In order to get an idea what a print would look like should I click on print size or actual pixels? My 50x40 sized image from the 200mb drum scan looks good viewed at print size but woefully pixelly and grainy seen at actual pixels. This is in Adobe Photoshop.
my experience is, that the print will somewhat look like your screen image in print-size. many images look terrible and massively oversharpened in pixel size (especially if you let some of the sharpening programmes run over it) but then will turn out miracously nice. in most cases the print will look better, then one would think.
georg
Posted by Josh Anderson on April 19, 2007 at 11:02 AM
I agree with what Georg said although I have wondered about the same thing.
Posted by Jody Grigg on April 19, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Never count on clicking on print size in Photoshop depending on the size of your monitor plus how your resolution set up ie 1024x768 the size will vary. I always have the ruler showing in inches and will actually hold a ruler to the screen until they are identical. I have never had a problem with a print on screen to the actual print when done this way.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on April 19, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Pretty much anything looked at 100% appears horrible. Since it is the print that matters, use that as your guide.
I realize that printing a 50x40 is expensive, especially as a test, so you'll need a way around this. Get the file ready to be printed. Ideally, the next step would just be hitting print. Now crop out an 8x10, and print that section. That will give you a good idea what the final product will look like.
Reply posted by Jody Grigg on 04/19/07 at 11:09 am EST
Never count on clicking on print size in Photoshop depending on the size of your monitor plus how your resolution set up ie 1024x768 the size will vary. I always have the ruler showing in inches and will actually hold a ruler to the screen until they are identical. I have never had a problem with a print on screen to the actual print when done this way.
This is absolutely correct and my experience with large prints and grossly upsampled images collaborates this. Use a ruler!
Will, I would echo what Dan said. I always size the image to my final print size at the proper print resolution and then for very large prints I crop an 8 X 10 section from an area I am concerned about and print it. Works well. I have printed up to 40 X 50 from 4 X 5 images and it works well.
Posted by David Senesac on April 19, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Depending on the Photoshop Image...Image Size...Resolution setting, the "Print Size" can possibly be exactly the same or even larger than Actual Pixels. Most computer monitors physically display at about 100 RGB phosphor dots per screen inch. And the setting one uses for the Windows...Display Properties...Settings...Screen Area field is often set to slightly below that monitor dpi setting in order to efficiently map into the display as much as a monitor can easily handle. These days 1280x1024 and 1024x768 are most popular. And that Resolution setting to get decent print output tends to be at least 200 pixels per inch. Thus generally the Print Size will be less than Actual Pixels though again unless one specifies their exact settings, such is vague.
My 21 inch Viewsonic monitor has a dot pitch of 0.25mm or 98 dots per inch. I thus use a Windows setting of 1280x1024. The horizontal length of my 21 inch CRT monitor screen is about 15.5 inches or about 1520 pixels so that readily maps in the 1280 pixel width of Windows. My own fine art Lightjet prints, are printed at 200 pixels per centimeter that translates to 304.8 pixels per inch. Thus approximately three times the monitor display density. When Photoshop displays at Print Size, a 30 inch wide print will display at about 10 inches. Photoshop downsizes images by a factor of three to do so. Thus the display inherently contains less information than the actual image. If one starts out with a less sharp or pixelated full sized image, then downsizing or using Actual Pixels will result in a sharper appearing image. However an image may also be perfectly sharp at Actual Pixels. The fact that one can get away with a less sharp image allows printing to maximum possible sizes while still appearing acceptable. However if an image looks unpixellated and sharp at Actual Pixels it is also likely to look much better when printed by a Lightjet than an image that simply looks acceptably sharp when downsized for monitor viewing.
On my below homepage one might select the "See how sharp!" field that brings up a sub-page showing a full screen slice of a 38 inch height print file image. At the bottom of the short paragraph explaining that picture is an "image" link to another narrower image slice of the same image that is 108 screen inches high at "Actual Pixels". Although it is not as sharp as the 38 inch height image, it is still pretty decent as I prefer without pixelation, noise, or much softening. I prefer my large format prints to view quite sharply up close. ...David
Well, I am going for The Big One . I looked at the 8x10 test print and I found it acceptable. It looked much the same as the print size on my monitor and the monitor at the Lab. This with a 200MB drum scan. At 50x40 this gives 165 pix/inch which I know not as good as 200 pix/inch but the test print looks good. With a 300+ MB drum scan from Danny Burk, the next one should really be a sight to behold.
David, I had looked at your "See How Sharp" page before and it convinced me of the possibilities of printing big. Thanks for your response.
Discussion
9 repliesThank you for your replies.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
georg
I realize that printing a 50x40 is expensive, especially as a test, so you'll need a way around this. Get the file ready to be printed. Ideally, the next step would just be hitting print. Now crop out an 8x10, and print that section. That will give you a good idea what the final product will look like.
This is absolutely correct and my experience with large prints and grossly upsampled images collaborates this. Use a ruler!
Bob
Jody your advice is logical and practical. Thank you for that.
Dan, your suggestion to crop out an 8x10 makes great sense and it is being done now. Based on the replies here the 8x10 test print should look good.
Thank you all for the response.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
My 21 inch Viewsonic monitor has a dot pitch of 0.25mm or 98 dots per inch. I thus use a Windows setting of 1280x1024. The horizontal length of my 21 inch CRT monitor screen is about 15.5 inches or about 1520 pixels so that readily maps in the 1280 pixel width of Windows. My own fine art Lightjet prints, are printed at 200 pixels per centimeter that translates to 304.8 pixels per inch. Thus approximately three times the monitor display density. When Photoshop displays at Print Size, a 30 inch wide print will display at about 10 inches. Photoshop downsizes images by a factor of three to do so. Thus the display inherently contains less information than the actual image. If one starts out with a less sharp or pixelated full sized image, then downsizing or using Actual Pixels will result in a sharper appearing image. However an image may also be perfectly sharp at Actual Pixels. The fact that one can get away with a less sharp image allows printing to maximum possible sizes while still appearing acceptable. However if an image looks unpixellated and sharp at Actual Pixels it is also likely to look much better when printed by a Lightjet than an image that simply looks acceptably sharp when downsized for monitor viewing.
On my below homepage one might select the "See how sharp!" field that brings up a sub-page showing a full screen slice of a 38 inch height print file image. At the bottom of the short paragraph explaining that picture is an "image" link to another narrower image slice of the same image that is 108 screen inches high at "Actual Pixels". Although it is not as sharp as the 38 inch height image, it is still pretty decent as I prefer without pixelation, noise, or much softening. I prefer my large format prints to view quite sharply up close. ...David
David, I had looked at your "See How Sharp" page before and it convinced me of the possibilities of printing big. Thanks for your response.
And thank you all.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada