Digital BW, The Print

Sarah, I would go with Brian on this but for slightly different reasons.
While equipment will always be limiting factor, it not only includes the
stuff in front of the camera and the camera itself, but also the processing
software and how it's used. It was strange that this morning a got an ad
from Amazon telling me that that had a whole slew of PS books for sale; ALL
for CS2 based time frame. However one of the books was by Bruce Fraser and
the promo for was talking about the "sad reality of digital is .
sharpening". To me that includes not only the file but also what you are
using to push those pixels out to the paper, canvas, etc. 

 

It seems like we all have slightly different workflows and I don't know of
any source that really has proven too much of anything with regard to "the
best". PS CS4 has perhaps gotten better at sharpening than older versions,
DPP may give you better sharpening with your files than LR. I put another
recommendation in for Qimage as an aide in getting sharper results. I
haven't run exhaustive tests yet against LR newest version 2.3, but they
have always seemed a bit softer than QImage in the past. 

 

In my case, I use Imagenomic Noiseware which has sharpening, Portraiture
which has sharpening, PS CS4 ext & CS3 ext, LR has sharpening, Qimage, QTR
and Image Print. Add that all up and then include my source files from
several different in house scanners, the odd one that comes from this drum
scanner and that, and all the original digital captures from P&S (point and
shoot) to the latest Canon and Nikon cameras and figuring out what workflow
gives you the sharpest image is now easy thing. Nor is it just a simple, Do
this and life is good solution as you may not have  X, Y, and Z to do it and
may not be able to or willing to spend the money to have them. 

 

Choice of substrate will impact the perceived sharpness, so if you what to
make them look sharper, maybe a very smooth paper is best, and if you want
to try and hide the flaws, a canvas may be in order. I think that the
composition of the image and the presentation of contrast levels within are
far more valuable way to decide if a print can "go bigger" than a definite
sharpness goal. 

 

Eric  

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

 

SKYPE   ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Corll
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:22 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] how large can I print? (interpolation?)

 

In my experience, it depends largely on your lens and your methods, tripods
vs. hand-held (though personally I rarely use a tripod). I use a 1Ds Mark
III and get my best shots with the 70-200/2.8 IS L. When interpolation is
needed (and I rarely do this) I use PS bicubic smoother or, ever better (and
for some reason people seldom mention this) Lightroom, which has the best
upsizing algorithm. But I shy away from large prints as a matter of course.
I think the large print mania will die out sooner or later. I print on the
Epson 3800, which is also a 13" printer, and 13" is good enough for me. Just
made a series of 12" X 18 full-frame prints this afternoon. That's as far as
I care to go, unless there's a compelling reason. Haven't found one yet !

-----------------------------------------------------

Brian Corll






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]