In another thread, I have been engaged in an ongoing discussion regarding inkjet printer technology, optimum resolution for printing, and related subjects. New printers on the market are capable of resolutions approaching 6000 dpi. Some knowledgeable people claim that the conventional wisdom advocating 300 ppi as the "optimum" resolution for a Photoshop image to be printed is nonsense. They claim that the new generation of inkjet printers is capable of generating printed images with resolutions much higher than 300 dpi. In fact, some have made the statement that "more is better" without limit. I would like you all to address the following questions: 1. Is 300 ppi still the optimum resolution value for the "new" generation of printers? 2. If higher resolution is preferable, can the human eye see it? There are more questions we could raise on this subject, but let’s start with these. Please feel free to raise related issues that you think are relevant. Okay…ready…set…go!!! Bert
Bert, I’m not going to participate in this one any more than to say that the confusion between image resolution in ppi (pixels per inch) and printer resolution (dpi) continues to be a real problem for me. The two resolutions can’t be the same because it takes more than one dot (which is cyan, magenta, yellow or black) to make up a pixel (which can be any one of 16.7 million colors). So….the best bet is probably (I say with trepidation) to deliver the best real image resolution possible to your printer, and independently set your printer to its base (uninterpolated) resolution. When you read that a printer is 2880×720, that means its base resolution is 720; anything higher than that is interpolation – just like adding pixels via upsampling on the image side. I don’t know….you’ll probably hear that the interpolated printer resolution is better, and maybe it is – otherwise, why would it be a feature? But the concept of maximum pure ppi and maximum pure dpi appeals to me….
Chuck touches on an important point that we, as this thread continues, need to make sure is abundantly clear. DPI and PPI are two different measurements. For those who are unclear as to their relationship and definintions, a visit to ScanTips <http://www.scantips.com> should clear it up.
Having said that, and more to your point Bert, if we use the human eye as the measurement tool, then there are indeed limits beyond which more resolution makes no sense.
The analogy is 16 bit color depth for images as well as 32 bit color displays. The common wisdom, as it relates to bit depth for images (8-bit v. 16 bit) is that the human eye cannot see the all the colors that are in a 16 bit image. There are no displays that can accurately represent those colors, and there are certainly no output devices that can reproduce those colors.
There is considerable value however, to some cognescenti, that certain edits done at 16 bit depth, results in a "cleaner" histogram when the image is converted to 8 bit depth for the final edits/printing. It is generally agreed that a higher bit depth is more "pure" data, and thus on some images, in some circumstances, there may be some subtle benefits to using 16-bit images. But let’s not mince words – there are no inkjets that can output 16-bit images. Photoshop "proper" converts the image to 8-bit for printing behind the scenes, because otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to print the image.
The point is, just as there is more data in the image that we can see, there is more data in the image than we can print (and see in a print).
As it relates specifically to Inkjet printing, consider this. As Chuck was quick to point out,
When you read that a printer is 2880×720, that means its base resolution is 720
But not quite for the reason that he states. Inkjet printers with 4 colors, rated at 2880 produce a 720 dot per inch output. The issue is that 2880 divided by all 4 colors (albeit in varying amounts) is 720 dot per inch since 4 colors are used to make a single dot. Technically, this is not 100% accurate, 100% of the time, but this is the way that inkjet manufacturers rate printer output. There is no real way to gauge output in dots per inch since there are so many factors that affect the image output – like dot gain (or spread), and different implementations of nanoliter dispensing of ink.
So the question you pose, technically goes to defining the relationship between pixels per inch and dots per inch. Is there one? Maybe – but no one has really defined it yet.
Rather, we determine the appropriate pixels per inch to send to a printer based on empirical data – that is through trial and error. Usually the measurement tool is the human eye. Some people have a "better eye" than others, true, but there are limits (just like the number of colors in a 16 bit image).
So the next question is, really, this: If my printer cannot functionally print more than a certain density, and there is no defined relationship between pixels per inch and dots per inch, can we say that there must be a limit to the resolution of an image that can be represented on an inkjet? Or is it unlimited?
Can I keep piling more and more data to a printer and expect better and better output? Or is there some "saturation" point at which any more pixels per inch cannot be represented on an inkjet?
Surely this latter must be true.
Using this reasoning, the statement that:
In fact, some have made the statement that "more is better" without limit.
Is certainly an uninformed one.
Specifically to your question, "Is 300 ppi the ‘new’ upper limit?" based on advances in inkjet technology, the answer is, really, "maybe, but certainly no more".
The inkjets are still only putting out a density of 720 dots per inch. That’s the max density. The old 1440 dpi printers have a functional output 360 dpi, and the 2880 printers are twice that (720 dpi). So it may stand to reason that you should be able to send twice the data and get better output.
That may be true theoretically, but there is no data that concludes that point decisively. Most "purests" have been sending way too much data to the old printers (1440 dpi) and have arrived, empirically, at an image resolution of 150-300 ppi as being the optimum.
In my own tests, with my images (I output about 6,000 images per month via inkjet, although, they are really only 300 different images, just multiple copies), I have seen absolutely NO difference in sending images to a 2880 (720 dpi) at resolutions greater than 200 ppi. Will some see better output at higher resolutions? Maybe. But it would be image composition dependant, and there certainly is a limit.
I was going to give my two cents, but I gave a buck – keep the change <grin>.
Here is a link to another thread on the same subject. I would like your comments on Peter’s very detailed comments. Go to Post #1. Peter Duniho "Resolution ?????!!!!!" 9/24/03 11:41pm </cgi-bin/webx?14/0> Bert
For those who are unclear as to their relationship and definintions, a visit to ScanTips should clear it up.
