If I load, say, a 9x9" image into the print module and set my paper size to 11x14", why does the image size change as I move the cell size sliders, if "Zoom to fill" is not checked? I'd like to be able to set a larger size paper and a cell size for the largest image I'd print on that size paper. For example, if I set the paper to 11x14" and my images run in sizes from 8x8" to 10x10" I'd set the cell size to 10x10" to cover all image sizes. Or, to say it another way, since all my images are already sized in PS can I have LR simply "auto size" the cell size?
Zoom to fill does as it suggests: zoom and fill that aspect ratio with whatever ratio the image happens to be in. With it off, well it doesn't zoom in to fit. And you can control how much the 'zoom' is applied moving the sliders.
The paper size is what it is and yes, you want to configure this for that sized paper.
The cell is what size it is so you can make a 9x9 but what is the aspect ratio of the original? Do you want a 9x9 cell that has boarders because the image isn't 9x9 ratio OR do you want the cell to be filled? I hope that makes sense but the best way to do this is try the various settings with your images, you should see what the options provide.
In this case, all the images are square. I have set the size and resolution I want in PS. But, once saved back to LR and I enter the print module the cell size has to be exactly equal to the image size, otherwise the print resolution changes. In the "Print Job" panel, I have the Print Resolution box unchecked. I suppose I could check this box, force the resolution to 300ppi, then modifying the cell size to my heart's content, but then I'm assuming that some interpolation is going on. I remember many years ago Jeff Schewe saying the LR does a pretty good job with interpolation, but why bother if I don't need it?
I dunno...just seems a tad silly to me that I have to jot down the image size in PS, then enter those dimensions into the cell size of LR's print module to get exactly what I want printed.
Don't worry about the resolution! As long as you don't get a warning overlay (!) it is fine. The output sharpening if used is based on what LR sets there too. Worry about the size, crop and position, that resolution report isn't anything to be worried about. Further, see:
Thank you for pointing me to that article. I have vague memories of reading it many years ago, but re-reading it today was helpful. OK, it seems that my best option is to set Print Resolution to 300 (I'm printing on a Canon printer) and cell size to whatever size I want the final print; print resolution will take care of itself. Got it!
I remember many years ago Jeff Schewe saying the LR does a pretty good job with interpolation, but why bother if I don't need it? - perhaps the question then becomes, why bother to "set the size and resolution I want in PS"?
The workflow of printing from LrC is precisely there to control and interpolate original image resolution / pixels during output. It is needless, and less optimal, to have previously imposed some particular output resolution.
The mentioned workflow commits an interpolation of the original image data and a crop within PS. You are asking how to next jump through special hoops within LrC, to minimise degrading things further by more cumulative interpolation.
I suggest, instead, try leaving the picture data in its original camera-native resolution for purposes of PS. Concentrate on modifying its content alone, in other words - on those jobs that LrC cannot do - deferring presentational / output matters such as PPI and crop, to be imposed back in LrC.
You can then freely vary that crop compositionally, differently in different virtual copies if you like, AND you can freely vary the export specifications / the size and PPI of print cell on the page; and the previewed image duly gets your 300ppi (or whatever) imposed within that Export or that Print, and only within that. The working PS image itself can remain non-output-specific.
Thanks for your input.
I'm not actually degradng the image in PS by sizing it there because in the Image Size dialog I simply set resolution to 300ppi with the Resample box unchecked. This merely distributes the pixels to that resolution and the image size is whatever it is. In LrC, I set the cell size to the exact dimensions as shown in PS which defaults the print resolution to 300ppi; no interpolation going on. Over the years, I have mostly printed directly out of PS, but recently decided that maybe I should start using LrC more as the ease of setting up templates makes printing, basically, a two-click affair. I guess my downfall is that I was thinking of LrC's print module more as a simple printing engine when, in fact, it seems closer to RIP capabilities.
If you haven't resampled anything in PS then the image is not actually 300ppi in any meaningful sense. LrC pays no attention to this 300ppi notion and you don't have to let that determine anything either, so far as the scaling of the output. Personally I'd start with how big a print would you like, and work back from there. As a thought experiment, say you had four photos each slightly differently cropped but all to one common aspect ratio, and you wanted to print and display these in a row on your wall - and at native 300ppi, these crops would calculate out variously larger or smaller - which aspect would then give way - the 300ppi, or the printed size consistency across the set?