flash wrote:
Kinda. Sorta. Not really. Theoretically visual resolution on a 9900 is about 720x360dpi.
Ink printers don't really have a "resolution" limit. If you take a good quality loupe to an inkjet print you'll see that it's pretty much continuous tone. The inks blend together to form clumps of information, a bit like film. There's a pattern. That's the dithering. But essentially modern inkjet printers blend inks really well so you don't see "dots". Half tone and dot printers have an absolute resolution for the end product (that's where 300 dpi comes from - two passes of a 150dpi half tone printer).
Print resolution is in three parts. The capture resolution. The resolution you need for viewing and the best quality information that gets sent to the printer. You can't control the first (not at the print stage) but you have some say over the second two. Viewing resolution depends on the subject matter, viewing distance and the eyesight of the viewer. At 1 meter (3.3ft) not many people can resolve better than 180dpi. Some fine art printers use 240 dpi (60 is a common divisor) to ensure they're above visual resolution at normal viewing distances. You can use viewing resolution as a guide to you maximum print size for a particular file. But that's not always the file you'll send to the printer.
There's absolutely no reason you can't have a lower PPI resolution from a file as viewing distances increase or if the subject is low detail or even if you just want to push a print a little bit larger. Once you reach the viewing resolution adding more won't reveal more details to the viewer. However if you could put two otherwise identical pictures side by side and one had double the resolution of the other, even though you couldn't identify the difference in detail you could tell one is more detailed than the other. That's just how the eye works.
So you have a file that is well sized for 240 ppi at normal viewing distances as an image you then go to the third stage, which is to send a file to the printer that is optimised for that printer. With Epson that's generally multiples of 180. For Canon it's multiples of 300. For Lambda it's a 400 ppi file. This works as long as you interpolated up. Don't interpolated down unless you're really making a small print and you're hitting a 600ppi file. You interpolate between part two and part 3. If your printing from Photoshop you'd use the image size tool or a plug in like GF. You don't do this step in LR as it can do it on the fly with a very sophisticated algorithm developed partly by Geoff Schewe..
These three stages also match the three stages of an optimised sharpening workflow. Resize then sharpen for that new size.
Thanks for the detailed info.
Would you happen to know to what resolution the printer driver unprezzes the file data to internally before printing if the printer properties (eg in page setup) is set to 1440x1440 or 2880x1440?
ZoranC wrote:
I don't think that word "standard" is appropriate. I think correct word is 'taste". And I don't think his being different from yours calls for it to be "lower". What makes yours superior and who is ultimate judge of that?
My customers are the ultimate judge. My prints are sold into high end homes through an interior designer and my customers love the detail in my large prints.
I moved to the A7R with 36mpix to allow even larger prints. There is no way a 12mpix camera could deliver the quality prints my A7R delivers. That's just a fact...not opinion or a standard issue.
kosmoskatten wrote:
In practical terms I find that it isn't a big concern for normal or larger printing. People usually don't leave exhibits with ink on their noses.
No, they don't leave with ink on their noses...but I'd rather they leave with a big print in their hands. The emotional value in the print has lots to do with a purchase...but I make sure a given print stands up to close scrutiny up close as the last thing I want is a potential sale walk out being disappointed with the "pixelation" of the print when they view it up close.
Every print has a maximum size / quality limit. Going past this size lowers it's quality. Like I said before, everyone needs to decide what their quality standards are which will drive what their largest print size could be for that image. Every image is unique, lots depends on the amount of fine details in the image so there is no one rule how large you can print an image from a given sensor.
ZoranC wrote:
I don't think that word "standard" is appropriate. I think correct word is 'taste". And I don't think his being different from yours calls for it to be "lower". What makes yours superior and who is ultimate judge of that?
he did not use the word "standard" he used the word "standards" - as in 'personal taste' or 'personal target'
i find your line of thinking within this thread as somewhat defensive - if someone wants to target a very high level of detail, let them. i didn't find any comments that someone insisted that everyone must print with some extreme level of detail.
PRINT resolution is quite different than pixel peepers on the screen. I always find it amusing when i see people suggesting that they need more than 12MP in a camera when they acknowledge they mostly view/share their pics online and rarely print and never print more than 5x7. A 30" monitor is only 4MP which is about what a 5x7 print would need.
But when people are discussing making large prints, the more data/resolution the better.
