If you're only getting a 6x9 print at 300 dpi, you need to upsize the file when you convert it. I convert all my RAW images to 360 dpi at 11 x 17 size, which is the largest choice on the CS RAW converter. This produces a very nice inkjet print. I haven't printed anything at a lab in quite a few years. Paul
> On Sep 21, 2005, at 10:04 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Whenever I have prints made on the Lightjet or the Frontier, I use > > 300ppi > > to 330ppi or so for the resolution (is that the term?) which gives > > me a > > nice, big, richly detailed print from scanned negatives. Using the > > same > > resolution with the DS results in a much smaller print size, on the > > order > > of 6x9. The lab people around here recommend the greater ppi for > > quality > > work. > > > > I've also heard that 240ppi is acceptable, although that it's used > > more for > > inkjet prints. > > > > So, what ppi do you use for what size/type prints? If all I can > > get are > > small prints using the recommended ppi from the digi, well, that's an > > unhappy circumstance. But it seems that many of you are getting > > larger > > than 6x9 prints from the DSLR. > > It depends to a great degree on what printer technology you're using > as well as the quality of the driver. I've been concentrating on > printing to consumer grade inkjet printers (Epson 1140, 1270 and HP > 7960 specifically) and optimizing print setup for them specifically. > All of these are rated as 1440x1440 dpi capable printers. > > In my experience, any output density over 360 ppi does not produce > any noticeable improvement, and between 200 and 360 ppi the > improvements are very fine *with digital capture images*. For larger > scale prints, I've gone as low as 150ppi with excellent results ... > obviously lower resolution if looked at up close, but fine for > viewing distances of 3-5 feet which are typical for a framed picture > 16x20 with 10x16 inch image area (the result of printing to 11x17 > paper with .5 inch borders for handling). > > If the output size required goes larger than I print at home (up to > 12x18 on A3 Super paper, presently), I upsample the image file and > apply some resharpening work to optimize it. I have not done this > very often as yet so it's a bit of a question mark ... I am not > familiar enough with larger format printer machinery to see how the > output will look in my head consistently. However, I've seen a lot of > 24x36" prints made with 6Mpixel DSLRs that look very good. > > I highlighted "with digital capture images". For scanned film images, > I find that with the same printer and print output settings on these > printers, I need about 40-50% more pixel resolution to achieve the > same apparent sharpness. For large prints, I set the bottom limits on > output density for scanned film to 225 ppi, and normally prefer to > print at 300 ppi or thereabouts. > > One thing that I have found, particularly with DSLR output, is that > if you want to get what goes to paper to look anything like what you > see on screen, you need to apply greater sharpening to the print > master, to the point that it looks crappy on screen. How much, and > what kind of sharpening to use, depends on the scene dynamics. > There's a lot of magic art to making prints... ;-) > > Godfrey >
