Guest WPalank Posted February 27, 2010 Share #1 Posted February 27, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) First off, I consider myself a Novice inkjet printer and not a printing pro of any sort. Thanks in advance to Printing Pros like RichC who has a published thread on ppi that is deservedly a sticky in this sub-forum. As I had not seen a published statement on LR3 (Public Beta) and upward resampling, I thought I might take on my own little experiment of sorts. I've been printing with my Epson 7900 printer for three quarters of a year now and have been really happy with it. Typically I print at the native resolution of the camera file but due to a little egging on by a very gracious client, I decided to research resizing the image in a variety of formats. I read that LR 2.6 had a great up-sampling engine, but the review of others was that it was either hit or miss. So I figured, LR3 (Beta) must be an improvement, right? First the file I used was from my Leica M8 at around 10 megapixels plus some change. I have created beautiful images on print (IMHO) in the past printing at the native resolution at around 240-280 ppi to fit it onto 13x19 Hahnemuhle Baryta Papers (FA and PR). I wanted to see if I could get the image at or around 240 ppi onto the 17x22 paper. Roughly a 30% uprez. So I increased the image size in LR3 and had the image open in CS4 automatically (through the LR3 dialogue box). I was amazed that it took no time at all, roughly 2 seconds. Here's the image (first image posted in this thread, "Man On a Bench"): http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/41140-m8-india-35-50-lux.html I used this image not only because the client requested it, but because it had a lot of detail (face) yet smoothness (scarf). After evaluating the file (the original had some sharpening but I had LR create NO sharpening in the upsizing process). I was amazed how well the file looked in PS. After reading an article by Jeff Schewe (current author of Real World Sharpening), I used the Pixel Genius (of which Mr. Schewe is a co-owners ) Super Grain 200, along with some Creative Sharpening in areas around the eyes and then a final Output Sharpening (Pixel Genius) with finally printing the file after soft-proofing in PS (turning off the Epson Driver). Comparing the image on 13x17(native resolution) to the 17x22 print, I could not see any discernible difference (the larger file was possibly slightly over sharpened), even at the same viewing distance (two inches). At a normal viewing distance of 3 feet the print really sang. Client was ecstatic! So anyway, has anyone compared PS Bicubic Smoother to uprezzing in LR3 or 2.6? If so, did you get better results with one over the other? Is uprezzing 30-40% child's play? In other words, at that level anything works, it's not big enough to make a difference? In other other words, Real Men uprez 200-300%? Trying to learn from my possible mistakes, I uprezzed another file for the same client. This time I used Super Grain 100 and a bit less sharpening. I compared the 13x19 to the 17x22 and the two prints looked identical except for the size. This could be a testament to the M8 files without an IR or AA filter over the sensor. To make a long story short, I had always been afraid of uprezzing files and only printing at Native resolution. Now, at least at 30-40%, no big deal! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 27, 2010 Posted February 27, 2010 Hi Guest WPalank, Take a look here Resampling with LR3 (Beta). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
archi4 Posted February 28, 2010 Share #2 Posted February 28, 2010 William, After your post, I did some comparisons using the Lightroom 3 resizing and comparing the results with the separate dedicated programs for upsizing I have always used such as Genuine Fractals and Size Fixer XL and I was amazed at the results. Sharpness and detail are equal, but the LR3 image is much cleaner and smoother in transitions. Now that I have seen the results exporting the files to PSCS4 as a tif, I am curious whether printing using Lightroom on large size papers will give the same results. Thanks and regards, Maurice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted March 1, 2010 Share #3 Posted March 1, 2010 William,After your post, I did some comparisons using the Lightroom 3 resizing and comparing the results with the separate dedicated programs for upsizing I have always used such as Genuine Fractals and Size Fixer XL and I was amazed at the results. Sharpness and detail are equal, but the LR3 image is much cleaner and smoother in transitions. Now that I have seen the results exporting the files to PSCS4 as a tif, I am curious whether printing using Lightroom on large size papers will give the same results. Thanks and regards, Maurice Maurice, I'm glad you had a chance to compare LR to two programs that were created to upsize images. I know Genuine Fractals isn't cheap. I'd love to know what you find when you print directly out of LR. I don't print out of LR as I like to soft-proof my images in CS4. This Wednesday, March 3 our San Francisco Photoshop Users Group will have a meeting at the SF Adobe Building where Tom Hogarty, Senior Product Manager for Adobe Systems Professional Digital Imaging Department will be speaking on LR2 and 3. It will be interesting to see if he mentions anything about the LR 3 Release Candidate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 1, 2010 Share #4 Posted March 1, 2010 It sure would be nice if some future LR release would provide for soft proofing before print. I calibrate regularly, and have learned to predict output, but would be a good feature. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