I have a lot of fun, as do my guests, when standing across a room and taking in a 30" x 50" print of Positano, Italy and how beautiful the entire city is nestled in the mountainside along the Sea - and then walking up (not with your nose to the paper, but 2 feet away) and being able to see individual people and every day life - it adds a dimension to the print and experience of viewing it. Just about every one of the photos i choose to print have that dual dimension quality - they're lovely from a distance and interesting up close.
There is certainly no disadvantage to being able to print very large and at a very high resolution. So, why knock it?
I realize that many political leaders encourage people that "don't have" or "can't do" to just complain or knock down those with capabilities - but that's always seemed pathetic to me.
Spyro P. wrote:
did they pay a few thousand $ for the newspaper?
What has price got to do with anything?
Do you think art collectors pay thousands or hundred of thousands of dollars for paintings because they put their nose to the paintings and liked the brush strokes?
A 12MP camera certainly can deliver a better print than 36MP camera, because better does not solely mean more pixels.
A great photographer with a 12MP camera can sell a lot more large prints than a lousy photographer with a 36MP camera.
A large print of a foggy scene with virtually no detail can be more appealing to lots of people than a landscape showing every detail. It is called "art" and some people can't grasp that concept.
To answer the OP's question, he can make 4 foot by 6 foot prints if he wants to and it is up to him or his client whether or not the detail is acceptable. Calculations or others opinions are not relevant.
Imagemaster wrote:
A 12MP camera certainly can deliver a better print than 36MP camera, because better does not solely mean more pixels.
A great photographer with a 12MP camera can sell a lot more large prints than a lousy photographer with a 36MP camera.
A large print of a foggy scene with virtually no detail can be more appealing to lots of people than a landscape showing every detail. It is called "art" and some people can't grasp that concept.
To answer the OP's question, he can make 4 foot by 6 foot prints if he wants to and it is up to him or his client whether or not the detail is acceptable. Calculations or others opinions are not relevant. ...Show more →
Ming Thein's ultraprints are a completely different thing all together. He views them with loupes- the ultimate pixel peep. There are very few people who actually require prints like that- and I'm pretty sure he states that
Imagemaster wrote:
A 12MP camera certainly can deliver a better print than 36MP camera, because better does not solely mean more pixels.
A great photographer with a 12MP camera can sell a lot more large prints than a lousy photographer with a 36MP camera.
A large print of a foggy scene with virtually no detail can be more appealing to lots of people than a landscape showing every detail. It is called "art" and some people can't grasp that concept.
To answer the OP's question, he can make 4 foot by 6 foot prints if he wants to and it is up to him or his client whether or not the detail is acceptable. Calculations or others opinions are not relevant. ...Show more →
Wow, thanks for the insight.
I suppose you'd also suggest digging a tunnel under the English Channel with a pitchfork and shovel. It's certainly possible - right?
I really never understand why people like you show up and get involved with your whole "all you need is the Crayola 8 crayon set to create great art, who needs 64 colors" when decent people are having a polite conversation about some technical details - none of which are commenting in any way on the 'art' required to make a great photo. I grew up as one of the kids with only 8 crayons in my pack - I'm thankful I didn't grow up with a chip on my shoulder as well.
The fact is the simple question (as I saw it) from the OP was, at what size print would he begin to notice the pixels or loss of resolution. It's pretty simple that, as a general rule, it's a function of viewing distance (to establish the required ppi). We don't need to argue about what the proper viewing distance is - everyone can figure that out for themselves.
In between the garbage from the chip-on-their-shoulder types, there's actually been some good info on this thread. I for one am still digging deeper into the software driver for the Epson printers because of the difference between 360 and 1440 that was pointed out to me earlier.
Imagemaster wrote:
What has price got to do with anything?
Do you think art collectors pay thousands or hundred of thousands of dollars for paintings because they put their nose to the paintings and liked the brush strokes?
The price was irrelevant.
Your response with the painting analogy, which someone brought up once before, is also inappropriate. People do put their noises up to paintings and appreciate the brush strokes. For Pollock and Impressionists and Rembrandt it's impossible not to--just think about what those look like. But even for other less gestural oil paintings brushwork is still a crucial point of connoisseurship and appreciation. It's not the same thing as pixels at all.
Imagemaster wrote:
A 12MP camera certainly can deliver a better print than 36MP camera, because better does not solely mean more pixels.
