I'm getting started with printing on an Epson 3800 from CS4. On his 3800 Resources website, Eric Chan of Adobe recommends that we resample the image to a resolution of 360 dpi prior to sending the file to the printer, so that it is already in the 3800's native resolution. I find that PS doesn't seem to allow you to independently set the document size and the number of pixels. In other words, if I resample an image to 3600 by 2880 so that it would be 360 ppi for an 8x10 output size, PS shows a different (much smaller) document size. The 3800 driver also sees the image as being way smaller than 8x10. Obviously we don't want to ask the printer driver to expand to fit the paper-- we were trying to avoid that. What am I missing here? BTW, if I resize the image in PS to 8x10, it appears fine when printed, so maybe this is a non-issue. Thanks in advance for your advice!
I suggest you try a third party product call Qimage - it automatically up/downsizes and optimizes images for printing. Duplicate prints made with Photoshop CS2 and Qimage Studio seem to always look better from Qimage - colors are identical, but noise, sharpness and overall "snappiness" is noticeably better with Qimage, especially as the size grows. It is a color managed application, offers soft-proofing, redeye removal, cropping and some coarse image adjustments. Making adjustments do not alter the original file, it creates a lookup file that if present will control what adjustments are called for. When it comes to placing multiple images on a single piece of paper, nothing beats it. It functions a lot like a software RIP, but it is not printer dependent. If all you are doing is going to 8x10, then save the $$ and stick with PS. Otherwise, go for Qimage, you won't be disappointed.
It comes in three flavors -Lite, Pro and Studio - you can download a 30 day demo here:
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/
I've been using it for 4 years and never use anything else for printing.
Joe, since you have an Epson, you might want to purchased this for $34.95... I don't regret the small investment at all. Jeff Schewe knows Epsons and Photoshop and the whole print process incredibly well. These videos will answer your question and every other one that'll pop up. Check it out, may be worth it for you (if you have any funds left... I understand, having gotten the 5D2 and the Production Premium CS4 suite... I'm eating ketchup sandwiches and Ramen Noodles for the next 8 months. ).
A simple way to go about this task would be to choose the Crop tool, then set the parameters you want (8x10 @ 360 ppi) in the Options Bar at the top of your screen. Then just surround the image with the Crop tool and click 'OK'.
Be sure that you have the Bicubic Smoother resampling method set in the Edit->Preferences dialog first.
You don't need any third party software or videos to accomplish this task.
If you resample an image to be 3600x2880 and then set the ppi to 360 (without letting the pixel dimensions change), PS will report a document size of 10" x 8". But everything has to be lined up. If you try to change the ppi and let PS do it, it may change the pixel dimensions on you, or vice-versa.
Since the printer driver seems to see a smaller file, my guess is that when you are resampling to the proper pixel dimensions, the ppi is getting set to something large - like 720 ppi. Then the printer thinks you have a smaller file.
While I like QImage, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't be able to do this in PS. John's suggestion is a good one too, but you have to make sure your default resampling mode (bicubic/smoother/sharper) is set properly as I don't think you can choose when you do it that way.
Ignore the pixel dimension boxes in the PRINT dialog. Simply set the output resolution at 360ppi, and enter your output dimensions in inches in the DOCUMENT SIZE fields. The pixel dimensions will automatically recalculate based on the output.
I wonder how significant the choice of resampling methods is? I've been using the crop tool, so everything has been resampled with the default method. Most of my prints are reductions, but not all.
A simple rule of thumb - If your image falls between 190 and 360 ppi at final print size without resampling (eg at native resolution) better not to resample at all. Sending files with over 360 ppi to an inkjet printer will most often degrade results.
Also, after extensive testing I've found that the benefits of resampling to match printhead resolution are outweighed by the drawbacks of resampling when it's unnecessary.
If you must resample to meet the above recommended resolution range, in Photoshop: use Bicubic Sharper when downsampling (reducing resolution) and Bicubic Smoother when upsampling (increasing resolution).
Always perform final sharpening for print after any resizing/resampling.
Save derivative files if you expect to print at various sizes; don't resize/resample an image multiple times.
(And BTW, Lightroom, with the right settings selected, does all this automatically, from one original file.)
Thanks. Taking that advice will simplify my life! I keep things as simple as possible, so I'd like to keep using the crop tool. I think I can.
Most of my homemade prints are small and will have to be downsampled. If the default resampling is set to Bicubic Sharper, for small prints I can do what I've been doing - crop to size at 360 ppi.
At 8x10 and larger, I should skip resampling. I just checked and clearing the ppi box on the crop tool will achieve that. Even at 13x19 (largest I can print at home) the camera covers at better than 190 ppi.
The occasional larger print (done by a service) will take some special resampling, but I can accept a little messing around in the resize dialog for those rare cases.
Discussion
9 repliesIt comes in three flavors -Lite, Pro and Studio - you can download a 30 day demo here:
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/
I've been using it for 4 years and never use anything else for printing.
A simple way to go about this task would be to choose the Crop tool, then set the parameters you want (8x10 @ 360 ppi) in the Options Bar at the top of your screen. Then just surround the image with the Crop tool and click 'OK'.
Be sure that you have the Bicubic Smoother resampling method set in the Edit->Preferences dialog first.
You don't need any third party software or videos to accomplish this task.
Since the printer driver seems to see a smaller file, my guess is that when you are resampling to the proper pixel dimensions, the ppi is getting set to something large - like 720 ppi. Then the printer thinks you have a smaller file.
While I like QImage, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't be able to do this in PS. John's suggestion is a good one too, but you have to make sure your default resampling mode (bicubic/smoother/sharper) is set properly as I don't think you can choose when you do it that way.
Pete D.
Also, after extensive testing I've found that the benefits of resampling to match printhead resolution are outweighed by the drawbacks of resampling when it's unnecessary.
If you must resample to meet the above recommended resolution range, in Photoshop: use Bicubic Sharper when downsampling (reducing resolution) and Bicubic Smoother when upsampling (increasing resolution).
Always perform final sharpening for print after any resizing/resampling.
Save derivative files if you expect to print at various sizes; don't resize/resample an image multiple times.
(And BTW, Lightroom, with the right settings selected, does all this automatically, from one original file.)
Thanks. Taking that advice will simplify my life! I keep things as simple as possible, so I'd like to keep using the crop tool. I think I can.
Most of my homemade prints are small and will have to be downsampled. If the default resampling is set to Bicubic Sharper, for small prints I can do what I've been doing - crop to size at 360 ppi.
At 8x10 and larger, I should skip resampling. I just checked and clearing the ppi box on the crop tool will achieve that. Even at 13x19 (largest I can print at home) the camera covers at better than 190 ppi.
The occasional larger print (done by a service) will take some special resampling, but I can accept a little messing around in the resize dialog for those rare cases.
Pete D.