Comparing lenses for full frame vs. APS-C sensors

[Manfred M]

Interesting. I didn’t record the details of the test I did—the size of the image or of the print. Schewe’s article suggests that 600 dpi might be better if I used file that’s large relative the print size. Maybe someday I’ll replicate the test that way. However, it’s a very low priority. I get consistently fine results at 300.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Dan - if you haven't been over to PhotoPXL in a while, Kevin Raber has been working on a series of videos on printing; they published the third one a couple of days ago. Epson's Dan Steinhard and Jeff Schewe participate in these videos and while the emphasis is on the Epson printers, most of what they are talking about will apply to the Canon printers as well.

As an example, I always thought that single direction versus bi-directional printing was related to accuracy of ink placement. It seems that ink drying time was the main reason for this mode, etc. They also discuss what modern print drivers do, versus those used back a decade ago.

[DanK]

Manfred,

Thanks. I’ll look. I did watch their video on paper, which was also Epson-centric.

I stopped following Photopxl. They still have some good material, but they also have a lot of raves about new gear (usually Sony) that I find uninteresting. Maybe I should go back to checking it out more often.

Dan


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ajax]

It looks like part of my problem is that I’m NOT using Lightroom (or any other Adopbe Software for that matter). Based on the article referenced by Len I see that Lightroom allows for setting the 300ppi, 360ppi, etc. That, at least, partially answers my question about where those values come from. However, I do NOT think Lightroom counts as a printer driver. Rather it is what I’d call post-processing (Development) software and in order to print it must invoke the Canon supplied driver software. I suspect that mine is the same (or very similar) to what is being used for lots of Canon printers. The splash screen for that driver on my Canon Pro 100 looks as follows:



I’ve looked pretty hard and don’t find any option for changing resolution in the driver. Based on this discussion I also went hunting for some such reference in the post-processing (Development) & organizing software supplied by Canon. That would be Digital Photo Professional 4 (DPP4) & something called My Image Garden. Both provide interfaces to the Canon driver that disguises what users of other software such as the open source programs that I use see when invoking the driver. I’m guessing that Lightroom may do the same thing. It might also be worth pointing out that Canon also offers a program called Print Studio Pro that functions as a plugin to DPP4. The idea being that pros get to fiddle with a lot more settings than are necessary to use the printer. I find nothing like Print Resolution as a setting available in Print Studio Pro.

With that said it might be worth pointing out that I have experienced considerable difficulty using the open source software to print. In that, it does a lousy job of interfacing with the driver. One exception would be that a while back when Picasa (not really open source but free and widely used) was still being supported by Google it worked quite nicely with the Canon driver. Therefore, I depend on the previously mentioned Canon provided software for printing.

The article referenced by Len describes both sharpening and re-sampling that are being done by Ligthroom’s printing tool/interface that I expect eventually invokes the driver. These are both things that I’m doing while developing the image. At present I typically have to crop the image to an aspect ratio that fits the paper on which it is printed. Sharpening is also performed but I do NOT re-sample (or scale). It might be worth pointing out, my understanding would be, that inches are NOT a relevant metric to the image itself. While ppi can be set in the post-processing software it is only metadata that could anticipate what the printer driver must do when printing a given number of pixels on paper of a given width. The printer driver must be prepared to deal with a pretty large range of possibilities when it comes to how the actual number of pixels present get spread over the width of the paper. I’ve never considered the idea that downsizing could produce a better print. Likewise up-sizing never occurred to me as a way to get a better print.

I think the suggestion herein is that by doing the resizing myself I might get a better result than leaving that to the printer driver. Yeh? Ney?

[pschlute]

It might be worth pointing out, my understanding would be, that inches are NOT a relevant metric to the image itself. While ppi can be set in the post-processing software it is only metadata that could anticipate what the printer driver must do when printing a given number of pixels on paper of a given width.

There are three parameters here:

Pixel size of the image, eg. 3000x3000 px

PPI of the image eg. 300ppi

print size eg. 10"x10"

Those three numbers above work together. You cannot change one of them without changing at least one other.

eg if you want to print 20"x 20" instead you can change the image ppi to 150ppi, or resample the image to 6,000x6,000. Or some combination. But the three corners of ppi/print size/pixel dimensions triangle must add up

[LenR]

David, I would suggest that in the absence of any editing software with a print module i.e. Lightroom/ Photoshop etc wherein a specific print resolution (and other parameters) can be selected the printer driver will be left to sort it out and the results may be less than satisfactory as you have alluded to. Although I am a Canon user, I am not familiar with the software you mention. Perhaps other members will chime in further on this........

