How large a file to give a printer, sort of question ...?

[david-m]

My D2X produces tiff file sizes of around 35Mb, and much less if there is cropping. So far

if I want a large enlargement I would

upsize in PS and print at 300dpi on my own inkjet. If I want a company to do this

professionally for me (to get larger than A3 sizes) should I just give them the 35Mb (or

smaller) file, tell them what final print size I want

and let their printer upsize it (or whatever it does) or should I present them with the final

image size at the correct print resolution? What would give the best results?

 

Thanks.

[byronlawrence]

a lot of the print places I have read/talked with have said to just give the native image size. they/their priner will resize it accordingly.

 

I would say make a jpeg and send that to them. as long as the jpeg is first generation you will probably not have any problems.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Ahh, TRUST! Will the subcontractor do my "art" and "craft" for me?

 

Here's what I've discovered:

 

360dpi input for Epson inkjets

 

300dpi input for HP, Canon, Lexmark and other inkjet.

 

?dpi input for other -- ask the printer operator or the manufacturer.

 

Any other input dpi gets interpolated in the printer driver and wastes time and may surprise you and make it hard for you to learn what effects YOU cause and what effects the interpolation algorythm causes.

 

8-bit per Red/Green/Blue color channel TIF or uncompressed JPG -- YOU do the pre-sharpening by eye and by experience before sending unless you trust un-resharpened print outs or you trust the printer operator to accurately (oh, yeah, right!) do it for you to your standards.

 

Embed your color profile and hope they respect it.

 

Try, try, try again.

 

Me? I just send the print job and hope it fits, incrementing the size down in the printer output control software until it does, although calculating EXACT print dimensions and resizing in something smart like free http://www.irfanview.com/ simplifies everything down the road -- 8 bit per channel output only, though, but that's fine for printing.

 

What does the print shop tell you to do -- you HAVE spoken with them and asked them the same questions and gotten their specifications, right?

 

Let us know what you find out and what you do.

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

PS - Telling us the MB size of the file without telling us the bit depth invalidates the meaning of the file size. 35mb 8-bit per channel or 16-bit per channel? And what brand is your inkjet? Most wide carriage inkjets can print nicely for large prints that will be seen from a greater dfistance (NOT inspected close up) at ~1/2 their input resolution -- 150dpi to 180dpi -- with no problem. Tell us more.

[jtk]

I believe the "native" (default) resolution of current and recent Epsons is 720ppi. I'm certain (experience) that slightly better results obtain at 1440 and that none obtains above that. Half that default (eg 360) will obviously be less.

 

The common lore is that Epson wants an even factor of 720, either 360, 720, or 1440, and anything that's not an even factor (eg 300, 1000) will force the machine (driver?) to 720, perhaps introducing noise.

 

Comments? Corrections from experience?

[scott_eaton]

Ink jets can be quirky on this matter, and I still deal with labs that tell me to up-size to 360 with Photoshop because it does a better job than their Epson drivers. I take their advice vs argue about it. Not sure if the new 2400 does a better job.

 

My shops that deal with LightJet out-put however don't seem to care because that device does such a good job with interpolation anyways. I give them the most data I can, and let the LightJet deal with filling in the blanks.

[jtk]

Scott, I don't think it's possible to print directly from Photoshop...it's not a printer driver. When one uses Photoshop in printing, it's intermediated by a printer driver.

 

I don't think it's possible to beat the Epson driver unless one installs a specialized printer driver (such as QTR, which I use for B&W).

 

If your lab is printing at 360, ask them to try 1440, just for grins :-)

 

However, half of what I "know" is wrong and the rest is iffy :-)

[jimstrutz]

John, you do realize that printer resolution of 1440 dpi is not the same thing as image resolution, right?

 

I have always heard (from people testing such things) that when using Epson printers there is a marginal increase in quality going from 240dpi to 360dpi, and no noticable gain after that. Anybody have experience that differs?

 

Another thought. If your printing company prints the image at 300dpi, and wants you to supply it to them that way, and you know that they always crop the edges a bit when printing, should you not provide the image sized to something like 3200 pixels for a 10" print?

 

Just questions. That's all I got.

[tom_swanson]

Seems like a good place to post this.

 

Nice free plugin at the end of the article...

 

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_60/essay.html

 

If I have a serious resize to do I like trying that plugin. Sometimes it works great. Othertimes you look at its results and just toss the original at the printer to see what it does.

[bobmichaels]

My experience supports a marginal quality increase from 240 to 360 dpi at print size, and no more after 360 dpi using Epsons.

 

I can also see no difference between 1440 and 2880 on the printer. OK, I can with a very good loupe, just not my naked eye.

 

I've never sent a print out for anyone else to print.

