Printing Questions

Thanks for the replies guys - its that age old conundrum (By age old I mean the last 5 years) To survive as a photographer we need to provide jpegs of the shoot (I provide prints AND jpegs because I firmly believe we need to PUSH prints on people without print media there is no need for pro photographers) 

But the issue is what print size do you optimize your jpeg for - I optimize every print for a 16x20 as it is my best profit ---but if you give a client a jpeg optimized for 16x20 and they print it at 4x6 or 5x7 --in the old days their smaller print might be less sharp than my 16x20

SO I was hoping in the last 4 or 5 years -the computer wizzards had solved that problem with either a universal sharpening approach or minimized any issues with printing large files smaller

I have tested this enough for inkjet to prefer to resample a copy to final output size at an appropriate output resolution and apply appropriate sharpening for printing. Compared to the same physical print size with native "super high" resolution, the smaller resolution sharpened image looks sharper to me at the intended viewing distance. Higher resolution may resolve more detail, however, this does not equate to sharper. Even if the higher resolution image has sharpening applied, the sharpening is generally lost in printing and the result looks a bit softer. Often "super high" resolution appears similar to a Gaussian blur of 0.2 to 0.3 pixels when compared to an image that has been resized and sharpened for a specific print size.

Sharpening for print output is just as much an art as science, it depends on subject content, context, viewing conditions etc.

I'd say do what works for you, the differences are usually subtle.

Hi,

I have always believed that resizing is better done in Photoshop. 

And resuloution set specifically to suit the output device [e.g. Epsons seeem to prefer a resolution which is a factor of 720. So 360, 240, 180 seem to make sharper prints than, say 300 ppi]

I believe that resizing is better done in Photoshop not only for reasons of interpolation, but also because an image file will almost always benefit from some unsharp mask treatment and that sharpening is far better done at actual output size. Resizing an already sharpened file can have strange effects, sometimes effectively erasing the sharpening. 

Maybe you're sending a Jpeg? A Jpeg should never be resized, in an ideal world, as that introduces artifacts. 

My view of digital imaging has always been to test and decide for myself, whilst I am, of course, interested in the opinions of others, the proof is in the pudding. If you can't see a difference yourself then you're probably OK with your chosen method. 

Is it safe to presume you've perhaps not tried output size specific sharpening? 

Again with the lab's offer of super resolution, there are SO many ways of measuring resolution anyway. if you cant see the difference and its an upcharge that’s a pretty easy decision?

I hope this helps

if so, please "like" my reply and if you're OK now, please mark it as "correct", so that others who have similar issues can see the solution

thanks

neil barstow, colourmanagement.net :: adobe forum volunteer

[please do not use the reply button on a message in the thread, only use the one at the top of the page, to maintain chronological order]