[xpatUSA]

I’ve looked pretty hard and don’t find any option for changing resolution in the driver.

If you're a GIMPster, look no further:



The Print dialog opens up set to General. Clicking on the image tab gets you the above. There, you can alter stuff as you think fit. Change a print size and the resolution changes accordingly; change a resolution and the print size changes accordingly ... no calculator required. If you re-scale the open image's pixel size, that will be reflected in the dialog next time it comes up. Piece of cake, eh?

P.S. Image size is 9520x5363px ...

[ajax]

There are three parameters here:

Pixel size of the image, eg. 3000x3000 px

PPI of the image eg. 300ppi

print size eg. 10"x10"

Those three numbers above work together. You cannot change one of them without changing at least one other.

eg if you want to print 20"x 20" instead you can change the image ppi to 150ppi, or resample the image to 6,000x6,000. Or some combination. But the three corners of ppi/print size/pixel dimensions triangle must add up

Yes! Agreed!

My idea would be that pixels are an inherent property of the image, inches are inherent to the paper receiving the printout, and ppi is what you have with that combination. GIMP has a tool called “Print Size”. It does nothing to the image but it does recompute the values based on data you enter. This is useful for multi-layer editing where you want to create new layers sized in inches that have the same resolution. GIMP uses the term X Resolution and Y Resolution which also happens to be the names used for EXIF metadata elements stored in the image file. As best I can tell when dealing with photos (i.e., still images) X & Y Resolution are always the same.

Any idea what circumstance would yield different values for X & Y?

[ajax]

David, I would suggest that in the absence of any editing software with a print module i.e. Lightroom/ Photoshop etc wherein a specific print resolution (and other parameters) can be selected the printer driver will be left to sort it out and the results may be less than satisfactory as you have alluded to. Although I am a Canon user, I am not familiar with the software you mention. Perhaps other members will chime in further on this........

Yes! This is NOT something I've ever done nor for that matter ever thought of doing. My simple minded approach when it comes to the 300ppi relation to my Canon printer is that if I can get at least that amount I should be able to expect a good printout.

Given the discussion herein I'm thinking this is a fairly significant characteristic of my Canon printer. The idea that the 300ppi value gets no mention that I've been able to find in any Canon documentation is something I find a bit strange.

[ajax]

If you're a GIMPster, look no further:
...

Interesting, the “Size” part is also what GIMP calls the “Scale Image” tool which I do have plenty of use for but the reason has NOT been trying to get precisely 300ppi. As previously mentioned I gave up on trying to print anything with GIMP years ago. As I recall, no matter what size paper I was using, and selected in the Canon driver, the preview always specified 8½x11.

Possibly GIMP has corrected some of those problems somewhere in the many releases since then. I’ll check it out. It will be very interesting to see how the “Position” part works on my printer. However, that still won’t be much help to me. The pictures that matter to me get produced for a specific print size and include other things like borders and text that cause me to want an image file specific to the printout. The border-less printing capability is something I find very desirable.

[DanK]

I’ve looked pretty hard and don’t find any option for changing resolution in the driver.

It's the "print quality" dropdown box in the screenshot you showed. The Canon driver doesn't give you the numerical values corresponding to these settings. Just set it to "highest quality", as I mentioned before.

As for dealing with software that doesn't have print options: can't help you there. But once you find something you are comfortable with, set it for 300 dpi. Those two settings are all you need for the printer. There's a lot more to printing, but those two settings are all you need for that part of the puzzle.

Depending on what software you choose, you may have to more with respect to resizing/resampling. If you use Lightroom and are satisfied with its resizing (as I do and am), it's simple enough: once you have told the software how large you are printing, you get three options for output sharpening and one for media. That's all you have to do. You don't have to resize manually, as you do in Photoshop. I've done the latter as well and didn't find that it gave me better results.

[ajax]

Interesting, the “Size” part is also what GIMP calls the “Scale Image” tool ...