I am also a disciple of Wayne Fulton and his book. That’s sorta what prompted me to start this thread, because I’m hearing different opinions on resolution and its ramifications, and I’m getting confused, because they seem to be contradicting his dogma, and admit I am brainwashed by Wayne. He is a very convincing teacher. So, I’m hoping we get lots of input here. I would particularly like Peter Duniho to chime in. I hope we’ll all learn from the interchange. Bert
When you read that a printer is 2880×720, that means its base resolution is 720; anything higher than that is interpolation – just like adding pixels via upsampling on the image side. I don’t know….you’ll probably hear that the interpolated printer resolution is better, and maybe it is – otherwise, why would it be a feature? But the concept of maximum pure ppi and maximum pure dpi appeals to me
Chuck, That’s exactly what I thought. But I’m hearing different from people who are smarter than I. Hopefully we’ll both learn from the discussion here. Bert
I had a biology instructor in college who was invited to debate a fundamentalist Christian in a national college symposium on the subject of Evolution. I asked him if he planned to engage – he said "Are you kidding? It doesn’t whether you’re right or not, it only matters if you can sell the audience that you’re right – I’m a biologist without an agenda, not a salesman with and agenda."
With that general idea in mind, I’m not comfortable voicing my comments on Peters remarks in the Elements forum. I view myself as a visitor here and the regular Photoshop forum is where I hail.
That is a polite way to say, that while Peters argument doesn’t hold water, I am not comfortable debating it here. Sorry I can’t be of more help, maybe some of the other "old pro’s" would be willing to comment.
I will say, though, that if the topic were being discussed in the regular photoshop forum where the audience is more seasoned (in general) there would be many folks able to clarify the mysteries of dpi and ppi and dispel the urban legends.
I think, as I said in my earlier post, that anyone who is interested in the subject should spend some time at scantips.
When you read that a printer is 2880×720, that means its base resolution
is
720; anything higher than that is interpolation – just like adding pixels via upsampling on the image side.
No, it does not. It means the printer is capable of positioning a dot to within 1/2880th of an inch in one direction, and to within 1/720th of an inch in the other direction. It has nothing to do with interpolation or upsampling.
I feel my previous posts have conveyed just about as much information as I can. I have done my best to combat the urban legends that appear rampant here, and frankly, I’m done. However, given that I appear to be the "some people" referenced in your message, I want to clear up one mischaracterization of my statements that you’ve made:
"Bert Bigelow" wrote in message
[…] In fact, some have made the statement that "more is better" without
limit.
The only place I’ve made any statement that could reasonably be interpreted to that effect, the context was in a message where I was trying to keep things as simple as possible. Even in that message, a more detailed explanation followed.
Clearly, for any printer, there is an image resolution beyond which that printer is incapable of producing. It is unfair of you to imply that I said otherwise.
[…] With that general idea in mind, I’m not comfortable voicing my comments on Peters remarks in the Elements forum. I view myself as a visitor here and the regular Photoshop forum is where I hail.
That is a polite way to say, that while Peters argument doesn’t hold water, I am not comfortable debating it here.
I have no more a right to a comment in this forum than you do.
Please, I would love to hear why you claim my statements "don’t hold water". Without any further explanation, your claim to that effect is pointless, holding no water itself.
I am also a disciple of Wayne Fulton and his book.
Wayne does a great job at defining resolution for those who have more than a passing interest. But due to the breadth and depth of the application of resolution, specifically in printing where it DOES matter, he doesn’t cover the topic fully. His intention is to show how resolution relates to the image on screen, and touches on it’s relationship to printing. To some extent, there is an "After Fulton" <grin> body of knowledge that attempts to deal with the application of PPI in the print environment more fully.
The reason I posted that link was to set the stage for assuring that there would be no "common use" of dpi. You know, how we all tend to use dpi as a generic term to mean image resolution. But the fact is, as I know you already know, using dpi to measure image resolution is like using a ruler to measure the height of water.
One of the reasons that printer resolution (dpi) has become murkey is because really, inkjets no longer fit the paradigm of dpi, beause "dots" are not the same as they used to be.
In the days of laserjet printing, it was far more representative to rate printers on dots per inch, because they produced little black dots. Then HP implemented ReT (Resolution enhancement technology) which re-defined the playing field – ableit not by much. But what they demonstrated was that you could produce a smaller dot on a variable basis – sometimes a full size dot, sometimes a smaller one so as to fool the eye into thinking it was a smoother, more continuous tone image.
But today, with inkjet technology, there are many variables that affect the quality of a print – I’m speaking strickly of harware variables, not the data that is sent to them. With color inkjets, the actual "dots" are not dots at all – they are "sprays" of ink. When you fine tune nanoliter and picoliter dispensing devices, you can synchronize the quantity of the sprays and vary the quantity of multiple colors – one of the reasons that there is a difference between different manufacturers has to do with how well they implement this synchronization.
Further, one of the reasons that there is a varying gamut on inkjets, is because there are lower limits on the amount of ink you can spray. That means that the color mixing ability of the printer is limited by that lower limit of dispensing technology.
So the current discussion on image resolution v. image output is really skewed. It’s not an accurate discussion because it normalizes all inkjet technologies, which, hopefully I’ve explained, that they aren’t created equal.
You cannot really relate ppi to dpi because in point of fact, there really isn’t a dpi anymore – they aren’t discrete dots. The "dots" are an average number and by no means an accurate measurement. Until there is a way to accurately measure the output of inkjets however, dots will have to do.
Conversely, there IS a definition of a pixel (a picture element). This is very well defined because it is digital, not analog (rather, mechanical), like the printers.
So this is a long winded way to say, that no matter what anybody tells you – no matter how credibly they advance their point, you cannot definatively relate ppi to dpi – dpi is a moving target. So the next best thing you can do is gather empirical data.
Some may claim that this is a science, and they are right – but like quantum mechanics, we don’t understand it all yet, so it is mostly theory.
I apologize. That was very rude of me. Bert is a regular in the main Photoshop forum and we have corresponded via e-mail several times. He’s a brilliant guy whom I respect. In fact, he’s an on-line "friend".
He asked me and several others to join in on this topic because what was being proposed is inconsistent with information that has been hashed out many times by the professionals in the main photoshop forum.
