[csa]

Now with you guys talking about printing this in b/w, imo, you're degrading my photo.

I agree. There are colors in that image that would be degraded in B&W. The subtle branches in the background, the bird's beak & eyes, for instance.

One thought, I had a 16x20 print done on metal, with a metal strip around the entire image. It doesn't need framing, & looks beautiful. It's about 1" thick. This was done by Meridian Pro.

[photolady95]

I agree. There are colors in that image that would be degraded in B&W. The subtle branches in the background, the bird's beak & eyes, for instance.

One thought, I had a 16x20 print done on metal, with a metal strip around the entire image. It doesn't need framing, & looks beautiful. It's about 1" thick. This was done by Meridian Pro.

Thanks for your support Carol!

[TonyW]

....
- DPI of 180 is very very good, no way eyes can distinguish pixels including use of correction glasses to see close details, 150 DPI is fine even down to 120 DPI will work at normal viewing distance, we often read 250/300 DPI needed for prints but it's only true when looking close to see details of large prints, no to appreciate the integral image. However, the DPI number is overrated, since lens sharpness and diffraction may not resolve as much as the pixel count.....

Discussion of what PPI required and what is good is fine but the bottom line is that we are limited (to a degree by the native file pixel resolution). So if that happens to be 100, 150, 189 or some other number for our required print size that is it. But what does get overlooked and can make a difference is sending the data to the print pipeline.


You can send as is 180, 150 360 PPI and the printer will resample using nearest neighbour algorithms prior to printing to its declared resolution 300/600 ppi Canon/HP or 360/720 ppi Epson. This method is not optimal and better algorithms to be had in other applications such as LR, PS, Qimage etc. FWIW the catch all 300 PPI is based on sound science relating to someone with 20/20 vision being able to distinguish around 1 minute of arc - your printer will upsample to this (or 360 ppi or higher) regardless of what you send it.

200 -300% enlargement is a trivial upsample for new versions of PS/LR.

[biz-engineer]

You can send as is 180, 150 360 PPI and the printer will resample using nearest neighbour algorithms prior to printing to its declared resolution 300/600 ppi Canon/HP or 360/720 ppi Epson. This method is not optimal and better algorithms to be had in other applications such as LR, PS, Qimage etc. FWIW the catch all 300 PPI is based on sound science relating to someone with 20/20 vision being able to distinguish around 1 minute of arc - your printer will upsample to this (or 360 ppi or higher) regardless of what you send it.200 -300% enlargement is a trivial upsample for new versions of PS/LR.

Oh , that's very technical. I would tends to believe that DPI is secondary to the intend of the print. For example, if I had a photograph of a waterfall shot with a wide angle with a some rocks in the foreground, I may want to print large without considering much of the pixel count, simply because my intention is to give the viewer a sense of immersion into the scene. On the other hand, if I had shot a bird with a long lens, I would want to print to a decent size but no more than what the bird size would be like for real, I wouldn't want an egret to look as large as an ostrich once displayed on a wall. Of course, it's always up to the owner's taste to decide about the size of the print.

[TonyW]

Oh , that's very technical. I would tends to believe that DPI is secondary to the intend of the print. ...

For me it is as fundamental question with as much if not more importance to the endless debates about which lenses are best at resolving detail, what about diffraction, DoF etc.

At its simplest it is just being aware of treating our hard won data correctly to mimimise any potential loss of IQ at the final and arguably most important stage that is the print and goes along with post work including capture, local and print sharpening aimed at maximising the IQ. Brief mention with examples here:

What PPI to send to printer for best IQ - PentaxForums.com

The bottom line is that it is quite possible to see detail being better resolved at higher PPI (not DPI as that is printer secondary resolution relating to ink volume) and this means that 600 or 720 ppi native image resolution may resolve detail that cannot be appreciated even at 300 ppi.

Rough guide to ideal minimum requirements based on a required viewing distance: Divide 3438 by the distance in inches your print may be viewed from. Example at 8" you would require 430 ppi or at 3' you would require 96 ppi and further away say 10' would only need 29 ppi native resolution to give the impression of continuous tone - note this is for average viewing in reasonable lighting for someone with 20/20 vision, exhibition lighting may require double ppi

It should be stressed that this is for close up viewing of any print - which may happen to even your largest print when photographers are involved .