Looks like I erred when previously replying (#189) and compared the "Size" part to the "Scale Image" tool. Based on some further experimentation I'd say it is rather the same as the "Print Size" tool mentioned in another reply (#187). In that, this does NOT cause anything to happen to the number of pixels in the image.

[ajax]

It's the "print quality" dropdown box in the screenshot you showed. The Canon driver doesn't give you the numerical values corresponding to these settings. Just set it to "highest quality", as I mentioned before.

...

Yes, I have been aware of those quality settings. I have another all-in-one printer that I use for things others than photos. My Pixma Pro 100 is used only for printing photos and I’ve only ever wanted the best possible quality. Therefore, I always set it that way but I must admit that I don’t know what that causes the printer to do differently. The idea that it might take longer and consume more ink to produce better quality is something I’ve always presumed to be true.

After digging some more into the Canon documentation I still haven’t found anything helpful when it comes to understanding what the printer does differently when making these different quality selections. Since there are 5 different settings one might assume each is different in some respect. When it comes to this resampling concept both 300 & 600 have been mentioned for Canon printers. Might that be one of the differences? Implication being that “highest” might correspond to 600.

Also, in my digging process I tripped over another bit of new news. While that probably represents another deviation from the original subject it occurs to me that you guys are the ones who may know something about it. The User Guide that gets installed with the Canon software contains the following (in Italics):

Since Print Studio Pro supports 16-bits-per-channel image data, you can receive the data as is from image editing software without degrading it, and print High Dynamic Range images (full 16-bit workflow).

Note

To print High Dynamic Range images, it is required to select the XPS printer driver.
When performing color adjustment in image editing software, adjusting in 16 bits per channel reduces degradation of image quality due to banding (gradient stepping). In addition, printing High Dynamic Range images (full 16-bit workflow) produces smoother gradations compared to printing 8-bits-per-channel images.

But that is about it!!!

This is of interest to me since I always produce 16bit masters from my camera’s raw files. They are also the ones I’ve been printing but I don’t have the XPS Driver installed. It might be worth pointing out that for some time now I’ve relied on Canon software (My Image Garden mostly & Print Studio Pro occasionally) to do the photo printing.

Are my 16bit files getting converted to 8bit before they’re printed?

[DanK]

As lawyers say, asked and answered. If you want the highest quality from your pixma pro 100, set the print quality to highest and the ppi from the software at 300 dpi. It's possible, based on Schewe's comments, that if you are donwsizing a very large file, setting software to 600 dpi might be a tiny bit better, but I'm not convinced, and I can't imagine it makes much difference. I have been printing on Canon photo printers for years and exhibiting the prints, and those are the two settings I always use.

Re the XPS driver: that's correct. Canon names its 16-bit drivers "XPS". I have no idea why. I always use the XPS driver to be safe, but in many cases, it won't make a discernable difference.

[DanK]

PS: can’t tell you much about the two canon print programs. I’ve never used My Print Garden. I played with another one at one point, I think Print Studio Pro, but I couldn’t find anything I do that it allowed me to do better or easier than Lightroom, so I never went back to it. I’m guessing that they are both 8 bit unless they explicitly let you acces the XPS driver, which doesn’t install automatically.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DanK]

Given that this thread has migrated entirely from APS-C lenses to printing with Canon printers, I'll offer an unsolicited bit of advice answering a question not yet asked.

IMHO, if one intends to print a lot, this ought to be a consideration in selecting postprocessing software. For me, this alone is worth the $10/month for the Adobe subscription. If you accept Lightroom's resizing and output sharpening, as I do--I've found they produce excellent results--then Lightroom greatly simplifies this because it takes only one or two mouse clicks to store all of your settings, both those you set in the software and those you set in the print driver, as a template. This includes ICC, output sharpening, media type, ppi setting, quality setting, paper size, paper margins, and all the rest. So, for example, if I want to print on Baryta Photographique, stock size 13 x 19, with a sufficiently large margin to allow a signature to show, I just select the relevant preset, and all of the settings are applied. Moreover, Lightroom stores soft-proofed copies alongside the original, so if I print from the same paper more than once, I can simply select the relevant soft-proofed copy, switch to the print module, select the relevant template, and hit <print>. If I want to then switch to a different paper, a different size, or a print without room for a signature, I just click on the template, and I'm ready to print.

There may be other software packages that offer the same functionality, or much of it.

On the other hand, if you decide to do the resizing and output sharpening yourself manually for every print--which I believe is what Manfred does--then Photoshop is a good choice. There are undoubedly others that handle this more laborious process well, but I don't know, as I have only printed from Photoshop and Lightroom.

My point is more general than Adobe vs. others. My point is that if printing is a major part of your workflow, it's well worth picking software that handles well the method you choose to use.

[ajax]

...

My point is more general than Adobe vs. others. My point is that if printing is a major part of your workflow, it's well worth picking software that handles well the method you choose to use.

Up to now printing has been a minor part of my workflow. At the same time, I suspect as an amateur/novice, I spend a lot more time developing the raw file into something printable than most, if NOT all, of you. I'm always in learn mode. On the other hand I'm a bit more adept at using computers and that is NOT limited to photography. I'm also pretty old fashioned. My big objections to Adobe Software is neither the price nor the capability but rather their decision to move to the cloud. I don't like the idea of depending on a network connection to do this kind of work. I especially don't like the idea of sharing my data/pictures with a company like Adobe. I do prefer to store everything myself.

On the other hand, I do get the idea that those of you who are much better at this than I am do seem to like Adobe and I'm very grateful that you are willing to engage with me as an outsider in that regard.

[DanK]

My big objections to Adobe Software is neither the price nor the capability but rather their decision to move to the cloud. I don't like the idea of depending on a network connection to do this kind of work. I especially don't like the idea of sharing my data/pictures with a company like Adobe. I do prefer to store everything myself.

I'm not pitching for Adobe, but you misunderstand what they offer. Their software does not require that you store anything in the cloud, share your photos with them, or do the processing in the cloud. I have never uploaded a single photo to Adobe's servers. There are two versions of Lightroom, Lightroom CC and Lightroom Classic. Both are included in the subscription service. CC is in the cloud; Classic is not. I use classic and store everything locally. Photoshop remains local in terms of both storage and almost all processing. I believe that a few of the most advanced AI-based features do call back to Adobe servers, but there is no need to use those; the software works fine without them.

The only time my software contacts Adobe is once a month to verify that my subscription is still valid and to check for updates.

In any case, I wasn't advocating switching to adobe software. I was only suggesting that if printing is going to be important to you, it's worth selecting software that lets you do it easily.

[Round Tuit]

Up to now printing has been a minor part of my workflow. At the same time, I suspect as an amateur/novice, I spend a lot more time developing the raw file into something printable than most, if NOT all, of you. I'm always in learn mode. On the other hand I'm a bit more adept at using computers and that is NOT limited to photography. I'm also pretty old fashioned. My big objections to Adobe Software is neither the price nor the capability but rather their decision to move to the cloud. I don't like the idea of depending on a network connection to do this kind of work. I especially don't like the idea of sharing my data/pictures with a company like Adobe. I do prefer to store everything myself.

On the other hand, I do get the idea that those of you who are much better at this than I am do seem to like Adobe and I'm very grateful that you are willing to engage with me as an outsider in that regard.

David,

I use Adobe CC and none of my photos are on the cloud. The cloud is an option if you want to use it but it is definitely not a requirement.

[Manfred M]

Up to now printing has been a minor part of my workflow. At the same time, I suspect as an amateur/novice, I spend a lot more time developing the raw file into something printable than most, if NOT all, of you.

Congratulations - you have just figured out the most important part of printmaking.

Pressing the "Print" button is the easy part. Having a well prepared image before you press the button is how you get a good print.

[DanK]

Congratulations - you have just figured out the most important part of printmaking.

Pressing the "Print" button is the easy part. Having a well prepared image before you press the button is how you get a good print.

yes, but to be fair, there are intermediate steps that are second nature to you and me but can be confusing for people who haven't done much printing--knowing how the choice of paper will affect the image, dealing with ICCs, softproofing, making sure that ambient light is right when you're preparing to print, dealing with colors that are out of gamut for a particular combination of printer and paper, making sure the media type is right (not always obvious if you aren't using the printer manufacturer's paper), output sharpening, making sure that you set the software and firmware to avoid double profiling and to make sure the color management is left on for the correct one, and probably half a dozen other things that I am not thinking of.