What I said about "holding water" was unfair to you. But my point was, as a visitor to this forum, I don’t know you, your background, or area of expertise as I do many of the others in the main Photoshop forum. I simply don’t want to "engage" with you in this forum because I am unfamiliar with the audience. I am clarifying my points to Bert because he asked for my commentary – right or wrong, I gave it.
You are obviously convinced that your presentation in the other thread is right. I’m not here to debate you, rather to add my bit, as my friend has asked, to help clarify some of the issues related to resoltuion. I’m not really a part of the other thread. The information you present in the other thread, is probably fine for your audience. Mostly, IMO, you’re right, but I don’t agree with your conclusions.
This issue of resolution has been hashed out and explored at much greater length in the photoshop forum in addition to the contribution from Adobe Engineers, which is why I think Bert asked for additional input.
Please accept my apologies for my rudeness – it was wrong.
Tony, thanks for coming over to the Elements forum to share your knowledge and experience; it’s much appreciated! If you provide this kind of in-depth, readable guidance over on the big PS forum, I may have to visit there more often!
🙂
p.s. and thanks, Bert, for inviting Tony to ‘speak’! p.p.s. I may try to chase some of those threads on ppi/dpi on the full PS forum, too – sounds like some good stuff there
Yes, Tony, if you don;t want to persue this further here, could you provide links to any of the PS forum threads so that we can see what was said there?
I haven’t done a search on the photoshop forum for the discussions on resolution because in the two years I have been visiting (every day) there have been many.
There is no "quick" phrase or statement that can really help much in understanding the relationship between what we see on screen and what is produced from printing. That’s why today, most folks in the main photoshop forum send inquisitors to Wayne Fulton’s site, Scan Tips, mentioned in post #1. This is a complicated subject and Wayne does an excellent job of bringing the reader to a better understanding of resolution – a far better understanding than most can do in a forum thread.
The following is a link from Wayne’s site that summarizes recommeded resolutions for various output devices.
Most people just want to know "What’s the best resolution to scan, print, display, etc." Wayne’s site can answer that question and much much more.
Once someone has spent the time there, they have a good working knowledge of terminology and application.
I found Bert’s question intriguing since there ARE better printers today, and it seemed pertinent to touch on the issue of "Is the old paradigm still true".
Just know that at some point the discussion becomes academic. The real answer is where the rubber hits the road – your output.
The following are far more important, at some level, than whether sending more than 200 ppi images to the printer is "better".
The paper you use, the dot gain setting of the printer driver (in Epson models this is the choice of media), the color profile embedded in the image, the printer driver settings (whether the printer is doing the color management or photoshop is), and the actual algorithm used by the printer driver to convert RGB to CMYK data so the printer knows what to print.
After you have ALL of those right, only then can you really have a discussion on whether sending more data produces better output. And even then, it would be for a specific printer make and model.
So my point is, for those who are interested, gain the understanding that Wayne shares with us and then you will have some pretty decent knowledge. I mean at the end of the day, it’s really "What resolution should I use?" Wayne provides some meaningful guidlines that are not urban legends.
I, too, have enjoyed reading these comments. I’m not going to claim to fully understand all that was written (I could feel my eyes glazing over a couple of times, not to mention my brain), but I am bright enough to get the general idea. However, this is probably a good place to insert my beliefs about the value of some of these more recent threads on the issue of resolution as that concept applies to users of Elements, which is the scope of this forum.
It’s my perception that a large number of people who log on to the Elements forum are amateurs taking their first tentative steps into the world of digital photography. I was there, too, a couple of years ago, and I’m still nothing more than a more seasoned rank amateur. I don’t think my experience was much different than that of a lot of other newcomers – I started out knowing next to nothing, and I also had to overcome some "bad information" that was causing me to be unhappy with results I was getting. Thanks to the patience and guidance of people with more knowledge and experience, I was given some concrete guidelines for working with both my equipment and my software. As I became more fluent in the "language" of digital editing and more comfortable with the basics, I began to develop techniques of my own, and I also began to experiment with settings to determine what combinations I found acceptable and pleasing to my eye. Now, when new users of Elements post questions, I do have a tendency to pass along the information in much the same way it was given to me, because it served me very well.
As a rule, I don’t have anything against "spirited debates", as long as they remain civil and either gentlemanly or ladylike. I think some of these posts, though, have had a tendency to be counterproductive in response to requests for help from newcomers, and that’s where I’ve been taking exception to the issue of their existence. I’m going to use one in which Peter was involved as an example, but I hope, Peter, that you keep reading so you’ll see that my concerns aren’t addressing the level of knowledge you possess on this subject nor its veracity. I’m coming at this from a different angle.
The post I’m thinking about was from someone obviously very new to digital photography; I think they might have been having trouble resizing an image so they’d get an acceptable print. One response was the "tried and true" found so often on this forum – some information about the generally acceptable range, measured in ppi, for purposes of printing and how to go about resizing an image. Another post indicated there was no need to know anything about resolution, because today’s printers were capable of making all of the "decisions" about size and resolution using nothing more than the functions available in the Print Preview screen of Elements.
I have no desire to quarrel with the second position. But what, I ask myself, did the poster learn from that response that will be helpful to them as other situations come up? Did they learn anything about image resolution? Did they learn that there really is a difference between the way sizes of digital images are measured and the way printer output is measured? Did they learn that an image downloaded from a digital camera at 72ppi won’t really print well at that resolution? Did they learn anything about using the Image>Resize>Image Size feature of Elements? Or about when to resample and when not to? Did they learn how to use the Crop tool to reduce the size of their image? Did they learn how to use the Rectangular Marquee tool to accomplish the same thing, but perhaps in a way they might find easier to control?
