Do I need to up-res for this? Or just let printer?

hut234 · 11-11-2010, 11:59 AM

First printing attempt where the print matters, and I've come up against the beaten to death issue of DPI and PP1. As I've researched this the answers have been all over the map and one assumption being made is that the printer software is/isn't doing enough resampling. If I may lay out the specifics maybe someone can answer this? : )

Photos are taken with a K10D RAW, into Aperture and through PSE8 for final spot tweaks, and taken down to 8 bt. The dimensions vary but let's use the average which is 2,200 x 3,200, 72 dpi. I'm using an Epson R1800 to make 8 x 10 prints. The question that needs to be answered before the question of should I resample the files in PSE, is: does the Epson software deal with this sufficiently by use of its quality settings (highest/RPM) or not? Putting aside the concepts of how much resolution is enough for a moment, can I feed the images as they are into the Epson (and let its highest setting give me the highest quality I can get) or is that not the way to do it, that I need to up-res the images first, that the R1800 won't do it all/enough/sufficiently? Some people have said that the Epson should take care of it fine, but weren't sure of exactly what it was doing (the resolutions of the settings).

To sum up, 10 mpx shot becomes a 2,200 x 3,200 72 dpi image. Using an R1800 for 8 x 10s do I need to resample the image before I send it to the Epson or will the Epson take care of this job by itself just as well with its own resampling when using the highest print quality setting.

Thank you a hundred times over for the answer!! : )

H

hut234 · 11-11-2010, 12:53 PM

I should add that one source is saying that I do need to resample images to the native resolutions of the R1800, either 180, 240 or 320. Another is saying that that's not necessary, just feed it the 72 pdi images and since they have a decent pixel count they'll be fine. Problem is I've blown through so much paper and ink just getting the R1800 to give me decently close colors that I'm begging for someone to just tell me (or shoot me!!) at this point : )

Appreciatively,

H

wlachan · 11-11-2010, 01:15 PM

There are 4 separate issues from you questions.

1) The conventional wisdom on dpi setting is that it should divide the printer resolution perfectly, 5760 x 1440 in this case. In my experience however, this doesn't seem to be a practice concern.

2) The actual dpi setting of the jpeg is unimportant, the actual pixels are. 2200x3200 in this case.

3) The reason to resample ahead of printing is that you can optimize the sharpness which imho, will be much more important than point #1. A general rule is that files made for printing can benefit a little oversharpening.

4) There is really only one way for colour accuracy - profiling (both the monitor & printer). Usually you only need to do it once for each paper/ink combination. Spyder3Print is the cheapest option afaik, and it works.

hut234 · 11-11-2010, 01:46 PM

Thanks, wlachan. I have a Spyder, (and these were done on a different calibrated rig) but the R1800's problem is that since Apple has updated its systems, including older systems, the Epson driver broke for many and the output is unpredictable. My 10.6.4 MBP won't deal with it so I'm In my case 10 times too dark and with a magenta cast. When I lighten the settings the hue shifts also, so it's been a nightmare. These same images were printed out perfectly on this same alternate computer (G4, 10.4) on another printer but the R1800 output (used to) be far better. If you Google this it gives you reams of hits of people with properly set up systems whose R1800s won't cooperate. It's a worldwide issue with these old R1800s, and owners have had to fudge the settings instead of letting a profile manage them, and scads of paper and ink later I'm close enough to run them.

Anyway : ) aside from sharpening at the raised resolution, the images wouldn't benefit from being fed at 240 or 320 over the 72 that they are?

Thanks.

**Miguel** · 11-11-2010, 04:46 PM

I would always avoid resampling your image if possible. You will be rearranging the pixels, which is one-generational removed from the original.

DPI is a meaningless metric in this case; it is PPI that you want to pay attention to. If 3200x2200 is the actual dimensions of your image, then @ 8x10 your PPI would be just under 300. That should suffice.

If you use application-managed printing, PSE or Aperture will size it correctly; if you deactivate that function and let the printer manage everything, then the Epson drivers will work fine at the recommended highest settings. When I owned a R1800, I always let Photoshop or Lightroom manage the printing.

I thought Apple and Epson fixed the Snow Leopard problem, but I sold mine right around then and have been out of the loop. It did make great color glossy prints though.

