuff for 21 years; there are many exceptions; too many egos. The upgrade to a RIP can change things too; software is not perfect. To big a file can actually make a print look worse is some cases; since many printers are adding stuff to reduce giant files to practical ones.


    If you have two 10344*6888 pixel images; (A) might be a drum scans from a sharp 4x5 transparency; and (B) might be from the 7200 dpi 35mm scan. (A) will have more "real/useable" pixels than (B). That is not really an assumption; more like Fact.


    Ok Now with we send both images (A) and (B) to Andrews Acme printer for 36x54 inch posters; (B) will look sharper if we get close; but both might look the same at say 1 meters away. Some samples/sections of the prints you want to make are the most educational thing. You can look at them. (A) often has 5 to 10 times the info of an input like (B).


    With small 5x7" print; (A) and (B) might look the same; here printer is the limit


    With a giant 36x54" print (A) will show more details; here the image is the limit.


    There are all sorts of printers in use around the world. Not all pixels are equal. It is not an assumption that the publics inputs for digital images has an ultra wide range of quality. At the extremes there are a lot of goofy things folks do.
    With a known exact printer and exact rip or driver plus print size the requirement become more clear.
    Many folks just buy their own printers so they can do all their own printing and thus not have to deal with talking to a shop.
    Pixels that are useless tend to bother us printers; since it adds nothing. For customers it adds hope.
    Tying a carpenter, plumber or printers hands sometimes can cause issues. You are dicating to another how to do their job; when you have no experience with their tools they use. Human relations wise it is better to tell them what you want as results; then how to do it step by step. If you become buddies with the local carpenter; you both will learn something and get better results. The chance drops if a craftsman gets dicated to; it builds a giant wall instead of a bridge.
    It is in a printers or carpenters best interest to get good inputs; and deal with a local person. It reduces scrap; reduces labor costs. It might be "diswarranted" to deal with a local printer or carpenter; but you will get better results using their recipe as a guide; than somebody 2000 miles away.
    ***Scott;

    the title mentions no-resizing.

    Take a deep breath:) ; it is the title "How to ensure no resampleing during printing"

    It is also the question "I wouldn't want them to be further resampled in the photo lab. I mean, I'd like to do all the processing myself, and then just have the photo lab print them."

    That is why folks should try to use a local printer

    It is actually normal for folks to not want images resized. But the RIP and printers cannot print at astromonical dpi levels; thus those scared pixels get tossed.
     
  34. Hi Scott;

    RE "The idea of huge image file with little real detail would seem in part to be what has set you off, b"


    It DOES set many printers off; since it is a huge labor cost to deal with.
    This is because the most common thing being done; and is a big HUGE mess. It is like if you give a carpenter house drawing with dimensions to thousands of an inch and tell him that is the way I want it; I am the expert; I heard it on the internet.! :)


    What it means as a printer is that a huge part of the population is creating bloaded files; and it is getting worse day. I purposely said "printers rant on " and "printers rant off" up the thread.
    There are working pros who have taken a 3 megapixel cameras image and upsized so much that each image is 800 to 1000 megs; when the "original" is just a 500k Jpeg. Thus when one has a rush job to print and the images take 1/2 day on an FTP with a 1.4M down speed and 14M up ; it does set us off. One has expert pros with upsized to the moon images; and the labor spent dealing with files. There is no reason to balloon 1 dozen 1/2 meg Jpegs to be 2 to 5 gigs; but some folks do. Thus we deal with the Elephant few here like to talk about; ie megabload. By the tone of this thread it is the elephant in the room. To fix it we have to downsample; opposite of the titles request not to do.


    Because of this growing mess; I would prefer that more folks understand pixels.


    When the bulk of that big 24x36" print on some jobs is really labor and not ink and paper; Houston we have a problem.


    From a practical standpoint folks printing cost can climb with ill inputs. ; and the rush job delayed; and even the quality ruined.
     
