I'm preparing a photo-book for a Christmas gift that will have pages of 11x11 inches in size. I'm preparing the pictures at the native resolution of the printer (300dpi)and resize them to fit into the pages in PS to avoid any interpolation done automatically by the printing service. My picture size vary from approximatively 2000x3000 pixels to 3000x6000 pixels for panoramas over both pages.

I'm not used to print such large files and I'm not sure how to do the sharpening; for web publications as in Photosig the size is small and I use the "actual pixels" (view at 100%) when sharpening which corresponds to the size the photo will be displayed on screen on the net. But with the file size I have now, when I set the zoom factor on "actual pixels" I get on screen a detail that seems to have at least 10 times the print size, so I'm a bit puzzled about how the sharpening should be looking like at this zoom factor to get sharp print results?? As far as I know, sharpening when displaying the "print size" isn't a good solution.

I'm very thankful for your help!
Cheers, Jan

Read 131 times

Reply 

From sheena/Administrator (0) on November 6, 2009 9:41:03 AM CST Web or print, I still set the size to 100 % and sharpen with what I see on the monitor. Although I'm only printing for the most part photos that are sharp to begin with so I am only doing very minimal sharpening before printing. Have you experimented with some cheap prints first to ensure what you see is what you're getting? Reply

From nodule/Jan (5,237) on November 6, 2009 10:08:25 AM CST My images result from scanned slides (at 4000 dpi) and at full size they always look soft and need sharpening, I guess this is normal for scanned slides but it could also be my scanner(??) Yes you are right: I should try ordering some single prints first, but acc. to what the tech support of the printing company told me, the production site of the photo-books is a different one than the production site of the single photos: they would be printed on different machines with different paper (I have to check that). Reply

From marshall/Marshall (9,896) on November 6, 2009 10:22:07 AM CST Each stage of processing an image introduces some softening, which varies significantly. Scanning definitely introduces some softening from the original, especially if you are using Digital ICE (it's a worthwhile trade-off, but it's still a trade-off). This relates to Bruce Fraser's idea of a three-stage sharpening workflow, where you account for the softening in capture and in output, with a step in the middle for any "creative" sharpening you may desire. In any case, some judicious sharpening probably will help. Reply

From nodule/Jan (5,237) on November 6, 2009 11:15:32 AM CST I have the ICE activated for dust or scratch treatment, I didn't know it had an impact on sharpness! Thank you very much for the info! I'll try without it. I just checked the settings, I also have the Digital GEM on 4 for reduction of film grain... if ICE is softening the image, I guess this must be softening too :-S I've learned using my scanner with "try and error" and haven't touched those settings for ages... I have to do some more experimentation, I guess. Thank you very much for the input! Reply

From marshall/Marshall (9,896) on November 6, 2009 1:07:47 PM CST Using one of the Nikon scanners? In all the film work I did, I left Digital ICE on and left GEM off. (It's film, a little grain is good.) Reply

From nodule/Jan (5,237) on November 6, 2009 2:30:00 PM CST Yup: Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED I gave a try scanning the same slide with my old standard settings(1), one with the GEM turned off (2) and one with GEM and ICE off (3) -> (2) and (3) where equally sharp with additional dust spots on (3) and both where visibly sharper than (1) Your suggestions are very helpful, Thank You so much for your help! Reply

From marshall/Marshall (9,896) on November 6, 2009 9:52:20 AM CST I find that sharpening at 50% is a good compromise. At 100% you're looking at such close detail that it's easy to underdo it. At any "odd" percentage (66.7%, 27.6%, etc.) you're getting aliasing effects that make it impossible to see what you're doing properly. At 50%, you're avoiding the aliasing, getting closer to real reproduction, and still being able to see what you do. There is a complicating factor here. If you're able to do a test print or two using their printing process, as Sheena suggests, it can be very informative. Different output methodologies have very different impacts on the sharpness of the image data that is fed to them. For instance, contone output is very different than inkjet output in how color is built. Lastly, if you've got reasonably sharp input files, at this point I wouldn't worry about it TOO much. Give it a decent, mild dose of output sharpening, don't overdo it, and enjoy your books. Let us know how it comes out. Reply

From nodule/Jan (5,237) on November 6, 2009 11:30:01 AM CST there's no aliasing at 50% ?!??! why is that? That's a very good hint anyway! this is no inkjet printing, this will be done by exposing real photo-paper (I don't know how this is called in english, is this "contone output"??) I guess that's where my problem is: sharp input files; I don't want to think about what happens if it turns out I have scanned all my slides with the wrong settings (as mentioned above)... I'll have to ask Santa to postpone Christmas I guess ;-)) Reply

From marshall/Marshall (9,896) on November 6, 2009 1:10:19 PM CST You get aliasing when you're having to divide image pixels unevenly into screen pixels. So, with the "odd" settings, when you're dividing, say, 3 pixels into 2, you're essentially "splitting" a pixel at a time. At 25%, 50%, 100%, you're not splitting pixels, and the picture appears sharper. Thus, you can see what you're doing for sharpening better. You may not need to rescan everything if you sharpen judiciously. Reply

From nodule/Jan (5,237) on November 6, 2009 2:38:28 PM CST Sounds logical! Thanks for the explanation :o) You are right: I'll have to downscale most of my pictures to get them on one page -> I believe those won't be candidate for rescanning. I'll have to rescan only the panorama shots (I guess as I'll even have to interpolate them). Reply

From del/Administrator (0) on November 6, 2009 10:03:59 AM CST Prints need "more" sharpening than screen, so part of your puzzle is learning how much on screen translates to how much in print. The "amount" difference between print and screen is usually in the unsharp max radius, which is not the "amount" in the usm dialog. All very confusing. I do minimal sharpening in Photoshop with a plugin that allows selection for screen or print; there are a number of these to choose from. I then do final sharpening using Qimage, which adjusts the extent of sharpening according to size of print. In between I use usm to do local contrast enhancement; I believe the parameters are radius 60, amount 50%, threshold 0. If your software applies sharpening at print time, you might try this instead of conventional usm as a last step before printing. Its parameters seem strange, but I find its use more intuitive and appealing. I thing you are correct to size the photos to final print size. No telling what a printer driver will do in resizing. You might want to try Qimage for this. It is not terribly expensive, can print to a wide variety of devices (including to file with icc profile applied for sending to a service), and completely replaces the print dialog in Photoshop. I have been using it for years, and would not go back to PS. Del Reply

From nodule/Jan (5,237) on November 6, 2009 12:33:38 PM CST Thank You very much del! This Qimage seems to be very interesting, but I'm not sure how it works ordering prints in a remote printing service: I can use it to solely edit the picture for sharpening and save it in the same file format? Does Qimage need to get some specifications of the printer? The point is that the printing company has an own software for creating the photo-book and I need to include my pictures as jpg files in this software. Reply

From del/Administrator (0) on November 6, 2009 2:27:25 PM CST The printer will either specify a particular color profile, or ask that there be no profile at all. You can control this in Qimage by selecting print to file; this still allows you to attach a profile if you know which one. I have used it to create a file at print size for an Epson 9600, by simply choosing print to file, the file size, and the printer profile. The file was then taken to the printer where it was printed without correction or additional profiling (important to avoid double profiling here). So, you save in the same format, but at the printed size and with color profile as needed. Let the printer guide you here, as to whether to include a color profile. The value of Qimage in this case would be to manage the sharpening while resizing the file to the print size. Del Reply

From nodule/Jan (5,237) on November 6, 2009 2:42:46 PM CST sounds great! I'll download the trial version. thanks again :o) Reply

From bcskier/Arie (6,362) on November 6, 2009 1:13:00 PM CST Before you send of an entire album to the printer, try this: take a photo, resize to 300 dpi, create a 4"x6" crop in a strategic location (areas with both high and low detail), try a few sharpening settings, then have these printed at your local drugstore (or home photo printer). Reply

From nodule/Jan (5,237) on November 6, 2009 2:45:05 PM CST Thank you for the hint Arie, but my concern with this technique is that I believe that sharpening is dependent from the used printer or print technique Reply

Return to forum