Site Sponsors
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 151 to 171 of 171

Thread: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

  1. #151
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    I'm not sure I would put money down on a bet the D800e is exactly the same as the A7r. They seem different to me. But that's just a feeling I have so far. I think the Sony actually has better DR but I have to shoot a lot more to be firm in any if that. I think this answer would have to come from Sony
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  2. #152
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Colson View Post
    Exactly Jono. You [once again] have hit the nail on the head.

    Furthermore, when printing (using LR and/or PS) I frequently refer to an article written by Jeff Shewe in 2011 where he says:
    The bottom line is, if the image you're printing to a high-end inkjet printer has a native resolution at the print size of less than the printer resolution, upsample to the printer's dpi. In the case of Epson, that's 360 dpi, and it's 300 dpi with Canon and other printers with similar print heads. If the native resolution is above the resolution, upsample the image to the higher reported resolution of the printers (720 ppi for Epson and 600 ppi for Canon).

    Jeff is the acknowledged expert in printing with Epson printers using either LR or PS, having worked with the developers in both Adobe and Epson to "get it right". His book "The Digital Print" is worth reading and using as a guide if one prints his/her own images.

    And yes, pixel "quality" matters. Superior tonal gradations from so-called "fat pixels" usually make for better prints at any resolution. As Marc pointed out though, I haven't seen any evidence yet that suggests the pixels from the A7 lead to better prints than those from the A7R.

    Joe
    There are tests out there that show that the actual native resolution of Epson printers is 288 ppi, rather than 360.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #153
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    So, with Epson printers, what is the maximum uninterpolated input ppi that will improve printed detail?

    For example, what is the optimum print size from a 16MP sensor (assuming perfect technique)? In other words the just right print size, the size at which going bigger will lessen quality and going smaller will not show an improvement.

    There must be a maximum input ppi which represents the absolute sharpest the printer can deliver....

  4. #154
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,294
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    And there are other experts who swear blind that you should send to the printer at native resolution and tell the printer to upsample to its maximum resolution. Others who say you absolutely HAVE to use a RIP. Others who say you should only ever up or downsample by factors of 100% or 50% and others who insist that if you want to upsample, you should do it in incremental steps.

    In the end there is an awful lot of juju involved, the science is either beyond most of us or we don't have enough facts to work by it. Use a widely recommended method and see f you like it. Try a different method and see if it is better with your printer and your paper and your types of image… and be aware that in 18 months time the 'rules' might be different; in The Digital Print, Schewe says that the interpolation routines in LR have improved greatly in recent versions, for example, so that now you should indeed use LR to upsample to the the printer's highest resolution.

    It's a forest. I try to look at the trees.
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #155
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    ....

    It's a forest. I try to look at the trees.
    Yes, but we are trying to make the trees as sharp as possible.
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #156
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    And there are other experts who swear blind that you should send to the printer at native resolution and tell the printer to upsample to its maximum resolution. Others who say you absolutely HAVE to use a RIP. Others who say you should only ever up or downsample by factors of 100% or 50% and others who insist that if you want to upsample, you should do it in incremental steps.

    In the end there is an awful lot of juju involved, the science is either beyond most of us or we don't have enough facts to work by it. Use a widely recommended method and see f you like it. Try a different method and see if it is better with your printer and your paper and your types of image… and be aware that in 18 months time the 'rules' might be different; in The Digital Print, Schewe says that the interpolation routines in LR have improved greatly in recent versions, for example, so that now you should indeed use LR to upsample to the the printer's highest resolution.

    It's a forest. I try to look at the trees.
    Agreed. I've read so much about this over the years, and it really isn't conclusive. I just print right out of LR set at 288ppi to my Epson and don't worry about it anymore.

  7. #157
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    There are tests out there that show that the actual native resolution of Epson printers is 288 ppi, rather than 360.
    I don't doubt that there are tests and statistics that "show" just about anything. Jeff Schewe is one of the insiders who worked with Adobe and Epson on the basic design and coding of the print interface, including sharpening, for Lightroom, Photoshop and the Epson inkjet printers. He's as expert as I need to advise me on native resolution and upsampling. He's active on LuLa if you want to debate the issue with him.

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    And there are other experts who swear blind that you should send to the printer at native resolution and tell the printer to upsample to its maximum resolution. Others who say you absolutely HAVE to use a RIP. Others who say you should only ever up or downsample by factors of 100% or 50% and others who insist that if you want to upsample, you should do it in incremental steps.

    In the end there is an awful lot of juju involved, the science is either beyond most of us or we don't have enough facts to work by it. Use a widely recommended method and see f you like it. Try a different method and see if it is better with your printer and your paper and your types of image… and be aware that in 18 months time the 'rules' might be different; in The Digital Print, Schewe says that the interpolation routines in LR have improved greatly in recent versions, for example, so that now you should indeed use LR to upsample to the the printer's highest resolution.