  35. I believe it was pretty clear that what the OP was after was not to keep the printer from dumping his rather large number of pixels, but rather if the image was going to be down sized he wanted to do the down sizing.
    To be honest if I could figure a way to get one to one printing of my pixels I would also want to do this, but I have given up since places like Costco might print at 300ppi, but then they will print a bit larger then the paper make centering tolerances manageable. The end result is that if I send Costco a 8x12 in print size to exactly 300 ppi it is going to print at just a bit less then 300 ppi.
    So anymore if the image file is fairly small, say less then 20MP, I just send the whole image up and let their machine do the downsizing.
     
  36. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I believe it was pretty clear that what the OP was after was not to keep the printer from dumping his rather large number of pixels, but rather if the image was going to be down sized he wanted to do the down sizing.​
    I think some are making this way more complicated than it needs to be. Assume the output device is producing 300dpi if you can’t get a straight answer. If you want an 8x10, you simply sample however you wish (I’d use Photoshop’s Bicubic Sharper which was designed for downsizing or better, from a raw original, use Lightroom’s Adaptive sizing), in this case providing 2400x3000 pixels, sharpen for that size (and intended output device; contone, Ink Jet, halftone) and be done. Its all pretty darn simple really and folks have been doing this for decades.
    Again, assuming optimal output sharpening without knowing the pixel dimensions and device is a far bigger guess and will affect the quality of the output more than worrying about taking a big-ass-file and worrying about how some lab’s front end is going to resample it (which ultimately it will have to do). And why transmit a huge file with something half its size is all that is necessary, especially when you end up flying blind in the all important output sharpening stage of this process? KISS!
     
  37. "The thread naturally opens up a can of worms. It starts off with a 'hands tied' situation and a bloaded input." K.F. May 21, 2010; 03:37 p.m.​
    Kelly, you seem so sensitized from your experiences receiving bloated input that you seem to have missed the purpose of the Original Post:
    "So I'd like to feed them exactly the pixels they need, or at least an approximate number if they do have some tolerance." Original Post​
     
  38. Paul;
    What it really means is us service bureaus often charge rates that differ by 4 to 1 for the same outputs.
    Often it is a Y=MX +B issue; where the settup cost is B.

    B for Bulldung or Bload; dealing with Mr Guru; Mr Expert printing; Mr Bload; Mr PITA; MR lets make every input not "KISS" but lecture by Mr customer on dpi/ppi.
    Charging more works. Thus B can vary all over the place. Costs may or may not matter to many folks here.
    (1)Some folks "get it" an are trainable; ie they do not tie a printers hands; do not make each print job a nightmare micromanaging each step; do not make each prints labor exceed the ink and papers cost.
    (2) Other folks who have giant egos and are experts are not trainable; they know about as muchs as a 2 years old knows about a Saturn V rocket; but are hell bent on being a massive &$%^ royal PITA to the n'th degree. You have to charge the folks more; they are majorleague time wasters on EACH JOB; even the tenth one. ie there is no learning; their brains are full.
    Thus if is in the best interest for folks to talk to the target printer; get their recipe; get better results; to get a BETTER PRICE by providing a decent input. The *taboo* subject is the elephant in the room; the *B* component hits newcomers nerves. It is actually the MAJOR cost on many print jobs.
    If folks want to be a PITA to ones car mechanic you too can dictate at every step how to their job; at some point your wallet is going to be effected do to the ego issues of being a dictator to all the craftwmen you deal with and the added time wasted.

    Antonio is asking others on what recipe to take to an unknown print shop with unknown printers and unknown RIPS and unknown requirements. This is great. But I hope that he does too ask the target printer too; and does not tie their hands or bring in a weird input. Since it is the *NORM* today not to bring in a KISS input; newcomers here seem to get hurt.

    As a print shop I can say is that last thing we want is customers like type (2) PITA who dicate to use others recipes which are poor and degrade quality or make the labor per print 5 to 100 times more.
    If the requiements are stiffling; Antonio may pay more. Money pay or may not be a concern to him. Antonio is a great person to ask these questions; the hope is the dialog starts too with the actual printer.
    Type (2) PITA folks often get tidbits of info from the internet or other shops; but get it wrong and thus what would be a simple job involves alot more labor, handholding, explaining. Many type (2) folks who have never even used a printer become instant experts and overbearing and even the 5th to 10th print job is not KISS but a PITA.
    Whole point about Antonio actually contacting a local printer is a KISS input can reduce the B component by a factor of 10 to 20 and he might get a better cost.
    If Andrew has an Acme-Andrew wazoo printer that I have never used I sure would not dictate the input. If he said 300ppi for a 16x20" print and I wanted to experiment; I might send him a variant at 300 ppi; 350ppi; 400ppi; 250ppi ; 200ppi and label them X,C,H,Q and G in the image; and see what they look like.
    That is how here I see what a printer will do; I run an actual test with different image types.
    If every input I send him is not KISS and is a PITA he will if wise charge me more. As a practical exercise if Antonio and I send Andrew 300 ppi images that are slightly compressed Jpegs for our 16x20"'s they will look about the same as TIFF inputs.
    IF Antonio's inputs are great and mine require Andrew a mess of time after awhile that time has to be pondered. If my inputs are 12 images of 1.8 Gigs each on 5+ DVD's Andrews printer might bog; choke; crash. Thus he might have to run a batch file to downsize my megabload images to practical ones.
    Here I have *BANKS* of computers whose sole purpose in life is the transform Elephant inputs to practical ones.
    If all my print inputs tie up Andrews printer; he cannot print Antonios rush job; even with his great KISS inputs. Image Bload is like health care; or taxes; or tarballs; a touchy subject here on photo.net.
     
  39. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    What it really means is us service bureaus often charge rates that differ by 4 to 1 for the same outputs.
    Often it is a Y=MX +B issue; where the settup cost is B.

    B for Bulldung or Bload; dealing with Mr Guru; Mr Expert printing; Mr Bload; Mr PITA; MR lets make every input not "KISS" but lecture by Mr customer on dpi/ppi.​
    Can someone translate that into English? I’m even studying Spanish (only 3 months so far), I’d be fine with that language too. If this is how a representative of a lab/service bureau communicates in a photo forum, I can only imagine what it must be like in-person on site. Thank god I have my own (simple to use and excellent) Epson printers on site. You simply tell Photoshop or Lightroom what size print you want, as long as the image resolution falls between 180-480ppi, you send it to the driver and move on. KISS and great, wide gamut, archival output on all nature of substraight, at high bit too boot.
     
  40. Basically my experience has been what Kelly and Steve first said. Work with your printer. They will tell you the best parameters for your print. It will also depend on the type of printer as well, ie ink jet, light jet, etc etc. If your print service doesn't know or doesn't want to take the time to tell you, find one who does.
     
  41. If Andrew has an Acme-Andrew wazoo printer that I have never used I sure would not dictate the input. If he said 300ppi for a 16x20" print and I wanted to experiment; I might send him a variant at 300 ppi; 350ppi; 400ppi; 250ppi ; 200ppi and label them X,C,H,Q and G in the image; and see what they look like.
    That is how here I see what a printer will do; I run an actual test with different image types.​
    Kelly the things are more simple. You have not to do a lot of tests to know at what PPI value the driver rasters the image.
    Sometimes the value (values as there is not such a thing as a single value) is in the printer techinal specifications. Professional labs knows the right PPI value, depending on printer settings.
    If you have a home printer and you can run a Windows application, go to:
    http://www.photoresampling.com/index_eng.php
    and download "Printer Data".
    As soon as you know the PPI value, you can resample your image for the print size.
    Use an optimal resampling algorithm to upsize or downsize.
    That's all !
     
  42. Just out of curiosity, Kelly, at what dpi would you suggest printing the "Dual Krups" photo in your portfolio?
    ( http://www.photo.net/photo/1111407 )
     
  43. Andrew; it is really quite simple; even in the cave man era *time* mattered in making spears.
    Since many folks on photo.net are not involved in an actual business; I fully understand how difficult it is for many folks here to understand how labor effects costs.
    ****In an actual real business; time matters.
    Thus if the final output the caveman makes is about the same two spears with some minor changes; Client C who takes 5 minutes versus Client C who always takes 2 hours matters.
    If the "custom changes" are always a major PITA; a wiser person charges more; since the set up cost is more. This is a foreign concept on photo.net; actually talking about charging more; where there is more labor. There are always many threads going if folks should actually charge anything fro shooting a wedding; or a party. Plumbers seem not to be so confused.
    If the task is to make 10 spears for both clients; and Client C absorbs 50 minutes time to dicate how to make 10 spears; client C takes 20 hours time.
    Y=MX +B is in 8th grade algebra. Let Y be the total cost of the producer to make spears; X is the number of spears; ie 10 . B is the offset; ie the set up cost of starting each unique job. If client C always has zero learning; cannot communicate; provides weird bloaded inputs; the "B" cost is higher.
    In an actual real world business; time matters.
    Clients who are not know it alls; but trainable can provide better inputs and thus get a better turnaround and better prices. Your reward folks with better prices.
    The same goes with using a machine shop; if you give bizzare goofy tight requirements in materials and tolerances; costs often are higher. Thus if client C has a drawing for his broken wheelbarrow bracket/handle be made out of titianuim with 1/10,000 inch tolerances; he might pay more than client D who takes the wheelbarrow there to have the machinest make one .
    Again in case C one has a lot more useless labor; in case D the machinist does not have his hands tied; or doe not have insane stupid inputs either.
    Labor costs matter if you run your own business.
    Giant elephant inputs take more time. Since labor is not free; time is money. Thus you "reward" customers who do not bring in elephant PITA bloaded inputs with lower prices.
    ****In an actual real business; time matters.
    Photo.net seems not to be populated much by folks who understand costs, materials and labor; thus the "B" component might be difficult is one is a government employee or run a lemonaid stand.
    Much of basic business is learned on the street. A NYC hotdog vendor knows that they need to charge more when a customer causes a massive amount of waste in material or time.
    None of his is anything new; 50,000 years ago folks charged more for oddball's stuff.
    It really should be photo.nets purpose to explain basics of business.
     
