How to ensure no resampling during printing?

kelly_flanigan1 · May 21, 2010

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

ant_nio_marques · May 21, 2010

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.

ant_nio_marques · May 21, 2010

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

</blockquote>

I can believe that.

kelly_flanigan1 · May 21, 2010

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

jacopo_brembati · May 21, 2010

If you have to resample for a 8x12 print starting from your big image, pay attention to aliasing artifacts.

ant_nio_marques · May 21, 2010

Hi Kelly,

I haved on this thread you find it really difficult to understand that different places have different requirements

</blockquote>

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.

swilson · May 21, 2010

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.

kelly_flanigan1 · May 21, 2010

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.

kelly_flanigan1 · May 21, 2010

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.

swilson · May 21, 2010

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.

digitaldog · May 21, 2010

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.

</blockquote>

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!

paul_f3 · May 22, 2010

"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.

</blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

kelly_flanigan1 · May 22, 2010

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.

digitaldog · May 22, 2010

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.

</blockquote>

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.

Uhooru · May 23, 2010

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.

jacopo_brembati · May 23, 2010

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.

</blockquote>

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 !

paul_f3 · May 23, 2010

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 )

kelly_flanigan1 · May 23, 2010

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.

kelly_flanigan1 · May 23, 2010

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.

swilson · May 23, 2010

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.

paul_f3 · May 23, 2010

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?

ant_nio_marques · May 25, 2010

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.

Sign In

How to ensure no resampling during printing?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in