Re: The 300dpi Myth Exploded !


"Photo Critic" <critical2theend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i en meddelelse
news:f08map$hkk$1@xxxxxxxxxxx

"Max Perl" <max_perl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4627a354$0$72891$edfadb0f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You did not "oversample" to reach 300 dpi to avoid visible pixels if you
look close at the print? .....maybe the printer software did
something?

OK.....a print of this size has a viewing distance.
A 24" x 36" print is bigger than vi call A1 size here i Europe.

You need a larger frame than 24"x36" to get space for the passepartout?
Hand cut of course using a Logan 4000?


"Annika1980" <annika1980@xxxxxxx> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1176999603.085540.194250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Just the other day I decided to have one of my Steeplechase photos
printed at poster size (24" x 36"). The local Ritz Camera has an
Epson 7800 which they use for such things so I figured I'd give em a
try. They allow you to upload the pic to them online and then simply
go to pick it up.
They charge $39.95 for a 24" x 36" print.



Epson "Pro" series printer driver interpolates image data to the printer's
native resolution of 720 dpi, regardless of the density of the image fed
to it. You could feed it a 72 dpi image and it would have interpolated it
to 720 dpi although the quality would have been somewhat degraded.

Large format printer specs and how they handle data is confusing for
newcomers. The printed resolution specifications are based on the makers
own interpretation of how the printer lays down dots, not a measured
resolution from the print. All Epson photo printers have a native input
image resolution of 720 dpi.

Some operators of wide format printers believe fractional files I.E. 360
dpi or 180 dpi are easiest to deal with whilst other insist on using an
aftermarket product like Qimage to do the interpolation and feed the
printer 720 dpi data instead of let the driver do the interpolation.

24" x 36" is not a very large print compared to what D-Mac gets from
digital files. I have one of his prints in my office that is six feet long
from my own 30D image. As long as you stand at a distance that allows you
to see the whole picture, it is excellent.

Close examination at about the distance of a 6"x4" print and it is not as
sharp as it looks when you see the whole print. I have a desk in front of
so no one gets to see it that close. Everyone who sees it remarks on the
"wow" factor. It must be the K3 inks or something.

I also have a photographic print 10 feet long on another wall from my
brother's 4"x5" field camera which blows away anything I've ever seen from
any digital camera. I scanned the negative with his Epson "wet bed"
scanner and sent the file to Rome (Italy) for printing. It was the only
place I could find to make a 6 feet x 10 feet print. You can tell the
difference in the type of print when you look closely. Not quite as
brightly coloured as the Inkjet but a truly stunning picture, the likes of
which I've never seen anywhere else except in the Hotel foyers where his
photos hang.

Julian


For me an A3+ print (approx. 13" x 19") is large. That is the largest I can
print
using my Epson R2400 (not considering rolls). I was surprised how good
prints
at this size looks from a 12MP camera. Here you can have your nose in the
print
and it still looks detailed and sharp. So here the printers interpolation
did a fine
job. But maybe it can be better if it was done by Photoshop or a 3rd party
program.
Then you can apply some USM after the interpolation.


.

Relevant Pages