30 x 40 inch M8 Prints

[Jack_Flesher]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting information. I used Epson Premium Luster for this testing but in addition I print on Hahnemuhle Museum Etching regularly and Epson UltraSmooth occassionally. I have been extremely happy with my 9600 and its print quality as have my clients. Normally, the advantages of the K3 inks such as lack of Metamerism and Glossy printing are not needed as most people prefer Matte papers such as the Museum Etching. The dot pattern is certainly not visible without a Louple even with the 9600. But, if it is somehow true that one could print at 180 vs. 240ppi on the 9800 and obtain the same quality, that would be impressive. Personally, I highly doubt that but I will test it with a freinds K3 printer just for fun. David would have been better off I believe posting a 100% or even 50% crop from his interpolated up M8 image to really give us an idea of how well the image holds up. Through the years, I have found that an image viewed on screen at 50% at the output size and resolution will give a very good approximation as to what one will see in the final print.

 

To clarify further:

 

With my 9600 I could easily discern the difference between printing at 180 PPI and 360 PPI. I could discern an ever so slight difference between 300 and 360. I could discern a subtle difference between 240 and 300/360. And I never saw any significant advantage to using 2880 over 1440 -- other than it used up twice as much ink...

 

With my 7800, I cannot detect the differences between 180 and 360 even when shoving my nose in a 16x24 print; I have to use a loupe to see it. Since I know it does exist, I use 360 as a matter of course for my printing, but would not hesitate to use 180 on a very large print. Moreover, the differences I see in 1440 and 2880 with this printer are extremely subtle; I have to compare prints side-by-side and then use my imagination to quantify them

[carstenw]

Hi - Sorry, under ND and actually I did not say it was an Epson.

Two files that are exactly the same - lets say neutral monochromes will print entirely differently from the same machine under humidity / temperature shifts.

Usually this will appear as a color shift away from neutral into a strong color cast increasing as the temp/humidity increases.

I was at a printer manufacturer testing center where they have rooms to simulate different environments and one could see shifts that were not subtle from lets say Arizona to Singapore - basically from a cyanotype to a sepia from what was a neutral. It was quite an eye opener, but it did clarify why I had noticed small shifts in my files that were printed over extended periods.

 

Argh, do we need printer drivers/RIPs in which you can enter the temperature and humidity? I don't envy these programmers their jobs

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[davidada]

No, for instance the new Z series from HP have a built in calibrator - you could choose to run it every day or once a week or whatever it will then recalibrate for the environment.

[davidada]

Here is a crop at 72 dpi actual size, some one asked I think this is what was requested

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ho_co]

Just a slight correction regarding the relative sensor sizes of the D200 and the M8:

 

D200 = 23.6mm x 15.8mm / 372.88 sq.mm/ 10.2mp

M8 = 27mm x 18mm / 486 sq.mm/ 10.3mp

John--

Taking your information a step further, the Nikon generally also uses less of its sensor surface than the M8. I'm not sure this is of interest, but using DNG Recover Edges:

 

D200 file, originally 3872 x 2592 pixels, becomes 3900 x 2616; and

M8 file, originally 3916 x 2634 pixels, becomes 3920 x 2638.

 

Thus, D200 has 12 rows of image pixels on each short edge and 14 rows of image pixels on each long edge available but not normally uncovered. That is, D200 normally displays 98.37% of available info.

 

M8 has 2 rows of image pixels on each of the four sides available but not normally uncovered. That is, M8 normally displays 99.75% of available info.

 

--HC

[gibran]

To clarify further:

 

With my 9600 I could easily discern the difference between printing at 180 PPI and 360 PPI. I could discern an ever so slight difference between 300 and 360. I could discern a subtle difference between 240 and 300/360. And I never saw any significant advantage to using 2880 over 1440 -- other than it used up twice as much ink...

 

With my 7800, I cannot detect the differences between 180 and 360 even when shoving my nose in a 16x24 print; I have to use a loupe to see it. Since I know it does exist, I use 360 as a matter of course for my printing, but would not hesitate to use 180 on a very large print. Moreover, the differences I see in 1440 and 2880 with this printer are extremely subtle; I have to compare prints side-by-side and then use my imagination to quantify them

 

Well, that would say a lot for the K3 Epsons if you cannot see the difference in printing a file at 180dpi vs. 360dpi. Thanks very much for that insight which I will have to see for myself now.

[gibran]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is a crop at 72 dpi actual size, some one asked I think this is what was requested

 

Actually, I was asking for a crop of your file at your output resolution to the printer which I take it was at 180ppi(basically cropping a section when viewed in PS at 100% with the resolution at 180ppi at the final print size. 50% would be more telling of what the print looked like I guess with your nose in it so that would be at 90ppi if my math is right. Not too far from your 72 ppi post.) Very impressive detail though...and thank you very much for sharing your insight.

 

Just out of curiousity since you brought up the D200, do you have experience with the D2X files and if so, how do they compare in their ability to hold together when up-sized in regard to the M8?

[davidada]

I have printed D2x files up to 40 x 60 although they were impressionistic seascapes - no real detail, they were quite beautiful check out the photographers site renatealler.com

[gibran]

I have printed D2x files up to 40 x 60 although they were impressionistic seascapes - no real detail, they were quite beautiful check out the photographers site renatealler.com

 

Lovely, thanks.

[canlogic]

There seems to be some confusion (at least in my mind) as some people are talking about PPI and some about DPI which are different things. In PS when I size an image I generally set it at 300 PPI and when I print it (through Imageprint) I set the output to either 180 or 360 DPI. Perhaps you could clarify this a little? Thanks.

[davidada]

Hi, dpi is what we refer to in the actual image file i.e. if processed in C1 and you do not choose to res up the image it will come in as a 300dpi image at around 25megs(roughly).

I choose to up this in C1 to 360 dpi for output as I use a variable of 360 for printing.

The printers usually have a choice of output ranging from 360 to 2880, of course the range you want to be in is 1440 to 2880 - it may be that imageprint short circiuts that description and allows you to choose 180 or 360 for printing which I stringly suspect is actually 1440 or 2880.

[canlogic]

Hi, so when you resize an image you don't change the PPI. If I take an image that comes in as say 8x12 and I want to uprez it to 16x20 I keep it at 300 PPI.

 

In Imageprint I set my paper size and profile the open the image. I can then choose a number of options like 1440, 180 dpi, 4 pass or 2880, 360 dpi 8 pass. Or other combos. I generaly rezup in PS keeping the image at 300 PPI and mostly print at 1440, 360 dpi, 4 pass. I will have to try altering these and see what I get.

[davidada]

Yes, if you up res in PS rather than ressing to 300 try both 180 and 360 ( keeping your output image size the same) print and compare the versions.

Also for upressing I have found Alien skin blow up excellent they have a 30 day trial for free.

[johnwolf]

Gibran,

 

Just want to make sure I understand one of your points. Are you saying that viewing an image in PS at 50% size gives a better approximation of printed output than a 100% view does? I always wondered about this.

 

If so, do you sharpen at 50% view? Thanks.

 

John

[canlogic]

Yes, if you up res in PS rather than ressing to 300 try both 180 and 360 ( keeping your output image size the same) print and compare the versions.

Also for upressing I have found Alien skin blow up excellent they have a 30 day trial for free.

 

Great! thanks for the info I will try that this week and see what happens. I will also download the trial as it does look interesting.

[gibran]

Gibran,

 

Just want to make sure I understand one of your points. Are you saying that viewing an image in PS at 50% size gives a better approximation of printed output than a 100% view does? I always wondered about this.

 

If so, do you sharpen at 50% view? Thanks.

 

John

 

Exactly, thats my experience. I look at both but have found that a 50% view at the output size and resolution will give me a very close approximation to what the print will actually look like when printed so you will often find that more sharpening is called for when printing than would look correct if you went by 100%. I have always understood and tought that ppi(Pixels Per Inch) is what we have when the file is in digital form and dpi(Dots per Inch) is what we have on the printed page in analog form. The image on a computer display is made up of pixels and in a print from a non contiunous tone printer as dots. People often use the terms interchangably but technically, that I believe is correct. The other confusion arises when we talk of the resolution of the image file at the output size, say 180ppi at 20"x30" versus the resolution the printer is set to print at, say 1440dpi or 2880dpi.

[sinwen]

There seems to be some confusion (at least in my mind) as some people are talking about PPI and some about DPI which are different things. In PS when I size an image I generally set it at 300 PPI and when I print it (through Imageprint) I set the output to either 180 or 360 DPI. Perhaps you could clarify this a little? Thanks.

 

PPI (pixels per inch) refers to the resolution of a digital file.

DPI (dots per inch) refers to the number of dots a printer is able to print, call it printing resolution if this speaks to you.

 

Michel

[canlogic]

PPI (pixels per inch) refers to the resolution of a digital file.

DPI (dots per inch) refers to the number of dots a printer is able to print, call it printing resolution if this speaks to you.

 

Michel

 

Yes I know that, it was just that people were going back and forth with the 2 in the same context. You can set an image in PS at say 11x14 300 PPI and save it as a tiff. Then print it at 360 DPI with something like Imageprint thats what I was trying to clarify.

[Jack_Flesher]

Yes I know that, it was just that people were going back and forth with the 2 in the same context. You can set an image in PS at say 11x14 300 PPI and save it as a tiff. Then print it at 360 DPI with something like Imageprint thats what I was trying to clarify.

 

Not exactly...

 

You send a 180 or 360 PPI resolution digital file to your printer and it prints it out at 1440 or 2880 DPI print output resolution. IOW, the printer is using a lot of ink dots to replicate a single pixel from the digital file...

 

Sidebar note: Scanning resolution further confuses this, since manufacturers often list their scanner resolution in DPI or PPI interchangeably. Many of us who scan have adopted LPI (Lines Per Inch) to further distinguish scanner resolution from file resolution from printer output resolution...

 

Cheers,

 

Jack Flesher

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[devils-advocate]

Here is a crop at 72 dpi actual size, some one asked I think this is what was requested

 

Holy crap! I can read the writing on the lock and the feel the crazing on the paint. This is amazing performance coupled with masterful sharpening/post.