In education, questions like many posted on the forum are referred to as "teachable moments." (By the way, I’m not a teacher, and I probably would have been a crummy one.) The person has provided an opening into which someone else with more knowledge or experience can insert information. Here on the forum we don’t always manage to match our response to the level of the poster, but we try. And we also try to give them information that they can apply to different situations. I guess what I felt was inappropriate about the response to use Print Preview for all resizing was the fact it caused that poster to miss out on information they might have gained when they presented us with their "teachable moment."
I’ll quit soon. Sorry guys. I did pull this thread off in another direction, and I apologize. But, I do believe that some of the frustration I’ve been experiencing isn’t even related to issues of resolution as much as it is my questioning whether extremes – either oversimplication or advanced technical discussions are serving newcomers well. I’m strong!! I can rise above talk of picoliters! I can even adjust to the idea that the world wouldn’t end of I printed an image at 240ppi or 400ppi instead of 300. I might even get super brave and decide to resize in Print Preview some day! I’d just feel more comfortable if we could address the questions posed by newcomers in a way that gives them basic information about the concepts of digital photography and leave it up to them to decide what they want to do with it. I also encourage exchanges of more advanced ideas, but I’d feel more comfortable if we could manage to do that in a way that isn’t confusing to people still struggling to learn the basic concepts. And, most particularly, I’d feel most comfortable if those exchanges can remain friendly.
Thank you all. I will now resume scrubbing the kitchen, since the bathrooms are done. 🙂
some of the frustration I’ve been experiencing isn’t even related to issues of resolution as much as it is my questioning whether extremes – either oversimplication or advanced technical discussions are serving newcomers well.
That is really, THE point. You’re right, and that’s where I was headed by my use of the term "audience".
At the end of the day, folks just need to get the basics right. They need a little clarification of the terminology (i.e., dpi is not ppi) and need to be set on the path of printing decent images.
For these ends, "rules of thumb" suffice. Just like all of us, as you gain experience in "cause and effect" of image editing and output, your questions become more focused. Most people don’t care how a car works, they need directions to their destination – is there more than one way to get there? Sure. But the point is to give the direction and not argue over which way is shorter or faster.
There is nothing perposterous about setting the expectation that sending an image that is greater than 300 ppi to the printer is a waste – especially for someone struggling to just print their darn image.
This is probably going to be my last post in this thread so as to avoid contributing to a diversion of the topic as well as to avoid antagonizing anyone. I only wanted to contribute, as asked by Bert.
Beth, excellent post – thanks for reminding us of our mission here. It’s easy at times to get caught up in the trees and not observe that we’re in a forest – especially for some of us engineer types. Keep us on the straight and narrow!
I really second what you just said. Lately, posts have become very long (and sometimes, much too long), and overly technical, and somewhat, not always productive. I, for one, can’t always understand them and I end up putting asside them for "future reference"… Now, I’m not against long and technical stuff (my job envolves reading technical manuals of 600 pages, several times per month), but it’s better to get a summarized version.
And, I’m not sure how helpfull this turns out when the original poster comes back, one day later, and finds the equivalent of 10 pages of text when he / she is a mere beginner. Furthermore, when participants are arguing, to the point where it becomes *almost* uncivilized, this is doing more harm than good, to both the new user and this forum. The delicate balance we have acheived may well disapear.
I would really appreciate it if you could show up in here from time to time. Your explanations were just right (at least, I could understand all of them!). You have a good way of explaning things.
1. Is 300 ppi still the optimum resolution value for the "new" generation of printers? 2. If higher resolution is preferable, can the human eye see it?
1. No. Optimal resolution is set to work with a particular device and how it handles printing. That is to say, a halftone device running 150 LPI should have 233 PPI in the source image to function optimally (I have calculations in my book). The thing about injets is the actual ‘dots’ and the control and representation of pixel information may be skewed. what measures as 720 DPI in inkjets can sometimes refer to more than one color (all 4), and in actuality is less than that. It depends on how the device can control the dots. A dot on an inkjet and one on a lazer is not exactly the same thing. An offset press that can print 3000dpi can handle 188 lpi and produce 256 shades of gray for any color. At 188 lpi, it needs between 282 and 376 PPI in the image. 300 ppi is valid for this printer. a true 6000 dpi printer would be able to use more information. If it uses more, it needs to be fed to produce the best results.
2. There is a limitation to what you can see without magnification, and certainly at some point you reach that margin. People will argue as to where it is or what is important. As far as the resolution you want to have in your original images, the higher the better. As far as what is used to print, that is another matter: you want optimal resolution that the output can handle (which varies from device to device). Too much and you end up with more processing time than necessary, too little and you end with a loss of quality. Optimizing the image for the application gets the best results — but this doesn’t mean you no longer want to have an archived file with greater resolution that might some day play into different technology.
<you want optimal resolution that the output can handle (which varies from device to device).>
Richard, how does one determine the optimal resolution of a particular inkjet printer? Or are they all pretty much the same, in which case the number is…..??
Richard, Sorry, I was talking about inkjet printers. I should have stated that more clearly in the thread subject. Getting into halftone or offset presses just muddies the water, and does not apply for most of us in this forum. But I appreciate your comments on adjusting resolution to fit the output device. So, I will restate my original question: 1. Is 300 ppi still the optimum resolution for the new generation of higher-resolution inkjet printers? If not, how is the optimum value calculated for a given printer? Now I realize that the perception of "optimum" value is subjective, depending on the final use for the print and the individual taste of the creator. This reminds me of the hi-fi debate, where some people are willing to spend thousands, even tens of thousands of dollars for a vacuum tube amplifier because they think it sounds better…or prefer old LP records to CDs for the same reason. Still, I think we should be able, here in this forum, to agree on what is a "good" print, and that anything beyond that is of questionable value, or that the Law of Diminishing Returns applies. I am not looking for theoretical answers here. We’ve had too many of them already. I am looking for practical answers for typical amateur hobbyists like myself and I daresay most of the participants in this forum. Bert EDIT: The underlying question, and the reason I started this whole thing is that I am in the market for a new printer, and I would like to know if the higher resolutions touted by these new products actually result in better prints…for the amateur photographer.
