Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
How do I get "clear" images when printing a 16x24 of a hi-res .jpg
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
Dec 22, 2013 14:33:50   #
Joecosentino
 
You kinda answered your own question. You said far away they look good close up they look blurry. Well a 16 inch print is meant to be viewed from a distance of 3 to 6 feet. A billboard looks good from the road but close up they will be blurred and pixilated.

Pixel peeping has become a new sport with digital photography. Step back and enjoy the photo like it should be.

| Reply
Dec 22, 2013 15:38:27   #
Kuzano
 
dpullum wrote:
Kuzano suggested: The best book I have run across on the math of printing is a book called "The Magic of Digital Printing" by Derek Doeffinger.

Thanks, just bought it $4.29 used from
www.betterworldbooks.com
New is about $8
BWBooks pay the shipping.... great site.


You will find it interesting... Mine is always above my printer, next to my computer.

thanks.

| Reply
Dec 22, 2013 17:53:53   #
f8lee
 
pauleveritt wrote:


For the print, crank the resolution up as far as the PRINTER will go. If you have a 4800 DPI printer, why leave any of the resolution on the table?


In point of fact, the 2400 and 4800 dpi numbers you see advertised in the printer manufacturers' marketing paraphernalia is a mid of a mis-lead; that refers to the size of the individual droplets of ink that are being "spat" out at the substrate paper (or canvas or whatever). Smaller droplets tend to blend more smoothly, so the bigger number (i.e. - smaller droplets) can lead to better tonal gradients.

That said, however, you DO NOT set your Photoshop program to resize to 4800 DPI! The native resolution of the printer is, as I stated earlier, in the vicinity of 300 - if you feed it an image set to 225 or 600 or 128 or 13 then the driver software (over which you have no control) will interpolate or extrapolate the pixel count to get to whatever the actual native resolution is. While the printer head may spit out pico-liter droplet sized balls of ink which themselves could be said to constitute 4800 DPI, the fact is the print head is moving along, so to speak, at 300 or 360, or whatever. So you are not, in any manner, "leaving resolution the table" by using "less" than 4800. The ideal resolution would be that which the manufacturer states as native (again, the Kodak dye web printers are natively 301DPI), and let the driver software figure rout how many pico-liter blobs of C or Y or M or K ink needs to be spat out for that 1/300th inch pixel.

| Reply
Dec 22, 2013 18:56:44   #
Doyle Thomas
 
boberic wrote:
Although striving for perfection is always a valid objective, it's the striving for that goal that is rewarding.


Strive for perfection, accept excellence.

Shoot raw, save as tiff, set resolution to native res of printer without resample, then use OnOne's Perfect Resize to set Print size.

Perfect Resize coverts the image to vectors does the resize and then rastorizes. If its not avalible resize in PS incrementally.

| Reply
Dec 22, 2013 19:24:52   #
dpullum (a regular here)
 
Doyle Thomas wrote:
Strive for perfection, accept excellence. Shoot raw, save as tiff, set resolution to native res of printer without resample, then use OnOne's Perfect Resize to set Print size. Perfect Resize coverts the image to vectors does the resize and then rastorizes. If its not avalible resize in PS incrementally.


Well, one learns gems in the strangest places. I will try my best to break my JPEG habit. My 24/7 camera does not take RAW, but my Sony and Fuji do. Also My new years resolution is to use Tiff, my editing will do it fine. so Yep Doyle.... I will convert my habits.

So, in this one forum, 1) have bought a book on printing 2) have learned more on the versatility of my Topaz 3) Decided to go cold turkey on JPEG
That is what UHH is all about.

| Reply
Dec 22, 2013 23:25:52   #
TheDman
 
Kuzano wrote:


Secondly, I checked the post rather thoroughly, and see NO mention of the amount of pixels in the image you printed from. 72DPI will print like crap normally, if you throw it out to the printer at that res. That is for monitor viewing,


That isn't for monitor viewing or web site use. The web doesn't care what your images' DPI is.

| Reply
Dec 22, 2013 23:40:17   #
f8lee
 
TheDman wrote:
That isn't for monitor viewing or web site use. The web doesn't care what your images' DPI is.


DMan, the Web may not care what resolution you use (since each monitor's driver will interpolate the image down to whatever its own native resolution is) but the shorthand way to save images for web use is to specify 72DPI which roughly translates to the 72PPI resolution of most basic monitors. Sure, you can save a 300DPI image sized at 4x6 inches and put it on a website, but since the screen only shows 1/16th of that (effectively eliminating 3 out of 4 pixels in each direction) what you've done is put a massive file online that will take a lot longer to download just to be viewed on a screen. In other words, the users who don't want to twiddle their thumbs waiting for a uselessly huge image to download do care.

| Reply
Dec 23, 2013 00:53:50   #
TheDman
 
f8lee wrote:
DMan, the Web may not care what resolution you use (since each monitor's driver will interpolate the image down to whatever its own native resolution is) but the shorthand way to save images for web use is to specify 72DPI which roughly translates to the 72PPI resolution of most basic monitors. Sure, you can save a 300DPI image sized at 4x6 inches and put it on a website, but since the screen only shows 1/16th of that (effectively eliminating 3 out of 4 pixels in each direction) what you've done is put a massive file online that will take a lot longer to download just to be viewed on a screen. In other words, the users who don't want to twiddle their thumbs waiting for a uselessly huge image to download do care.
DMan, the Web may not care what resolution you use... (show quote)


No. Absolutely none of what you just wrote is true. 72PPI is not the resolution of most basic monitors (it's not the resolution of any monitor at all), and 300PPI images are no larger in file size than 1PPI images. PPI stands for "pixels per inch", and there are no inches on the internet. What you wrote is an old wives tale that is rampant around the internet and needs to die. Fore more information about this, see this link: http://scantips.com/no72dpi.html

| Reply
Dec 23, 2013 01:21:46   #
SharpShooter
 
Beaux, I'm not here to tell you how to do your work. But, IMHO, the background is not anything I'd be interested in keeping sharp. If the shots are very slightly soft, it's possibly due to slight movement. If you opened up even one stop, you could double the speed, to eliminate some movement, yet wouldn't hurt the background much at all.
Just my opinion ;-)
SS

| Reply
Dec 23, 2013 06:10:46   #
beauxPatrick
 
So many suggestions... thanx a bunch....