A great photographer with a 12MP camera can sell a lot more large prints than a lousy photographer with a 36MP camera.
A large print of a foggy scene with virtually no detail can be more appealing to lots of people than a landscape showing every detail. It is called "art" and some people can't grasp that concept.
To answer the OP's question, he can make 4 foot by 6 foot prints if he wants to and it is up to him or his client whether or not the detail is acceptable. Calculations or others opinions are not relevant. ...Show more →
Another false analogy. The artful vagueness of a foggy scene is different from the pixellation of an oversize print. The former is intentional and evocative, the latter an artifact of digital reproduction that shows the medium's limits. If you take a photo of a foggy scene and make an unreasonably large print of it, the pixels will become color blocks and will actually detract from the fogginess. Even a foggy scene has sharp details that require resolution; even fog itself has texture and shape.
In fact the two kinds of vagueness make for an interesting tension and interplay. I'm sure some conceptualist photographer has done this.
Your response with the painting analogy, which someone brought up once before, is also inappropriate. People do put their noises up to paintings and appreciate the brush strokes. For Pollock and Impressionists and Rembrandt it's impossible not to--just think about what those look like. But even for other less gestural oil paintings brushwork is still a crucial point of connoisseurship and appreciation. It's not the same thing as pixels at all.
Please forgive me if I missed you already saying it somewhere (I tried to search but I couldn't find it) but what large print sizes you personally make, of what kind of scenes and with which camera they were taken?
ZoranC wrote:
Please forgive me if I missed you already saying it somewhere (I tried to search but I couldn't find it) but what large print sizes you personally make, of what kind of scenes and with which camera they were taken?
You also suggested that 17x22 was big enough for him, so it should be for everyone. If you can't already tell, I'm no fan of central planning. So, I'll print a size that suits my space, if you please. For me that is a print that is 30x52: http://www.ecarlino.net/share/LivRm.jpg
chez wrote:
My customers are the ultimate judge. My prints are sold into high end homes through an interior designer and my customers love the detail in my large prints.
I moved to the A7R with 36mpix to allow even larger prints. There is no way a 12mpix camera could deliver the quality prints my A7R delivers. That's just a fact...not opinion or a standard issue.
Your customers are ultimate judge of do they want to purchase your picture. Somebody else's customers are ultimate judge of do they want to spend their money on their picture. Standard / taste of either of customers is not automatically superior / lower just based on where they spent their money.
ecarlino wrote:
he did not use the word "standard" he used the word "standards" - as in 'personal taste' or 'personal target'
i find your line of thinking within this thread as somewhat defensive - if someone wants to target a very high level of detail, let them. i didn't find any comments that someone insisted that everyone must print with some extreme level of detail.
PRINT resolution is quite different than pixel peepers on the screen. I always find it amusing when i see people suggesting that they need more than 12MP in a camera when they acknowledge they mostly view/share their pics online and rarely print and never print more than 5x7. A 30" monitor is only 4MP which is about what a 5x7 print would need.
But when people are discussing making large prints, the more data/resolution the better.
I have a lot of fun, as do my guests, when standing across a room and taking in a 30" x 50" print of Positano, Italy and how beautiful the entire city is nestled in the mountainside along the Sea - and then walking up (not with your nose to the paper, but 2 feet away) and being able to see individual people and every day life - it adds a dimension to the print and experience of viewing it. Just about every one of the photos i choose to print have that dual dimension quality - they're lovely from a distance and interesting up close.
There is certainly no disadvantage to being able to print very large and at a very high resolution. So, why knock it?
I realize that many political leaders encourage people that "don't have" or "can't do" to just complain or knock down those with capabilities - but that's always seemed pathetic to me....Show more →
What exactly about my posts was defensive? I was merely pointing out that going high MP is _not mandatory_ to print big and that personal taste is a factor too. What _exactly_ about that is defensive?
I'm glad that you and your guests enjoy your highly detailed 30x50 print of Positano. I'm sure I would enjoy it's sight too but I am positive I would not be enjoying it _because of_ detail. I look at detail when I _examine_ something.
Yes, there is no disadvantage to the _ability_ to print big with high resolution. But that doesn't make it automatically mandatory end all.
P.S. Don't you think your last sentence shows you are actually one that is defensive here?