Well Bert, It took me a long time to get to this discussion, but it’s a good one. Len Hewitt has talked about this on the Photoshop forum on various occasions, and his logic paralleled Tony’s logic in post #2 . Dividing the real output resolution of an inkjet printer by the usable inks gives a result that is the maximum real output resolution for the printer. That would result in submitting 720 ppi images to the 2880 dpi printer, 360 ppi images to the 1440 printer, etc.
I’ve have an Epson 1520, Photo 870 and Photo 890 to play with and I still only use the 1440 mode on the 890 ( though it’s capable of better ) because I don’t feel the output difference is worth the extra time in printing. I generally submit 300 ppi print jobs ( for much the same reason ), larger ppi print jobs don’t seem worth the effort in most cases. I suspect that this will remain an individual judgement with all of us.
Brent, I find my Epson to be quite exceptional at 720 dpi feeding it between 240 and 300 res. However, my sweet Color life paper will only let me print from 1440 to 2880 ( 720 not present in options when this paper is chosen )….why do ya suppose that is ? Ah wait, it’s because with this particular paper the color ‘soaks in’ for a lenghtly period of time…so it needs more ink to do what is expected of it ??? The longevity thing ? All the store had was semi-gloss…wondering if glossy has the same options…do you know ? Have ya used it ?? Gosh I love my printer 🙂 I’m pathetic…I keep it covered with a pillowcase when not in use…to keep the dust out….meanwhile the TV and stereo is crawling 😉
Discovering the optimal resolution for an inkjet is a daunting task. Currently there are two technologies for inkjets: thermal (bubble) technology, and Epson’s pattented Piezoelectric. They are different technologies to produce a dot. This results in different ink formulations to produce optimal dot patterns.
The point of one of my "dissertations" is that not all inkjets are the same, and by normalizing all inkjets, you can come up with a general figure, but never a precise one. The fact is, as inkjet technology evolves, it is becoming evident that dpi is not an accurate way to even rate inkjets.
So what one does, is try to find the "sweet spot" – how much resolution in the image is too much and how much is too little. I don’t know of anyone who has published information that suggests a method for determining how much is exactly right. You want to send a little more data than the printer can handle.
This is determined primarily by you the artist producing the result.
As a case in point. I produce DVD covers. My image resolution is almost never greater than 150 ppi. I have run it up to 600 ppi and my eye cannot tell the difference. But the material I’m printing, in concert with the media I’m using play a big role. That is to say, that "sweet spot" is largely dependant on the composition of the image being printed – again, my contention is that you, the artist have to determine what’s best.
Hi Jodi, Yes, I’ve used the Colorlife and like it for some images ( one’s that I need saturated color, that seems to be how the paper performs for me ). I frequently use 720 dpi mode on the Epson Heavy Matte paper with good fast results. I do think that you’re right about the ink absorption on the paper being the determining factor in the Epson driver choices.
Looking at the other papers in the driver settings, the Colorlife paper is the only Epson paper that’s restricted to only two "dpi output" resolutions. The other glossy papers and photos papers seem to go from 360 dpi to 2880 dpi ( excepting Matte with a max of 1440 ). I’ve only used the Premium Glossy at 1440 ( where it is very nice, indeed ), so I can’t testify about using it at the lower settings.
I’ve been a fan of Epson printers since the Stylus Color II ( and I didn’t learn to print very well on it until I ran into Ian Lyons ) in the mid 1990’s . I like toying with color management and Epson supports it quite well .
However, my sweet Color life paper will only let me print from 1440 to 2880 ( 720 not present in options when this paper is chosen )….why do ya suppose that is ? Ah wait, it’s because with this particular paper the color ‘soaks in’ for a lenghtly period of time…so it needs more ink to do what is expected of it ???
As you’ve hit on and discovered, the issue is "dot gain". How much the dot will spread on the paper. When you choose a media with Epson printers you are telling it how much ink to lay down to produce a more crisp "dot", and will do it in two passes. The driver knows that it cannot produce a decent image because there will not be enough spread of the ink, and can produce banding and other artifacts.
You can override it and "force" it to print at 720, simply by telling it you use a different media. The media selection with Epson printers is only to define dot gain.
I use a Kodak paper, and my prints are too dark (a common complaint of most Epson users). One way around this is to select Photo Glossy Film instead of Photo Glossy Paper. Then the driver knows to lay down less ink, thus a lighter image.
Dividing the real output resolution of an inkjet printer by the usable inks gives a result that is the maximum real output resolution for the printer
Brent, That means that for my Epson 780, which is a six-color printer, if I print at 1440 dpi that resolution higher than 250 ppi or so is unnecessary? Does it mean that if I print at 2880 that I can go up to almost 500 ppi and still see improvement? Bert
Bert: Thanks for clarifying the question. I’m in the same boat you are. I have an HP DeskJet 970C from a few years back, but now I want to print on DVDs so I’m looking at an Epson 900 (I think). I’m now as confused as ever as how best to print (although surely printing on DVD media is very different from printing on glossy photo paper).
Discovering the optimal resolution for an inkjet is a daunting task.
I guess that means we have to read our printer manuals? 😉
Lou, my printer (an HP multi-function gizmo) really reduces the thought processes considerably; there just aren’t that many adjustable parameters, even on the Advanced screen. I can select the type of paper (from a variety of HP papers….none of which I actually use!) and can make adjustments in saturation, brightness, color tone, and ink quantity. Nowhere does it give me any info on dpi, which works for me!
Thanks, Chuck. Yeah I often wonder what setting to use when using non-HP papers. They really gotcha on that. So with all this automation, what ppi do you print out at?