Aesthetics apart this is really just trying to keep as much IQ as possible from capture to print rather than unknowingly leaving IQ behind on the table and it may or may not matter too much to the individual depending on subject matter and taste

[biz-engineer]

The bottom line is that it is quite possible to see detail being better resolved at higher PPI (not DPI as that is printer secondary resolution relating to ink volume) and this means that 600 or 720 ppi native image resolution may resolve detail that cannot be appreciated even at 300 ppi.Rough guide to ideal minimum requirements based on a required viewing distance: Divide 3438 by the distance in inches your print may be viewed from. Example at 8" you would require 430 ppi or at 3' you would require 96 ppi and further away say 10' would only need 29 ppi native resolution to give the impression of continuous tone - note this is for average viewing in reasonable lighting for someone with 20/20 vision, exhibition lighting may require double ppiIt should be stressed that this is for close up viewing of any print - which may happen to even your largest print when photographers are involved .Aesthetics apart this is really just trying to keep as much IQ as possible from capture to print rather than unknowingly leaving IQ behind on the table and it may or may not matter too much to the individual depending on subject matter and taste

I agree with you. The only problem is, once you have an image shot with a camera model (fixed sensor size and number of pixels) there isn't much to be done to improve the perceived IQ except buying another camera with more pixels and larger sensor. I know that no additional information can be created by any image processing except adding up chunks of image from a database using AI. What I have learned from signal processing is that the more I process an image the more I risk loss of information. So, I tend to process image the least amount possible. Although I guess you are referring enhancing of image quality perception by adding up micro-contrast or sharpness within the process of up-sampling?

[Dartmoor Dave]

Aesthetics apart this is really just trying to keep as much IQ as possible from capture to print rather than unknowingly leaving IQ behind on the table and it may or may not matter too much to the individual depending on subject matter and taste

Aesthetics is (are?) the only thing that matters when it comes to making a print. To equate resolution with "image quality" and to claim that this "IQ" is the most important factor in a print is completely to miss the point of why real people in the real world like to look at photographs.

[TonyW]

I agree with you. The only problem is, once you have an image shot with a camera model (fixed sensor size and number of pixels) there isn't much to be done to improve the perceived IQ except buying another camera with more pixels and larger sensor.

Yes, I agree, we are stuck with the native resolution of the camera. Therefore as we cannot improve IQ from the sensor lens combination we should be trying to maintain the data at its best and that really was the point of my posting relating to printing. To that end if we only have a native resolution of 95 ppi at our required print size and we must have that size then we have just two ways to treat the data:

1. Send image data as is straight to the printer and if the declared resolution of that printer is 360 ppi the print pipeline will upsample the image using Nearest Neighbour algorithms.

or preferably

2. Upsample the image to be 360 ppi in our editing software which will use superior algorithms which will hold resolution that would be lost with nearest neighbour.

I know that no additional information can be created by any image processing except adding up chunks of image from a database using AI.

I agree again that we cannot create information that is not there in the first place. But we have lost at least some information during capture with a bayer sensor. The resulting demosaicing causing a loss of resolution. Sharpening using various deconvolution techniques can return some of that lost information.

What I have learned from signal processing is that the more I process an image the more I risk loss of information. So, I tend to process image the least amount possible. Although I guess you are referring enhancing of image quality perception by adding up micro-contrast or sharpness within the process of up-sampling?

From my very limited exposure to signal processing (sound) I think that Nyquist applies equally to image data i.e. if we need to end up with 'X' amount of data we need to be starting with 2 x 'X'

I was not referring to enhancing image quality perception with micro contrast or sharpening but referring to the difference in upsampling using the inferior print driver pipeline vs the optimal treatment of the data to the same ppi using your image editor PS, LR, Qimage, Raw Therapee etc. This is a seperate issue to capture, local and output sharpening using deconvolution, high pass etc etc

---------- Post added 11-06-18 at 12:37 PM ----------

Aesthetics is (are?) the only thing that matters when it comes to making a print.