M

hut234 · 11-11-2010, 08:29 PM

Thanks, Miguel. That helps a lot, though I do appreciate the ability to do an extra step of sharpening for printing at the higher resolution than normal. But you have given me the confidence to use them as is and not up-res in Elements unless they would benefit from that.

For me the latest driver (US site didn't have it, forgot where I eventually got it from. Europe? Australia? ... : ) Did not fix it enough for me, and I had to choose which of my Macs, the MBP on SL or the G4 10.4, would make me want to kill myself less trying to get through it : ) I was on the phone with Epson and tech support told me straight out to use whichever had regular Leopard, so that was when I stopped wrestling with it on the MBP.

Odd how the Epson US site didn't have any SL support for the R1800 while some other countries' did.

**Miguel** · 11-11-2010, 09:12 PM

You are welcome.
I'm used to working with Lightroom which has output sharpening. I would assume that Aperture's output sharpening is about the same quality and convenience. Have you used ACR's output sharpening for print?

I think that is Epson's way of convincing you to purchase a newer Epson printer. When you have few competitors in the prosumer pigment printer market you can do that stuff.

M

Originally posted by hut234

Thanks, Miguel. That helps a lot, though I do appreciate the ability to do an extra step of sharpening for printing at the higher resolution than normal. But you have given me the confidence to use them as is and not up-res in Elements unless they would benefit from that.

For me the latest driver (US site didn't have it, forgot where I eventually got it from. Europe? Australia? ... : ) Did not fix it enough for me, and I had to choose which of my Macs, the MBP on SL or the G4 10.4, would make me want to kill myself less trying to get through it : ) I was on the phone with Epson and tech support told me straight out to use whichever had regular Leopard, so that was when I stopped wrestling with it on the MBP.

Odd how the Epson US site didn't have any SL support for the R1800 while some other countries' did.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is max res of the k7-k20d really 4672 x 3104?	Xcom	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	11	01-25-2010 11:32 AM
Question How to attach a small image, when clicked goes to Full res.	pcarfan	Site Suggestions and Help	8	01-17-2010 03:58 PM
Hi-Res Pics of the Newest Pentax!!	OregonJim	Pentax News and Rumors	39	04-27-2009 08:17 AM
72 dpi Hi-res?	bethtphotos	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	73	04-10-2009 06:43 PM
Up-res options	brothereye	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	4	06-23-2008 06:10 AM

11-11-2010, 11:59 AM	#1
hut234 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 116	Do I need to up-res for this? Or just let printer? First printing attempt where the print matters, and I've come up against the beaten to death issue of DPI and PP1. As I've researched this the answers have been all over the map and one assumption being made is that the printer software is/isn't doing enough resampling. If I may lay out the specifics maybe someone can answer this? : ) Photos are taken with a K10D RAW, into Aperture and through PSE8 for final spot tweaks, and taken down to 8 bt. The dimensions vary but let's use the average which is 2,200 x 3,200, 72 dpi. I'm using an Epson R1800 to make 8 x 10 prints. The question that needs to be answered before the question of should I resample the files in PSE, is: does the Epson software deal with this sufficiently by use of its quality settings (highest/RPM) or not? Putting aside the concepts of how much resolution is enough for a moment, can I feed the images as they are into the Epson (and let its highest setting give me the highest quality I can get) or is that not the way to do it, that I need to up-res the images first, that the R1800 won't do it all/enough/sufficiently? Some people have said that the Epson should take care of it fine, but weren't sure of exactly what it was doing (the resolutions of the settings). To sum up, 10 mpx shot becomes a 2,200 x 3,200 72 dpi image. Using an R1800 for 8 x 10s do I need to resample the image before I send it to the Epson or will the Epson take care of this job by itself just as well with its own resampling when using the highest print quality setting. Thank you a hundred times over for the answer!! : ) H

11-11-2010, 12:53 PM	#2
hut234 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 116 Original Poster	I should add that one source is saying that I do need to resample images to the native resolutions of the R1800, either 180, 240 or 320. Another is saying that that's not necessary, just feed it the 72 pdi images and since they have a decent pixel count they'll be fine. Problem is I've blown through so much paper and ink just getting the R1800 to give me decently close colors that I'm begging for someone to just tell me (or shoot me!!) at this point : ) Appreciatively, H

