On 10/27/2010 2:40 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Ah, but there are some errors in your reasoning. All of this might make
> sense if I were using QImage and printing on a high end inkjet printer. I do
> print on an inkjet printer (a cheap one) very occasionally but
> any serious printing goes to a commercial (and chemical) print shop. I output
> at the native resolution of the devices used in those shops and sharpen the
> image at that specific resolution. Then I tell the shop
> "don't touch this image, print as is". I then get better looking prints and
> they cost me less since the hand/eye/brain of their operator was not involved.
Not in my reasoning, but my example apparently didn't get through as being
generic. What I am suggesting is that the RIP
that drives their printers may well be better at resizing than PS or whatever
you are using at home.
I was just using QI as an example of a RIP that does better upsizing than I can
do in PS, even with specialized
plug-ins. Millers may or may not turn out to be another example. I've never
used them, so I can't say.
I would certainly tell them to leave color, etc. alone, but it might be
informative to make two prints of the same
image, one that you carefully size and one that you instruct them to print to
fit. I doubt if there will be any
discernible difference in say an 8x12 of a full 5D frame. If that's the case,
you could save yourself a lot of prep time.
With more magnification, I'll bet their RIP does a better job than PS. I'd try
4x5s of a highly cropped image, where
upsizing is required, as a test.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|