No, aesthetics are just one part of a process in image making and may be seperated from the technical side of the print making process, if you so wish and is my intent here

To equate resolution with "image quality" and to claim that this "IQ" is the most important factor in a print is completely to miss the point of why real people in the real world like to look at photographs.

This is about not leaving IQ behind on the table. IQ is not just about resolution You seem to have misunderstood what has been written.

[Dartmoor Dave]

You have misunderstood what has been written. This is about not leaving IQ behind on the table.

Perhaps you could clarify? You seem to be using the terms "resolution" and "image quality" as if they mean the same thing. My point is that aesthetics, which you seem to want to put aside, is a fundamental part of image quality as that term would be understood by most people in the real world.

[TonyW]

Perhaps you could clarify? You seem to be using the terms "resolution" and "image quality" as if they mean the same thing. My point is that aesthetics, which you seem to want to put aside, is a fundamental part of image quality as that term would be understood by most people in the real world.

Yes in this case it can be taken that resolution perceived or real is part and parcel of IQ in the print making process.

I do not wish to put aside aesthetics that is your claim of what I said and why I said you have misunderstood. IQ in this case is about maintaining the technical aspects of the capture i.e. if you have a capture that is sharp and resolves detail do you want to maintain that into the print process or just let it go to chance?

Aesthetics can be ignored in this specific case mainly due to the fact that the OP did not ask for a critique of her image nor of ways in which she may improve it. It was and AFAIK remains a technical question about what is needed to make a print @ 20"x16"

[Dartmoor Dave]

Aesthetics can be ignored in this specific case mainly due to the fact that the OP did not ask for a critique of her image nor of ways in which she may improve it. It was and AFAIK remains a technical question about what is needed to make a print @ 20"x16"

Ah, my mistake then. I had assumed that the original poster was hoping to make an aesthetically appealing print of a photograph she was justifiably proud of.

[photolady95]

I was told earlier that the photo you see is underexposed. That is simply not true. It's how I processed it and I probably went a bit overboard on processing. He also said since I don't use Photoshop, the process wasn't right, well I use PSE which is an off shoot of Photoshop, it's not some odd photo editor from some off in space online place. What he said, simply turned me off to what else he had to stay about my photo.


I have an IPS monitor that is calibrated via Spider4Pro.
And he went off on a tangent about that too.

[normhead]

I was told earlier that the photo you see is underexposed. That is simply not true. It's how I processed it and I probably went a bit overboard on processing. He also said since I don't use Photoshop, the process wasn't right, well I use PSE which is an off shoot of Photoshop, it's not some odd photo editor from some off in space online place. What he said, simply turned me off to what else he had to stay about my photo.


I have an IPS monitor that is calibrated via Spider4Pro.
And he went off on a tangent about that too.

Ya, well some people think they know everything. As you get older, you realize how much you don't know.

Or as mark Twain said "When i was 15 I couldn't believe how dumb my dad was. When I was 21 I couldn't believe how much he learned in just 6 years."

My opinion of the image was the dark background made for very good subject separation. I intentionally set up my wildflower shots that way. I look for shadows, with the flower in a sun spot.


Your new friend understands neither photoshop, subject isolation, negative space, nor does he understand composition. and as suggested, you could go all black with that back ground. It's a myopic mind that thinks there's one way to do a photograph, and it's his way. I'm not sure what it is but there are a lot of people who think they are arguing about technical things, when they re actually arguing artistic preference. And arguing artistic preference is pointless.

That image has a lot of potential and will work almost no matter how you decide to process it. I bet your advisor doesn't have anything better. Carry on.

[photolady95]

Thanks Norm!

[photolady95]

Okay, back to the size. Since I do have the original .DNG, that means I can crop it a different way, I could reprocess it, and post it here, upload to dropbox (if I can remember my login details) let you all have a look at the new one, then tell me what size you think would work best? Would that work with out you all getting into the technical details that mostly went over my head?

PM sent to Normhead!! Read it, Please!!