You also suggested that 17x22 was big enough for him, so it should be for everyone. If you can't already tell, I'm no fan of central planning. So, I'll print a size that suits my space, if you please. For me that is a print that is 30x52: http://www.ecarlino.net/share/LivRm.jpg
When you quote somebody you should make an effort to quote them accurately rather than out of context and twisting words, even if that doesn't suit your goal. I did not say "17x22 was big enough for him so it should be for _everyone_". I said "for me". Quite a difference. I am not generalizing, I am rather specific, while you are trying to twist that into generalization, trying to present if I said something I did not.
Also, just because you found a picture of somebody getting their nose into one print how you can jump from that into generalization it is prevailingly common? Please spend several hours in rooms of Louvres, Getty, etc and tell us what _percentage_ of people stuck their nose that close.
Oct 29, 2014 at 04:17 AM: chez wrote:
Now the dribble coming out of you, totally unrelated to the topic and in an attacking manner....I could do without. I guess I need to use that Hide button finally.
Odd, I thought you crowed out previously on numerous occasions that you put me on your Hide list. I guess curiosity just got the best of you and you needed to take a peek so you could attack someone. Tells me plenty of your character. Bye!
Oct 29, 2014 at 06:51 AM: chez wrote:
Mr. Obvious.
I guess in over two hours you couldn't figure out how to use the Hide button, or you just wanted to make another attacking comment, eh? Talk about character.
FYI, you can study the image below, if it has enough detail for you.
ecarlino wrote:
In between the garbage from the chip-on-their-shoulder types, there's actually been some good info on this thread. I for one am still digging deeper into the software driver for the Epson printers because of the difference between 360 and 1440 that was pointed out to me earlier.
I use an Epson 3800 printer and investigated the printer driver a couple of years ago. It all started with some weird interference pattern I got when printing a file that was 350 ppi, just below 360 ppi. This is what I found:
The printer driver interpolates the image. It is usually to 360 ppi, but I'll come back to that later.
The interpolation algorithm used is Nearest Neighbour. Like if you print directly from 300 ppi, you have 4 pixels going unmodified and the 5'th duplicated. This is causing a stairstep effect or interference patterns with some subject matter.
If you have a check box called "Finest Detail" in the printer properties and it is checked, it changes the resolution from 360 ppi to 720 ppi.
If you print borderless, the resolution is changed to 370 ppi or 741 ppi, varying slightly with the paper size.
Newer printers may have different drivers with different behaviour.
alundeb wrote:
I use an Epson 3800 printer and investigated the printer driver a couple of years ago. It all started with some weird interference pattern I got when printing a file that was 350 ppi, just below 360 ppi. This is what I found:
The printer driver interpolates the image. It is usually to 360 ppi, but I'll come back to that later.
The interpolation algorithm used is Nearest Neighbour. Like if you print directly from 300 ppi, you have 4 pixels going unmodified and the 5'th duplicated. This is causing a stairstep effect or interference patterns with some subject matter.
If you have a check box called "Finest Detail" in the printer properties and it is checked, it changes the resolution from 360 ppi to 720 ppi.
If you print borderless, the resolution is changed to 370 ppi or 741 ppi, varying slightly with the paper size.
Newer printers may have different drivers with different behaviour. ...Show more →
thanks for the info - i was reading the specs and manual (again) for the 9900 and noted that it has 360 nozzles per inch per channel but a 'fine' setting that can do 720 ppi, but print resolutions up to 2880x1440. i always used genuine fractals to get to 720 ppi in my files before printing and figured anything above that (if any) the software/printer/driver would take care of. i was starting to think of only getting my file up to 360, however. it's pretty easy to print some crop tests and see if there is any noticeable difference.
ecarlino wrote:
Thanks for the detailed info.
Would you happen to know to what resolution the printer driver unprezzes the file data to internally before printing if the printer properties (eg in page setup) is set to 1440x1440 or 2880x1440?
above my pay grade unfortunately. I'm just going on my personal experiences and from readings from people much smarter than I am. Ian Lyons, The Digital Dog and Geoff (Jeff??) Schewe are the people to Google for really detailed information.
I only read about this stuff because at one stage I had an Olympus dye thermal printer that insisted on 314ppi files. i was sending 300ppi and getting soft fuzzy crap. Someone told me to send a file at the printers native resolution and instantly the prints were great. Then when I couldn't get my first Epson printer to play nice with Photoshop I found Ian Lyons site. Then colour management which can be a slippery slope. I stopped when I had enough information to get my own prints looking consistent.