Lou, first of all, I use Kodak Premium glossy paper for most of my prints (less than $20US for 75 8.5×11 sheets at Sam’s Club) and I set it for HP Premium Glossy Photo Paper – and that seems to work fine. I also dial the brightness down a notch as my prints seem to come out a little light (yeah, Brent, I’m still struggling with color management….). As far as image pixel resolution, I pretty much take what my principal camera (Canon G2) gives me; for an uncropped image, that would be about 325 ppi for a 5×7, 225 for an 8×10, etc. With respect to printer DPI, I don’t have a clue (maybe if I could find that printer manual….must be around here somewhere….$&&*#*&!!)
Bert, " if I print at 1440 dpi that resolution higher than 250 ppi or so is unnecessary? " . Don’t believe so. Your 6 color printer ( 5 + black ), won’t use both the magenta and photo magenta at the same time, nor the Cyan and Photo cyan at the same time. The math would suggest 1440/4=360 ppi image to be the practical maximum . 2880/4=720 ppi max image resolution submitted to print. That’s my story, and I’m standing behind it <G> .
Gosh, Chuck, did you somehow get a manual with actual information in it? How did you do that? Mine just says where the envelope slot is, in about 27 different languages.
I’m with you, Chuck. I, too, use an HP and kind of like the way it keeps me from thinking too much about some things. I do know that on my 1215, I have several different print quality settings, and I believe each one increases the dpi as I move from "Draft" quality to "High Resolution Photo", with "Good" and "Best" in the middle. The max res is 2400 X 1200, so I’m assuming the others are incrementally less. And, of course, I have the other settings you’ve mentioned.
The way this discussion is going, and keeping in mind that at least one of us has an agenda just slightly different than that of others :), it’s looking more and more like we need to add some more qualifications to our responses to people when they ask for printing advice. I don’t have a problem with that at all. Personally, I’ll probably give them a couple of target points for starting, and then suggest they adjust settings as they become more familiar with the software and hardware they’re using. Most often, we get no information about their printers unless they have a reason to think that’s where the problem is. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to keep peppering them for more information until we get enough for a "complete analysis" or give them something to get them back to their experimentation with Elements and then be available to provide more details when they’re ready.
OK, Lou, here comes an example of my ignorance: How does one print on a DVD?!
Hi, Beth. I’m not Lou, but that’s the latest thing–you can get cds and dvds now that are prelabelled with blank labels and you run the whole disc through the printer if you have one that will do them.
1. Serve up the best resolution your image can offer; if it’s less than 200 ppi, consider some incremental upsampling to boost it. 2. Set up your printer properties to give you the best image possible for the type of paper you’re using; adjust other parameters (brightness, contrast, saturation, tone) to taste 3. Bake at 350 degrees for 40 minutes….oops, that’s from another recipe. Forget 3….
Thanks, Brent. I did not know that both colors (Magenta, Bright Magenta) could not be used in the same pixel…it makes sense, though. The more I learn, the more I find that I don’t know…. Bert
Bert, I heard it first from Len Hewitt, and it made sense then, too. As you know, I’m not a graphics "pro" either, but just trudging along learning things.
Wow, great thread. I learned more today reading this thread, well, then ever did before! 😉 .
Beth,
Epson makes a printer (900 & 960) that has a feed path for CD’s and DVD’s. I’m really big-eyeing it. In fact I’ve even floated the proposition of buying one by my lovely bride and keeper of the check book. After the new Cinema display and my new Camera, I think I’ve got her talked into it. WooHoo!
Joe
EDIT: I forgot to chime in on Beth’s first post. You hit the nail right on the head Beth, thanks for putting it the way you did (and I know about hitting/not hitting nails on their heads: my fingers will never be the same after putting up my garage today).
She knew I was a computer/tech geek when we married and that we’d be spending lots of dough on this type of stuff. I’ve just learned how to space out the requests and to put it in a way that sounds like the world might end if I don’t get the latest gadget. For instance, with the new printer I just pointed out that we will be sending a lot of DVD’s (movies and photo’s of our kids) out to her Mom and it’d would be terrible and extremely tacky to just use a Sharpie marker to label the things. This is a classy operation after all. 😉
Joe, good thing she doesn’t know ’bout ‘Printmaster’…you can print DVD labels in there. The labels are like $10 and the Printmaster was $ 20. Oh, and Printmaster will use Adobe psd files 😉
Yes, Jodi, this one has drifted off far enough as it is!
And, yes, they were dead, although I’m not sure Mr. DaVinci was the one who did them in. I hope. (Chuck, didn’t we see an episode of Law & Order last week about the doctor who killed them as he was harvesting their organs?)
My own experiment with Kodak paper is that it does not reproduce colors very accurately on my HP 940Cvr (yours is a 970, if I’m correct? If so, it should use the same ink cartridge, being 78 and 15). With Kodak papers, colors are dull, lifeless. HP Premium Plus Glossy seems to have the best result, so far. And with Epson paper, it’s the contrary, the pictures are just too dark.
My own 2¢ worth… 😉
Next test is with Illford paper (which I have at home, at will try later on this week).
I’ve read through the posts and apparently there is still some confusion about what resolution to send to the printer.
Take this for what it’s worth – this is a decent rule of thumb. First, do not upsample your image to achieve a specific resolution unless there are no alternatives. It is far better to send the best your camera delivers, if it’s suboptimal, than to upsample.
Second, if you scan, scan at approximately twice the intended print resolution – that means, if you intend to output at 200 ppi, then scan at 400 (actually probably 600 is a better idea).
Third, try to send between 200 and 300 ppi to the printer. More than that simply increases processing time, much less than that results in lower quality images.
On printers…
HP makes good printers, but most (not all) professionals will opt for Epson. Epson’s dot technology is quite excellent, HP’s is pretty good.
Whichever printer you have, print at the highest resolution that the media choice allows. HP tends to make most of this invisible to the user, Epson has finer (and thus more confusing) controls.
With Epson printers, the media (paper) will drive the print density. I have run many, many tests and for MY media and MY images, I can save ink and drop the print density from 2880 to 720, and print what is acceptable to me, for my purposes. Your mileage may vary.
