Print run down

[Ted_Mishima]

I've noticed prints being enlarged to 16 x 20 and more from digital cameras producing relatively small file sizes (Canon D30 Nikon D1). I'd like to get clarification as to how these digital printers are able to get such a large print. Is there a huge difference between a 5 x 7 print next to an 11 x 14 of the same file? Lastly, if a file at 300 dpi produces a 5 x 7 print on an off set printer, what is it about a digital printer that makes it capable of producing a 16 x 20 and on real photo paper? Any insite on this will greatly be appreciated.

Thanks,


Ted Mishima
http://www.mishimaphotography.com

[Don_Schenk]

Hi Ted,

Part of it is an illusion. People don't view large prints from right up close.

Part of it is special sharpening software the labs use with their LED printers.

Part of it is the photographer using an "up-sizing" software such as Genuine Fractals to increase the image size with fractal geometry instead of Photoshop's interpolation. We get beautiful 24x30 from Kodak DCS 330 cameras (3 megapixels) 8.65meg files by using Genuine Fractals.

Reciently my lab had me supply them with images up-sized in Genuine Fractals and the same images up-sized in Photoshop. They made large prints as a test to see what their new LED printer would do. There was no comparison.

The GF files produced beautiful prints and the others turned into pages of pixels. Bleah!!!

[This message has been edited by Don Schenk (edited May 02, 2001).]

[Tom_Coles]

Hi Don,

Which GF are you using?

Tom Coles

[Ted_Mishima]

Don,

That was my question also. Are you giving the lab a cmyk file or rgb? I have a version of GF, but only works with RGB files. I haven't played with it either, so any hints would be welcome (offline if need be). I have made some photos via ofoto.com and am very impressed. Haven't played with huge prints, but for now, don't need to. I would like to know the limitations on the positive side.

Thanks,

Ted Mishima
http://www.mishimaphotography.com

[Ron]

So far I've only had a 16x20 made and we did view it up close. Like 2 inches away. I was worried because I upsized it a bunch using photoshop (I'm not sold on Genuine fractals) See comparison... at bottom of this msg.

The upsized pshop images look more real, while the upsized GF images loose some detail at the expense of adding 'fake' sharpness. In the 16x20 I had printed, I
pasted a cats head from another
image. I had to upsize the cats head more
than the image to scale it properly for
the image it was going to be placed on.

Because I had to upsize the cats head
so much... on the computer I could see pixels in the cats whiskers. However on the print I could not detect a single pixel. I was really impressed with the print.
I used pshop only to upsample... the quality was equal to my medium format 6x7 film prints.



Ignore the 30x40 text that was my error, both of these images were the same original, both upsampled to 50x60 inch print. The left is pshop only upsample, and the right is Genuine fractles upsample. Though the GF image appears sharper from a distance, I feel the left image is more photo realisic (there is more to a good print than sharpness) especially in portraiture.
I'm not sure which I like best, but the left looks more like a real photo - so that is what I've gone with so far. (pshop upsamples over GF upsamples)




[This message has been edited by Ron (edited May 02, 2001).]

[Don_Schenk]

I am using GF 2.0

It is the RGB version. I don't need the more elaborate version because I am not doing prepress. The lab I use wants RGB given to them as .TIF

I have not been able to see much difference on the monitor between GF and Photoshop interpolation, but the proof sure is in the comparison prints the lab made for me. The GF enlargements were clean and the others full of little square pixels...gazillions of 'em.