Digital BW, The Print

Andy,

You really don't need to print photographs at much more than 240 DPI,
unless you have very small text or tiny details that you must keep as
sharp as possible. 300 DPI many be better yet, but no more is really
needed for your average photograph. The stairstep method is a HAIR
sharper than genuine fractals.  Fred now has a stairstep action for the
D30 and D60 cameras. It works better than genuine fractals. And his D30
and D60 sharpeners are better than any other sharpen method I've yet
tried.  No, you don't have to have a digital camera to take advantage of
stairstep. The files aren't all that huge, especially for a print that
is only 10x15. Unless you are in 16 bit, you should only have a file
size of around 24 or 25 megabytes at 2400 DPI. You would have a very
large file if your file size were 480 DPI. You really don't need to
print with that high a file size.

You shouldn't sharpen the image until you've got your final size from
the stairstep program.

Jerry

Andy,

Since I work with up to 130MB files--scanned B&W 8x10--I am used to working with large files. I don't tend to worry about how much resolution I'm sending to the printer. I've heard and read the recommendations:  anything above 300dpi is wasteful and may be detremental, shoot for 360dpi, etc. I routinely send 720dpi to my Epson printers and have never noticed any degradation. As a matter of fact, when I regularly used the Piezo driver I would say the prints were a little better. Better? In what way? Now we're stepping into that dangerous area of subjectivity...it's a "look and feel" thing. OK, to my eye I saw smoother tonal transitions. Maybe this was the result of my going to a 16-bit workflow and has/had nothing to do with resolution I'm sending the printer. All I know is that my current prints appeal more to me than my past ones, so, case closed.

Overall, I would recommend against "rezzing up/down" too much. Though downsizing from a large file, especially if 16-bit grayscale or 48-bit color, using PS bicubic is safer and less harmful than going the other way. As a matter of fact, I have read of other digital imagers who routinely scan for maximum print size and downsize as needed. I've also heard the comment that sharper prints result from this type of workflow. Never tried it myself, but I may play with it some day.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Alan

-----Original Message-----
From:	ungram [SMTP:ungram@...]
Sent:	Saturday, August 10, 2002 6:44 PM
To:	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	[Digital BW] Re: Stair Interpolation

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Alan Zinn <AZinn@n...> 
wrote:
> At 01:36 PM 8/10/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >Mark,
> >
> >I have several of Fred's actions: LPBatch, CSPro, SIPro, 
DigitalVelvia, to
> name a few. All work as advertised. And, you can't beat 'em for 
the price! I
> have directly compared SIPro (stair interpolation) to GF, and CSPro
> (sharpening) to nik Sharpner Pro, and Fred's actions consistently 
perform as
> well as or better than software products costing hundreds of $$. 
Highly
> recommended! Fred's gallery pages are a feast for the eyes, too. 
Surf on
> over.......
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Alan
> >
> 
> May be a dumb question but: does Stairstep sharpen regular PS 
files better
> than GF or is it designed for digital camera images mainly? 

Stair Interpolation is not a digital camera specific action.  It is 
designed to enlarge a file without degrading the image quality.  It 
has the same goal as Genuine Fractals.  It is not a sharpener.  

Would some of the other people who have used SI have suggestions 
about dealing with huge size files that result from SI?  Lets say I 
scan a 35mm neg or transparency at 2400 on my Epson 2450 with a 
resulting 50meg or so file.  (With 120 film the issue isn't as 
extreme.)  I then use SI to enlarge to 10x15.  Now I have a huge 
file.  My instinct is to reduce the resolution prior to printing to 
480pi, save then sharpen and then work up the pre-print routine.  Is 
this the right workflow.  

Andy Unger


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

HEre be it...


Jerry


> > Does anybody have a copy of the older freeware version of Fred Miranda's
> > Stair Interpolation action that they could e-mail directly to me? (I think it's
> v1.5)
> > Peter
>

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

Thanks Jerry. Unfortunately, it looks like Yahoo has snipped the attachment 
off your message. Can you either e-mail it directly to me or post it in the Files 
section? (Or both?)

Thanks,
Peter

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> HEre be it...
> 
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> > > Does anybody have a copy of the older freeware version of Fred 
Miranda's

> > > Stair Interpolation action that they could e-mail directly to me? (I think it's
> > v1.5)
> > > Peter
> >
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]