It’s really not that difficult if you follow those basic guidelines – print at your printers top resolution, and send between 200 and 300 ppi to the printer.
Brent, I’ve been out all afternoon and went to a movie tonight, so I haven’t heard any scores. I guess I’ll wait and see the paper tomorrow. After my boys got taken by Oregon last week, I don’t know what to expect. Bert
Tony got us back "On Topic" for a moment, so let me just sum up what I think happened here. As most of you probably guessed, I started this thread to try to get Peter to bring his ideas here from the other thread so we could all discuss them. He chose not to do that, made a couple of confrontational posts and declared that he was done here. So, although a lot of good information has been shared subsequently, I feel that my intended purpose for this thread has not been fulfilled. We haven’t had the mixing and matching that takes place in a free interchange of ideas, from which we all…including Peter…might have learned much. A pity. The most telling exchange from him,which was directed at me by the way, was when he said that one of my comments about his ideas was "unfair." I though about that, and realized that "fairness" is something you worry about in contests…athletic games, debates, etc. Apparently for him, participation in these forums is a contest where there is a winner and loser, not a sharing of ideas and mutual help. If he had said instead something like, "You misunderstood what I said" or even more politely, "I didn’t state that very clearly and misled you" then the dialogue could have proceeded from that point in a civilized fashion. By the way, he was correct. I did misunderstand one of his remarks. Anyway, enough on all of that. I didn’t mean to distract from or interrupt the ongoing discussion. Bert
The Stochastic/inject equation I use: [1 to 1.3] x (dpi/#inks) = ppi
So, if you have 4 inks and 720 dpi, you have 180-234 ppi for the image. Many round that up some to 240. However, the calculation will also depend on what the dpi stands for in actuality. this equation assumes it means counting dots for all four inks.
Inkjets can use a lower resolution than halftones and get higher quality because of the way the dots hit paper.
of HP papers….none of which I actually use!) and can make adjustments in saturation, brightness, color tone, and ink quantity. Nowhere does it
give
me any info on dpi, which works for me!
Chuck
On your HP printer, does it print with PhotoRet technology?
Most HP printers use this and because of their "blending" it is impossible to associate with dpi. But if PhotoRet is turned off then there is a selection for traditional dpi. (but this may not apply to your HP software).
Let’s take my printer for example, this way, I will relate (and perhaps understand) :
I have an HP 940Cvr. It’s not a dedicated photo printer, but if I insert a picture I printed with it amongst commercially printed pictures, nobody will notice (I’ve done this several times, and I asked the people if they saw difference between picture x and y, they couldn’t tell).
It has two settings for printing photos (settings that impact the quantity of dot per inches, that is) : PhotoRet III and 2400x1200dpi. It’s a four ink printer (1 black cartridge + 1 tri-color cartridge). 2400 x 1200 dpi is also only available when using HP photo paper (a choice in a menu).
At the PhotoRet III setting, my camera shop (which also does Photoshop classes and sells high end printers, like a Kodak at 4000$…) told us (well, me and some others) to acheive a 300 ppi for our particular brand of printer (HP 9xx) for 4 x 6 and 5 x 7, and to try to acheive at the very least 180 to 200 dpi for 8×10. They said that we usually don’t look at 8 x 10 as close as we do with smaller sizes (8 x 10 are usually hung on a wall, in a frame). Made sense to me.
Given your equation, I would end up having to send a file of resolution between 600 (x1) and 780(x1,3) ppi, to use my printer’s max resolution. Ouch! My camera’s picture size (max) : 3072 x 2048. Now, at 600 ppi, I would be able to print 5,12" x 3,41" pictures.
Also, when I tried to print 4 x 6 at 2400, I get a warning message that going further will probably lock up my computer for a great amount of time and will use much more space on the hard disk. I tried it on seperate occasions and on one time, the computer died.
What shall I do then? Use the PhotoRet and keep the resolution I have so far (300 ppi)?
I’m considering buying a Canon i950. It has 6 inks. It does 4800 dpi. That would even be worst than with my actual HP (resolution of 800~1040 ppi required, as per your instructions). At this rate, I’ll end up printing postal stamps very soon.. 🙂
On my HP 940Cvr, it’s PhotoRet III or 2400×1200 dpi, nothing else. I have the latest drivers. Further, it’s PhotoRet for everything except Photo Papers.
You might want to take a closer look in a few weeks, when reviews of the new printers from HP goes out. Like the 7960 / 7760. Not to say I don’t believe Epson is the best, but those reviews are dated Jan 03… (HP).
You know, Jodi, the subject of Epson versus the world may have to go on that same list with Win versus Mac as subjects to be trreated with dignity and respect. 🙂 For the kinds of pictures I print, I’ve been extremely happy with my HP. I do know it’s pitfalls, but I also know that I’ve never had to clean a printhead nor remember to turn off the machine when I’m not using it. I did turn it off in May, 2002, when I left on my trip, though, so it’s only been running a little over a year now. People who buy equipment often keep a number of things in mind when they’re making the decision. In spite of all of the rave reviews Epson products get on the forum, they’re not the perfect printer for everyone.
Ok, I didn’t turn us off topic this time. 😉 Most of you probably know I’m an Epson guy but one thing I love about HP’s and hate about Epson’s is the main paper feed. If Epson ever put in a bottom paper feed, or what ever you call it, it’d be the perfect printer for me. You save so much room if you don’t have to have your paper sticking out the top!
Joe, do you ever have trouble with the paper not feeding straight? I used a Lexmark with the top feed, and I think every page I ever printed was crooked. I didn’t remember Epsons were like that, too; that design would be extremely hard for me to fit in my work area. Maybe that was a subconscious consideration when I was looking at the various printers.
I’d really like to hear from Richard on this, or anybody else. Thanks.
