Digital BW, The Print

Thanks to ALL of you for some great food for thought. That's why I bring my questions here. 

I'm going to experiment a little, most definitely print some cropped test images and go from there.

thanks very much!
Sarah





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> 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@...m] 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]
>