    It's a forest. I try to look at the trees.
    I agree that there is "juju" involved. Since printing is an expensive process, in ink, paper and time, for my Epson 7900, I've used Schewe's expert opinion as my starting point. I find I waste fewer supplies that way, and end up with a better result (for me) in less time than by using trial and error.

    It's my 30 years of engineering discipline that favors fact over "juju". YMMV

    Joe
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #158
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    Agreed. I've read so much about this over the years, and it really isn't conclusive. I just print right out of LR set at 288ppi to my Epson and don't worry about it anymore.
    And like many who do their own printing, your results likely aren't as good as they could be. Just sayin'.

    Joe
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography

  9. #159
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,030
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    =tashley; Schewe says that the interpolation routines in LR have improved greatly in recent versions, for example, so that now you should indeed use LR to upsample to the the printer's highest resolution.

    It's a forest. I try to look at the trees.
    I have said it before and will say it again..... I would never use Lightroom for my printing if it involved using Lightroom's interpolation. As Tim says there a lots of ways to approach this... in the end use what works for you.

    Victor

  10. #160
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,030
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    There are tests out there that show that the actual native resolution of Epson printers is 288 ppi, rather than 360.
    First time I've ever heard of this..... maybe you could point me to that source.

    Victor

  11. #161
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,030
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Colson View Post
    And like many who do their own printing, your results likely aren't as good as they could be. Just sayin'.

    Joe
    +1

    Victor

  12. #162
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Colson View Post
    And like many who do their own printing, your results likely aren't as good as they could be. Just sayin'.

    Joe
    I've just about read it all, tried it all, and I've found nothing better, as 288 ppi is apparently the true resolution of Epson printers that are 1440 dpi, and printing out of LR has come a long way.

  13. #163
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    ...as 288 ppi is apparently the true resolution of Epson printers that are 1440 dpi
    What's the source of this information?

    Joe
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography

  14. #164
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    But Joe, isn't juju more fun as an approach?
    I too have relied on Schewe's techniques as a starting point and then fine tune as needed to see what specific additional changes might be needed with files that are more problematic to deal with.

    There are always ways to evoke improvement but whether it's worth the time, effort and money to do so depends on what's required and for whom. This is where YMMV may also come into play. Many variables to consider in the art of printing.

    Dave (D&A)

  15. #165
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by vjbelle View Post
    First time I've ever heard of this..... maybe you could point me to that source.

    Victor
    There is plenty on the web about it. Here's one pretty comprehensive explantation from Rich that I read a few years back. Second and third post in particular:

    http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...confusion.html

  16. #166
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,907
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    There is plenty on the web about it. Here's one pretty comprehensive explantation from Rich that I read a few years back. Second and third post in particular:

    dpi and ppi confusion' - Leica User Forum
    Thanks. That reference cites tests that were conducted in 2004 and updated in 2007. Maybe we've seen improvements since then from both Adobe and Epson. Adobe Lightroom wasn't even introduced until 2007, for example. And Epson's current printer line is far superior to the Epson Stylus Photo 2200 that was used in the tests.

    Here's a recent thread on LuLa discussing a similar topic, with Schewe chiming in.

    I'm sure there are different ways to skin a cat (my apologies to PETA), and I will now bid this topic (and thread) a fond adieu.

    Joe
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #167
    Senior Member Ron Pfister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Colson View Post
    And Epson's current printer line is far superior to the Epson Stylus Photo 2200 that was used in the tests.
    Just a little. I fondly remember bronzing madness and metameric anguish...
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #168
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Pfister View Post
    Just a little. I fondly remember bronzing madness and metameric anguish...
    So do I and if I recall correctly, the 2200 was the poster child for these two issues in particular as was the 7600 printers when printing with photo black ink. Of course there are other good examples that could be cited.

    Dave (D&A)
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #169
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Colson View Post
    Thanks. That reference cites tests that were conducted in 2004 and updated in 2007. Maybe we've seen improvements since then from both Adobe and Epson. Adobe Lightroom wasn't even introduced until 2007, for example. And Epson's current printer line is far superior to the Epson Stylus Photo 2200 that was used in the tests.

    Here's a recent thread on LuLa discussing a similar topic, with Schewe chiming in.

    I'm sure there are different ways to skin a cat (my apologies to PETA), and I will now bid this topic (and thread) a fond adieu.

    Joe
    Rich's summary was from 2009, but I'll also leave this alone, because I don't believe there has ever been a thread about this subject that has ended in agreement, including the zillions of LuLa threads about it over the years. I may give 360 ppi another shot.
    Last edited by douglasf13; 1st January 2014 at 19:44.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #170
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Ever since the X600 series, Epson printers have favored 360ppi.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #171
    Subscriber Member Georg Baumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    82

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Ever since the X600 series, Epson printers have favored 360ppi.
    ...and in my experience Epsons will resolve more detail up to 720 PPI if you have enough resolution to send!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •