Hmmm, interesting ideas, thanks Moose. I have long been loath to use
lower ppi for prints, based on (as you mention) poor experience when I
started printing from digital image files back in 1998. In addition,
my weekly magazine, Amateur Photographer, has repeatedly recommended
printing from 300ppi, 200 at a stretch. I understand how even (base
10) divisions of the print resolution might work, but only if the
printer (I'm using an Epson 1290, probably similar to your 1270)
'knows' it and puts the printer's drops in phase with the image files
pixels.. surely?
Anyway, my wife has just asked me to make digital images of a built-in
wardrobe with a view to showing the potential makers of a replacement.
My first go was at too low a resolution by mistake (1000 pixels on the
long side), the second was at the highest JPEG output that my G5 can
muster (2560 on the long side). I printed the former at 144, giving me
8.6 ins on the long side, the latter at 300 with the same dimension.
Both images stayed in PS7 so the smaller file was upsampled with PS
alone; before I printed them I used FM's Intellisharpen to factor 8.
The result from the un-resampled file was better. The smaller file was
softer and lacked detail - acceptable but undoubtedly worse.
Now, this does not mean that I would not be pleased with snaps printed
at 144 ppi, but I don't envisage expanding files as a matter of course.
More to the point, although I am happy with my rather expensive P & S,
I do not anticipate spending 3 times as much on a camera whose image
files are the same size and would require upsampling to get me above
A4.
Thanks
Chris
On 9 May 2004, at 09:40, Moose wrote:
>
> To directly answer the question as posed, one must upsample the image.
> Step Interpolation seems to be the best way at the moment. One can do
> it
> manually in photo editors. Fred Mirandas SIPro is a cheap and very good
> PS plug-in. There are other stand alone programs and plug-ins that cost
> more.
>
> However, 300 dpi isn't necessary for quality results. I print the
> 1200x1600 images from the S110 at 144 dpi or even 120 dpi if cropped
> and
> get great prints. Now I don't know how the printer driver for the Epson
> 1270 I have works with that and its 1440 dpi ability. I assume it does
> its own version of upsampling, but of course optimized for the way the
> printer works. I do know that I someimes got funny results when I first
> got it using when using random dpis, but found that using even integer
> divisions of the 1440 always works. Probably most others would too, but
> once burned, twice shy.
>
> Moose
>
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
+44 (0)7092 251126
ftog at threeshoes.co.uk
http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
... a nascent photo library.
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|