  44. Here are two common daily practical examples; of real life rush inputs to a Service Bureau:
    *****(1) Client E sends in via email seven Jpegs; already sized for 24x36" posters; all at good 200 to 400 ppi resolutions; all with good detail; no bload; good levels; lightly compressed. I just send then to the printer; 1 minute later the first one is coming out; they are all out and dried in less than an hour. The client is out the door mid morning; happy; he needed them by noon. I charge him less as a reward. *BOTH* ours brains are not full thus we worked out a great system that makes both of our lives easy.
    *****(2) Client F's stuff is so big it either has to be a link; or via FTP; or on disc. Your had them set up with FTP when they were using XP; but now they are using VISTA. Thus you have to deal with their IT guy at 8:30am who does not know way the FTP is disallowed. He dei an upgrade now FTP does not work. You hang on the phone while he futzes. Client F tries a whale mail thing; but we still have no files. He is antsy; he wants his stuff by noon.
    You finally get one PDF file and it is 1054 pages in a spec book; with no instructions in the email. They say it is the 7 colored pages; deal with it. Thus you scroll through 1054 pages and make a cheat sheet; there are actually 21 color pages. You have to call the client; but he is in a meeting. You email him. He calles back and you ask which of the 21 it is; oh it is rendering Q; rendering R; pie charts D. H, J, photos W and N, the client is getting ticked; the deadling looms.
    Thus one might then have to make a table of PDF page 771 is photo W; page 21 is rendering Q; page 1031 is pie chart H. You peak the properties of each page; some are legal; some are 8.15 x11; some are 30x42; some are 18x24; 2x3" some are 1x1.5 inches froma 35mm scanner.
    None of the aspect ratios match the clients 24x36" required print size. Thus one has to extract all 7 pages out of the PDF and size them ; then add white to make them all 24x36".
    You notice that 2 of them now have missing fonts; since you are now using another computer. You do not have the mrknowitall font on that box. You find the font on another box and install the font and precede. You basially are creating 7 nice 24x36" printing images from a clients missmash.
    A few of them look poor because the PDF has the one image as 2x3 by about 72 ppi. You use pixel helper and some photoshop to make the image better.
    Thus after an hour or two of fiddle farting you print Clients F's 6 images. But then the 7th arrives via a link to bload mail at 10:30 am You down load the 400 meg file to make the 24x36" poster; and downsize it from a zillion ppi down to 300. It is all dark. Their corporate logo instead of being red is Barbie pink. You are use to this; they alway do this. Thus you use your Photoshop magic and fix their crummy scanned image; and then and send it to the printer.
    You are finally done at 11:50am and one has a hot cocky client who is really mad; you almost missed their deadline. As a print shop you feel you spend this 1/2 day mostly bulldogging this one ill job. The client comments that I should buy more modern equipment. If one mentions that it was all about their fault; the client head might explode.
    ****Since few on Photo.net like to talk about labor; most folks would not charge extra for 1 to 2 hours worth of labor dealing with client F's job.
    Both clients called at 8am Monday. Client E's stuff is picked up and paid for midmorning while Client F's job has nothing printed yet at 10:30; is finally done at 11:50am.
    One has to TWO cases; one provides any easy input; another a more involved input that involves callbacks; sizing; cropping; finding fonts; talking to their IT guy; waiting on whale mail type delays; downsizing bloaded file; photoshop; color corrections.
    A NYC hotdog vendor with no education would know to charge more for stuff that takes more time; the "B" component.
    Goofy ill inputs cause more labor. Typically pros charge more ; ie the charge for their labor. This goes against the grain of many folks here.
    ****There really is only two thing that can be done:
    (1)charge exactly the same for Client E and F; or
    (2)charge more for the added labor for Client F's poorer inputs; discount for good inputs.
    ***Case (1) penalizes the better client E ; and subsidizes client F
    Case (2) rewards the better client E; and hurts client F; he has no welfare anymore supported by others.
    The Basis on many threads on many photo.net thread is often do folks even charge folks for photography.
    Thus concepts (1) and (2) is more of a socialism versus capitalism concept; a hot potato; ie liberal versus conserative; mac verus PC.:)
    In digital printing for 20+ years the long term trend is poorer and poorer inputs,
    Mentioning ways to save printing costs via good inputs seems a taboo subject. Profits, costs and labor matters to a few of us; the minority!
    With a new client; you expect issues. If after many jobs the "B" component is much labor; you either have to charge him extra ; or raise prices on all to float the added labor costs of others.
    Some folks actually prefer to get better prices by using good inputs.
     
  45. Kelly,
    Whereas clearly you have had some poor client experiences I really don’t see how any of your long sad story has much to do with the OP. The stated starting size of the OP’s is only about 0.1% off the aspect ratio of the print he wants, and I believe the OP will get that last 0.1% cleaned up before sending out the image. He does not have pages of image to wade through and he was talking about reducing the size of the image in his very first post. The size print he wants is very modest, an 8x12 inch print, which unless it is a very bad scan should look fine.
    I am still trying to figure out just what the OP said that has set you off so.
     
  46. Kelly, when a customer (or, as you phrase it, "Bulldung or Bload; dealing with Mr Guru; Mr Expert printing; Mr Bload; Mr PITA. MR lets make every input not "KISS" but lecture by Mr customer on dpi/ppi....") comes in to your service bureau and politely asks you at what pixel dimensions he should prepare his file, approximately how many words do you use to give him an answer?
     
  47. Hi folks,
    Thanks again for your help. What I gather from your responses is:
    - It can be quite hard to know just what size to use, unless you're printing at home
    - A good lab can give you the info you need
    - Some image processing may be unavoidable
    - You can count on a good lab to process it the best way possible
    Though I also gather that proper color management and sharpening are something of a Holy Grail, when it could all be so simple.
    But either way you'll only benefit by becoming familiar with what info is available. Thanks for the links and opinions.
     

Share This Page