archi4 Posted March 2, 2010 Share #5 Posted March 2, 2010 William, Last night I did my first printing comparison using quite extreme enlargement of a crop. On screen at 100 and 200% the resizing using GF showed more artifacts and stepping than the one resized using LR3. However printing both on my Epson 3800, the GF print clearly resolved more detail and to my surprise the artifacts and stepping which showed up on screen did not show up in the print, I used to do a lot of enlarging of slides on Cibachrome, and the LR print reminded me of enlargement from Ektachrome or Fujichrome slides, while the GF had the "bite" of an enlargement from a Kodachrome slide and then some. I believe the LR3 result is closer to what I would have expected in the darkroom. For what it's worth. Maurice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted March 13, 2010 Share #6 Posted March 13, 2010 I never print at native camera resolution & always resample/res-up, because Canon wide-format printers have their own native resolution of 600 ppi & can accept images of that size directly from Photoshop (bypassing the printer driver). Ergo always res-up to 600 ppi. But I've found that the method of res-ing up makes no difference until you get to the point William mentioned – full-frame prints on 17x22 paper. For larger prints, I've been using Genuine Fractals instead of Bicubic Smoother, because my tests showed a little more resolution with GF. But with thanks to William, I'll re-check GF against LR for res-ing up. Note that there's another important variable: methods of resizing & methods of sharpening interact & sometimes produce artifacts. The worst case I've seen is GF plus Nik Sharpener, producing artifacts that look like crinkly tinfoil. So it's best to check out resizing methods (LR, GF, Bicibic Smoother, etc.) & sharpening methods (USM, Smart Sharpen, PhotoKit, Nik, etc.) 'in tandem.' Slightly different topic: Also, I've found that M9 files react differently to Capture sharpening than M8 files. (That's the Capture-Creative-Output sharpening model developed by the PixelGenius folks & now built into LR/ACR.) I'd always used the Photokit Capture Sharpener early in my workflow for 5D & M8 files (reduced to 66% opacity). That small amount of Capture Sharpening with PK Sharpener or in LR/ACR was optimal for most of Canon/M8 files. But with larger M9 files I find that capture sharpening is not only unnecessary but sometimes undesirable. If you've used a fast lens at wide aperture, you can get some unfortunate artifacts when the sharpening algorithm can't distinguish bokeh circles & CA from edges that need sharpening. So I've eliminated the Capture Sharpening step entirely & just use Output (last-stage) sharpening for M9 files. Kirk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted March 14, 2010 Share #7 Posted March 14, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Great information Maurice, thanks! Note that there's another important variable: methods of resizing & methods of sharpening interact & sometimes produce artifacts. The worst case I've seen is GF plus Nik Sharpener, producing artifacts that look like crinkly tinfoil. So it's best to check out resizing methods (LR, GF, Bicibic Smoother, etc.) & sharpening methods (USM, Smart Sharpen, PhotoKit, Nik, etc.) 'in tandem.' But with larger M9 files I find that capture sharpening is not only unnecessary but sometimes undesirable. If you've used a fast lens at wide aperture, you can get some unfortunate artifacts when the sharpening algorithm can't distinguish bokeh circles & CA from edges that need sharpening. So I've eliminated the Capture Sharpening step entirely & just use Output (last-stage) sharpening for M9 files. Kirk Kirk, Interesting info about the Canon printers. My experience mirrors yours as well. Less Capture sharpening needed in M9 files than M8 or Canon files. But it's important to note if you are using LR, unless you zeroed out the Sharpening panel in the Develop Module and saved it as a preset, you will get some Capture Sharpening (which is a Pixel Genius/Eric Chan collaboration). As recommended by the Pixel Genius team, I always look at the image at 100% before adding Capture Sharpening and like you Kirk, typically reduce the opacity in PS. As opposed to Output Sharpening where I feel reviewing the image at 25-50% will give me a better idea how crunchy the image will look in print. Many times I will forgo the Capture Sharpening, using Creative Sharpen instead and paint in the sharpening with my Wacom pen at a low opacity to areas that selectively need it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mby Posted March 14, 2010 Share #8 Posted March 14, 2010 (...) This Wednesday, March 3 our San Francisco Photoshop Users Group will have a meeting at the SF Adobe Building where Tom Hogarty, Senior Product Manager for Adobe Systems Professional Digital Imaging Department will be speaking on LR2 and 3. It will be interesting to see if he mentions anything about the LR 3 Release Candidate. Dear William, Any update from your meeting? Thanks and best regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted March 15, 2010 Share #9 Posted March 15, 2010 Michael, Unfortunately he was a bit tight lipped about the release candidate and only talked about Beta (even though we tried to push him). He mentioned that he demosaicing and sharpening algorithms were much improved and would continue to be improved until the release. Also, he reminded me that there was a new grain engine built in although a bit limited at this point in the Beta. For those people using social networking sites like Facebook and Flikr, you can set up and then push a little button on the left that will quickly download images you choose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted March 15, 2010 Share #10 Posted March 15, 2010 Just purchased ImagePrint 8 as an upgrade for my 7900. Evidently it does a better job of upsampling than anything out there up to about 300-400% (although that is not the main reason I bought it). I will give it a test later in the week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mby Posted March 15, 2010 Share #11 Posted March 15, 2010 Thanks William. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.