[scott_eaton]

<I>John, you do realize that printer resolution of 1440 dpi is not the same thing as image resolution, right? </i><P>Thank you.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Some printers have alignments of the print heads. If they are not aligned; then fine detail is lost. An image going higher in ppi does nothing then to add detail. In the heat of battle of printing; a bulk ink cartridge may run out; and you might be just printing some low quality images that doesnt tax the printer. It might be then one aligns the heads after the rush of the day; and again before some detailed work like fine maps or aerial photos. With the quickly swapped out head; the ultimate sharpness of the printer can be way less; but it often doesnt matter (right then) for the task at hand. <BR><BR>Upsizing alot doesnt really help much on many printers; it just makes a larger file; that adds no extra quality. <BR><BR>Provide a non upsized natural image to your printer too. Many times the print will be the same; or even better; and wont clog the workflow of the RIP. <BR><BR>In the quest to make large prints; sometimes customers go crazy and do some real goofy things; like a boob. Once we got ONE CD per image; from a chaps 5MP camera. The Photoshop certified OAF printed his images on a inkjet printer about say 8x10 inches; than scanned them at 2400dpi with a flatbed; and made these jpegs that were 1.3Gig when opened; and were about 600meg jpegs on the CD. The scan of the inkjet killed the highlights and shadows; and contained all the flaws and banding of the printer. The "original jpegs" from the camera were about 200 to 350k each; and RADICALLY better to use; without the fluff of a botched upsizing attempt. The customers reason to do the weird upsing method was to "make a better file for our printer". Saddly stuff like this is not really that rare.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The apparent resolution is also a function of the ink to paper combo. Some combos micro-wick the ink in; and the sharpness is less; because there is a spread to the dots laid down on the paper/coating.<BR><BR>Some rips just toss out all this fluffed up customer upsizing; when a file is above what the printer will support.<BR><BR>In practice alot of folks should be concerned with checking for blown highlights; instead of worrying about upsizing methods. A real goof customer may want all extra care with upsizing; fluffing a file to the moon; then want it printed on a rough canvas; where the resolution is really quite poor.

[gary m]

My experience on Epson printers - I could barely tell the difference between a 300 and 360 ppi image sent to the printer...maybe...and only in areas such as a large blue sky. I couldn't tell the difference between 1440 and 2880 dpi on the printer.

 

(Sorry David - we seem to have gotten off of your question a bit). I would ask your lab what they recommend. If it's a decent lab, they should give you the answer that works best for their setup.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Don't confuse "native" versus "input" resolutions.

 

In Windows, the printer drives for the INKJET printers mentioned are 360dpi for Epson, 300dpi for others. Many laser printers have 1,200dpi input.

 

"Native" resolution is what? Print head and drive motor dot center spacing?

 

Regardless, these printer drivers take 360dpi or 300dpi input files, and anything larger or smaller gets interpolated.

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Pete Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[byronlawrence]

ok there is a difference between native and un-resized.

 

most labs I have experience with say just supply the original size in the file... the resolution makes no difference their software/printer/driver will do the resizing to the correct resolution at your requested size. . submit a tiff or jpeg. with no profile..or sRGB if you have to have one. they will do the rest.. so ask what the lab requires and supply that. If you do what the lab says and you get poor results. go to another lab.

 

printing at home is different of course

[erik scanhancer]

Regarding the 360 dpi matter on Epson printers: I was told by a company that designs RIPs

that the actual native resolution of the Epson 2100 and up (2200, 2400, 4000, 4800) is 720

dpi. From my own testing I had found this too. When I send a 360 dpi file to the printer (and

print it at 1440 dpi printerpolation) and I send a 720 dpi file (also at 1440 dpi

printerpolation) the 720 dpi file comes out slightly sharper and especially smoother. So for

images that need to be observed from a close distance I keep the print files at 720 dpi. For

big prints that will only be viewed from distances accordingly suitable I print 360 dpi files.

[byronlawrence]

I think to avoid confusion in these discussions you should use ppi and dpi as different terms.

 

you supply 720 and 360 ppi files

 

and the printer prints in dpi stuff,, using the ppi resolution.

[kelly_flanigan1]

With our color copier; it is a "600 dpi class device". In printing detailed maps; one CAN see the difference between a 250, 300, 350 and 400 ppi with a SHARP image; or map with dinky "font from hell" type. The difference between an 300 to 350 is easy to see when one has microdetail; and one closely inspects the print. The go of 350 to say 400 is just some increase in detail; as the machines detail limit is reached. Rarely is 400 ppi used; unless warranted.<BR><BR>Typically the lay/oaf public is hooked on what ppi is required; with their fine art sunset; dog image; that sadly might be only a 50ppi image. <BR><BR>Some of us printers dont print directly from windows with our larger printers; we creat an eps or other format file; that is moved to the RIP box; which chews it up; then we cue it to print the job. <BR><BR>The max ppi where one sees no change depends on the image. Some of these files are printed as required; on an ongoing basis; each week or month. Clogging up the rip box with bloaded ; fluffed up files that add no real quality seems to be getting worse. Customers are getting dumber. It is real typical to downsize a customers image to practical sizes; where the quality for the project is NOT detectable. Sometimes one can downsize 10 to 100 times or more. This is quite sad; one can downsize an image 100 times in size with NO change in quality. On a downsize project for stored images one does tests to see what is required. <BR><BR>With a super detailed wall map with dinky street names; some of us use ppi values for our images way beyond the 360 ppi numbers folks are throwing around here; to make a more professonal image. With a mixed PHOTO and micro TEXT advert poster; many times the ppi required is really only 100 to 150 for the PHOTO; and 300 to 350 for the microtext. So the text's tighter criteria stears the design of the project. This is usually where the cute blond chick draws you to the poster; and then you read the text on where to buy the product. <BR><BR>Do your own tests with your printers; to learn what ppi values are OK.