|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2013 06:29:48 AM · #1 |
Here's something you should do, just to satisfy yourself and not just be guessing about what could happen. Yes, this will cost you a few bucks, but it will sure be worth the lesson.
Take the original file of the last image you printed, process it as you like, then Save As "Print Test Base". You'll then create a set of files to print as follows, appending to the file a suffix that will allow you to identify the print (such as "-4x6-125dpi"). You'll need to be very careful not to let the prints get mixed up, or you will have wasted your money. I'm lucky in that my lab prints the filename on the back of the print.
First, save a set as follows:
4x6 @ 125dpi
4x6 @ 175dpi
4x6 @ 225dpi
4x6 @ 300dpi
8x10 @ 125dpi
8x10 @ 175dpi
8x10 @ 225dpi
8x10 @ 300dpi
Now, take the same file and size it as follows to make another set of prints:
640px @ 72dpi
720px @ 72dpi
900px @ 72dpi
1280px @ 72dpi
640px @ 200dpi
720px @ 200dpi
900px @ 200dpi
1280px @ 200dpi
Only this time, make 4x6, 5x7, and 8x10 prints of each of the 8 files.
Lastly, produce a set of files to print 8x10s, but this time you'll vary the file size. Set the image dimensions to 8x10, 300dpi and save to the following file sizes:
200kb
500kb
1000kb
2000kb
Then save one last one as large as you can.
Depending on the tool you use, this may or may not be fairly easy. I use Lightroom, and it is very easy to control the dimensions when exporting.
Now, ship the files off to your lab (For me, this cost about $25.). Once your prints are in hand, write the dimensions (including the files sizes!) on the back, lay them out on a table and look at them, closely. Then have a non-photographer look at them closely.
You might think you know what to expect, but, until you do a side-by-side print comparison, you won't know for sure. Chances are, you are going to be shocked...
If you pixel-peep ahead of time, yes, you will probably notice some differences, but that's not the point. Get the prints made, then look at them. There's a world of difference between zooming in at 100% on a computer screen and viewing something laying on your kitchen table or holding two prints up at bent-arms length.
;-)
Message edited by author 2013-04-21 06:39:33. |
|
|
|
04/21/2013 10:55:49 AM · #2 |
I would have loved to hear your conclusions.
Since I trust you, I'd rather just let you spend the $25 and tell me what you've found. :) |
|
|
|
04/21/2013 11:10:00 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I would have loved to hear your conclusions.
Since I trust you, I'd rather just let you spend the $25 and tell me what you've found. :) |
My GAWD, Cory! You'd take it on FAITH? Jejeje... |
|
|
|
04/21/2013 11:25:18 AM · #4 |
Save yourself some money on the first set, and make only the 8x10 prints. After all, you are judging "apparent quality vs. dpi" and that is independent of print size.
For the second set, I'm a little confused as to intent... for each of the eight cases the print size is already defined. For example, 720px@72dpi is a 10-inch print by design. Skip, I suspect your intent was "resize to 720 pixels on the long side and make 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10 prints of the file. Lather, rinse repeat with the other pixel dimensions." I think this is a good, informative test.
I also think the third set is an informative test, but it is quite dependent on image content. A high-detail image will show far more degradation at the lower file size(s).
|
|
|
|
04/21/2013 02:20:07 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Save yourself some money on the first set, and make only the 8x10 prints. After all, you are judging "apparent quality vs. dpi" and that is independent of print size. |
that's fair. i suggest the 4x6 set as that is what most people print; however, if you can't tell the difference at 8x10, you sure won't at 4x6.
Originally posted by kirbic:
For the second set, I'm a little confused as to intent... for each of the eight cases the print size is already defined. For example, 720px@72dpi is a 10-inch print by design. Skip, I suspect your intent was "resize to 720 pixels on the long side and make 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10 prints of the file. Lather, rinse repeat with the other pixel dimensions." I think this is a good, informative test. |
the reasoning behind this set was to show what happens when people print what they typically find on the internet, ranging from the usual web-optimzed file up to the highly inefficient fat files (like what our mother's email us...).
Originally posted by kirbic:
I also think the third set is an informative test, but it is quite dependent on image content. A high-detail image will show far more degradation at the lower file size(s). |
again, you're right, and this might need to be run on three images, representing low, medium, and high detail.
i've dealt with this in two different areas. the first was with smugmug and the way they tied their menu options to file sizes (don't know about today, but years ago you had to upload large files to be able to sell large prints). the second was with newspaper publications and seeing what was actually produced from different files sizes.
of course, cory, i'll give you the easy out: size matters ;-) |
|
|
|
04/21/2013 03:55:54 PM · #6 |
Another BIG factor here is viewing distance.
Like my dad says about paint jobs on cars, a $200 job doesn't look good from any distance, a $500 job looks good from a few car lengths away, $1000 and you can get within 10 feet before you notice the problems, $2000 and you can be a foot or two away before you notice any issues, but if you want to go around the car with a magnifying glass, you'll probably want to budget somewhere around $15,000.
It's much the same with prints - most people don't examine photos from 6" away, arms length is usually the closest they'll get, and often it's much more like 10 feet.
I'd suggest that you add this test to your experience if you actually do this.
Skip, as for conclusions, I was basically wondering when you start to see artifacts and pixelation as a readily identifiable 'feature' of these photos? |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 03:05:16 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 03:05:16 AM EDT.
|