To answer a few:
First I used a tripod at about 18" above the floor... down to their level, so to speak... used a wireless release, so there is no camera shake... only, busy animals... I shot these at f16 to insure DOF at it is critical at this close range... used a 55-250 Canon EFs lens usually at about 170mm... the ISO is 3200, thus the noise and the shutter is 1/60, or there abouts... I used Av setting at f16 on Canon EOS T3i 600D... 18 Mpxl...

All images were shot as RAW and JPG, yet I quick edited in JPG and saved to print... I realize I should have used the RAW file and saved to TIFF or PSD... even considered PDF...

I am still confused as to the relationship between something large at 72dpi reduced to 16x24 at 288 or 300???

My biggest mistake was not using the RAW files for making my print files... I see that...

Thanks for the advice... ever wanna know the secrets to shooting "Pet Friendly" send me a line...

beaux

| Reply
Dec 23, 2013 06:25:56   #
beauxPatrick
 
Thanks... actually I was able to get 2 stops more light by reducing the DOF and moving the focal point away from the backdrop another foot or so...

I also increased my lighting by removing a softbox cover and exposing the bare bulb... these are high-wattage 5000K cool lights and are great for animals who startle with the strobe... they are more "Pet Friendly", so to speak...

Some suggested a black backdrop... In the test shots we first used a black backdrop... but, with dogs, you have every color of fur... and most are multi colored... and let's not forget the black dogs... no, black did not work for what we were looking for... It had to be neutral... and the lighting has to be at a 45 degree and to the front a few feet... with the dogs eyes, you must have a catchlight... and it needs to be sharp... especially the darker ones...

This experiment was pretty well thought out and implemented.. we have learned a lot about shooting animals in a "Pet Friendly" way... and had a lot of fun doing it... these are the most loved animals and they return it... just a perk, I guess...

Your help has been instrumental in helping me improve the exercise...

Thanx again...

beaux

| Reply
Dec 23, 2013 07:36:11   #
beauxPatrick
 
One more thing... photography is both a skill (technique) and a creative experience... it is the balance of both that make the "perfect photo", so to speak... but, let me tell you that in shooting animals for their "parents" there is a 3rd factor in producing the "perfect image"... and that is the devotion they have for each other... everyone's pet is the most beautiful to them... and although I am critical of my technique and creativity... I can not overlook the fact that this devotion can make even a "not so perfect" photo very well liked...

Back when I had my studio, I had done an infant shoot and could not get a decent shot... the poser was too big and all shots seemed to be up the baby's nose...

When I received the proofs, I actually was afraid to show them... this was the "ugliest" baby I had ever seen and the pictures were garbage... or so I thought...

When mom saw the proofs, she exclaimed at how great they were... and I even got referral business from the shoot... lesson learned!

More so with animals, I find...

If you are interested in learning more about my research into "Pet Friendly Photography" or have any experiences or ideas.. please contact me...

beaux

| Reply
Dec 23, 2013 07:38:52   #
beauxPatrick
 
Sage advice...

| Reply
Dec 23, 2013 07:54:19   #
f8lee
 
TheDman wrote:
No. Absolutely none of what you just wrote is true. 72PPI is not the resolution of most basic monitors (it's not the resolution of any monitor at all), and 300PPI images are no larger in file size than 1PPI images. PPI stands for "pixels per inch", and there are no inches on the internet. What you wrote is an old wives tale that is rampant around the internet and needs to die. Fore more information about this, see this link: http://scantips.com/no72dpi.html


See, here s where you make a mis-step. That article (lovely by the way) speaks to the concept of SCANNING at 72DPI as some magical myth, which it is. This is not the conversation being had here.

I specifically stated that an image saved as a 4x6 at 300 DPI will just be excessively large if it is to be only displayed on a screen. Even if modern monitors are denser than 72PPI, there is still no need to save an image that will be 1200 pixels by 1800 pixels (or to be more drastic, say a 16x20 image at 300 DPI meaning 4800 x 6000 pixels) because the monitor driver will "throw away" the majority of the pixels (or else display that image in a way you would need to scroll all over to see its entirety.

The OP was not asking about scanning.

| Reply
Dec 23, 2013 08:29:04   #
boberic (a regular here)
 
boberic wrote:
They look pretty good to me. More important is if your clients liked and then bought the shots. There is an old expression- don't let perfection be the enemy of good. Some times good is good enough. Although striving for perfection is always a valid objective, it's the striving for that goal that is rewarding.

I have looked ay these shots again. I am certainly not an expert photographer but I do know dogs. I noticed that the dogs were panting. If you look at any panting dog their heads as well as the bodies are constantly moving. A smaller dog is moving even faster ralative to their body size than a bigger one. The loss of sharpness when enlerged to more than 8X10 is related to subject movement here. 1/60 is simply not fast enough. I do not think that it is any more complicated than that.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.