11-11-2010, 01:15 PM	#3
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	There are 4 separate issues from you questions. 1) The conventional wisdom on dpi setting is that it should divide the printer resolution perfectly, 5760 x 1440 in this case. In my experience however, this doesn't seem to be a practice concern. 2) The actual dpi setting of the jpeg is unimportant, the actual pixels are. 2200x3200 in this case. 3) The reason to resample ahead of printing is that you can optimize the sharpness which imho, will be much more important than point #1. A general rule is that files made for printing can benefit a little oversharpening. 4) There is really only one way for colour accuracy - profiling (both the monitor & printer). Usually you only need to do it once for each paper/ink combination. Spyder3Print is the cheapest option afaik, and it works.

11-11-2010, 01:46 PM	#4
hut234 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 116 Original Poster	Thanks, wlachan. I have a Spyder, (and these were done on a different calibrated rig) but the R1800's problem is that since Apple has updated its systems, including older systems, the Epson driver broke for many and the output is unpredictable. My 10.6.4 MBP won't deal with it so I'm In my case 10 times too dark and with a magenta cast. When I lighten the settings the hue shifts also, so it's been a nightmare. These same images were printed out perfectly on this same alternate computer (G4, 10.4) on another printer but the R1800 output (used to) be far better. If you Google this it gives you reams of hits of people with properly set up systems whose R1800s won't cooperate. It's a worldwide issue with these old R1800s, and owners have had to fudge the settings instead of letting a profile manage them, and scads of paper and ink later I'm close enough to run them. Anyway : ) aside from sharpening at the raised resolution, the images wouldn't benefit from being fed at 240 or 320 over the 72 that they are? Thanks.

11-11-2010, 04:46 PM	#5
Miguel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Near Seattle Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,743	I would always avoid resampling your image if possible. You will be rearranging the pixels, which is one-generational removed from the original. DPI is a meaningless metric in this case; it is PPI that you want to pay attention to. If 3200x2200 is the actual dimensions of your image, then @ 8x10 your PPI would be just under 300. That should suffice. If you use application-managed printing, PSE or Aperture will size it correctly; if you deactivate that function and let the printer manage everything, then the Epson drivers will work fine at the recommended highest settings. When I owned a R1800, I always let Photoshop or Lightroom manage the printing. I thought Apple and Epson fixed the Snow Leopard problem, but I sold mine right around then and have been out of the loop. It did make great color glossy prints though. M

11-11-2010, 08:29 PM	#6
hut234 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 116 Original Poster	Thanks, Miguel. That helps a lot, though I do appreciate the ability to do an extra step of sharpening for printing at the higher resolution than normal. But you have given me the confidence to use them as is and not up-res in Elements unless they would benefit from that. For me the latest driver (US site didn't have it, forgot where I eventually got it from. Europe? Australia? ... : ) Did not fix it enough for me, and I had to choose which of my Macs, the MBP on SL or the G4 10.4, would make me want to kill myself less trying to get through it : ) I was on the phone with Epson and tech support told me straight out to use whichever had regular Leopard, so that was when I stopped wrestling with it on the MBP. Odd how the Epson US site didn't have any SL support for the R1800 while some other countries' did.

11-11-2010, 09:12 PM	#7
Miguel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Near Seattle Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,743	You are welcome. I'm used to working with Lightroom which has output sharpening. I would assume that Aperture's output sharpening is about the same quality and convenience. Have you used ACR's output sharpening for print? I think that is Epson's way of convincing you to purchase a newer Epson printer. When you have few competitors in the prosumer pigment printer market you can do that stuff. M Originally posted by hut234 Thanks, Miguel. That helps a lot, though I do appreciate the ability to do an extra step of sharpening for printing at the higher resolution than normal. But you have given me the confidence to use them as is and not up-res in Elements unless they would benefit from that. For me the latest driver (US site didn't have it, forgot where I eventually got it from. Europe? Australia? ... : ) Did not fix it enough for me, and I had to choose which of my Macs, the MBP on SL or the G4 10.4, would make me want to kill myself less trying to get through it : ) I was on the phone with Epson and tech support told me straight out to use whichever had regular Leopard, so that was when I stopped wrestling with it on the MBP. Odd how the Epson US site didn't have any SL support for the R1800 while some other countries' did.