Richard (and others) :
Let’s take my printer for example, this way, I will relate (and perhaps understand) : I have an HP 940Cvr. It’s not a dedicated photo printer, but if I insert a picture I printed with it amongst commercially printed pictures, nobody will notice (I’ve done this several times, and I asked the people if they saw difference between picture x and y, they couldn’t tell). It has two settings for printing photos (settings that impact the quantity of dot per inches, that is) : PhotoRet III and 2400x1200dpi. It’s a four ink printer (1 black cartridge + 1 tri-color cartridge). 2400 x 1200 dpi is also only available when using HP photo paper (a choice in a
menu).
At the PhotoRet III setting, my camera shop (which also does Photoshop classes and sells high end printers, like a Kodak at 4000$…) told us (well, me and some others) to acheive a 300 ppi for
our
particular brand of printer (HP 9xx) for 4 x 6 and 5 x 7, and to try to acheive at the very least 180 to 200 dpi for 8×10. They said that we usually don’t look at 8 x 10 as close as we do with smaller sizes (8 x 10 are usually hung on a wall, in a frame). Made sense to me. Given your equation, I would end up having to send a file of resolution between 600 (x1) and 780(x1,3) ppi, to use my printer’s max resolution. Ouch! My camera’s picture size (max) : 3072 x 2048. Now, at 600 ppi, I would be able to print 5,12" x 3,41" pictures. Also, when I tried to print 4 x 6 at 2400, I get a warning message that going further will
probably
lock up my computer for a great amount of time and will use much more space on the hard disk. I tried it on seperate occasions and on one time, the computer died. What shall I do then? Use the PhotoRet and keep the resolution I have so far (300 ppi)? I’m considering buying a Canon i950. It has 6 inks. It does 4800 dpi. That would even be worst than with my actual HP (resolution of 800~1040 ppi required, as per your instructions). At this rate, I’ll end up printing postal stamps very soon.. 🙂
Richard, thanks. I knew I had seen it somewhere…! Richard is referring to a cogent description and table in "The Hidden Power of Photoshop Elements 2", which brings this topic to a practical level for the Elements user.
Pete, re PhotoRet technology, yes it does have that check box on the paper selection page. However, when I uncheck it, I get a warning that it only should be unchecked for images over 600 ppi. I unchecked it anyway, but there are no dpi selection choices in any of the three screens associated with the printer properties. Maybe I’ll see if I there’s some other ways to set up this machine.
I am a little late in posting here, and I apologize to Bert, as he did invite me as well. 70+ postings later, and the thread having moved from the initial question the details of the machines, I would still like to post a bit here. I didn’t read all 70+ postings, so if I repeat someone, my apologies to that as well.
I don’t stop at printers when I consider the concept of output quality. The entire process is digital, not analog, which is another way of saying that the data is sampled data, not continuous tone. Since many of us have graduated to this medium from analog, the judging standards move with us, unconsciously or not. It has pitfalls.
Back in the days of early digital audio, similar questions abounded and still do. Much was concerned about the "grittiness" of digital. I see the same problem here.
I have been a long time user of Technical Pan film, a film essentially grainless. When I scan this film, grain appears (read: noise). Besides noise, the subtle shifts of tone that confound the A/D converter present a step in the continuum that presents itself as "grain". At least, that’s how I see it. So, the printer, handling the translation of dpi to ppi or whatever, simply presents me with the same look as I get on the screen, and usually better. That is to say, if the tech pan looked "grainy" on the screen, boy does it look grainy on the print! So, the finer points of exceeding 300dpi is completely blurred. I can’t even tell the difference at 200 dpi (Canon S9000) On my old Epson 870, the output resolution is 240 or 360. (See below.) With the 870, Printing 1440×720 is smoother than 720×720. Less gritty.
Enter pure digital acquisition. Now, no intermediate material exists between the analog (presumably!)scene and the initial a/d conversion. Now, it’s pure digital all the way to the printer, and interpolation can be controlled by the user. What I mean by that is the ratio of the two numbers, the image digits and the printer digits. Whole number ratios are to be observed, and I would go so far as to say, even and not odd whole number ratios.
My Canon presents me with an amazing (to an old analog printer) results. But make no mistake about it. It isn’t analog, even from contone printers. That’s not bad, only different. So, use your eyes, and only look at the numbers when something is amiss. If it looks good, it is good, to paraphrase an old jazz musician.
I’ve been extremely happy with my HP. I do know it’s pitfalls, but I also know that I’ve never had to clean a printhead nor remember to turn off the machine when I’m not using it
I’ll second Beth’s remarks. I have both an Epson (Stylus Photo 780) and an old HP 722c. I bought the Epson specifically to print photographs. It’s a six-color printer. I have constant problems with the Epson, keeping the print heads clean. If I don’t use it at least once every few days, I know I am going to have to waste a bunch of ink getting it working again. I always turn it off when I’m not using it. The prints look good, although I have had a lot of trouble trying to get to WYSWIG. I can’t seem to get the greens to be as vivid as they are on the screen. Meanwhile the old HP just keeps on keepin’ on. Photos printed on it look pretty good too, and I leave it on all the time and it NEVER needs head cleaning. One of the reasons, I suspect, is that the HP cartridges include the heads, so when you change the cartridge you get new heads. Not true with the Epson. Bert
OK, getting something straight, I am not ‘pushing’ anyone towards Epson Photo printers. Sometimes my enthusiasm is probably sickening…sorry. I just happen to have real good luck with my Epson. I do not have a head cleaning problem with it like some complain about. I just get gorgeous photos from it. There are some important tips in the manual to follow to keep your Epson printer in tip top shape….like changing the oil in your car. I don’t believe I have put any other manufacturer’s printers down since i joined this forum a year+ ago…Soooo, I’ll shut up about the Epson Photo printers if that’s what you want. I never thought of my attitude towards other printers as being negative….I just love my Epson.
I’m sorry Jodi!! I did notice you were being quite exuburant (which I probably just misspelled), but I wasn’t meaning any harm! We’re very glad you’re happy with your Epson printer and that you treat it well. I was just funnin’ when I made the Mac versus Win comment, because it’s so much more common to see people proclaiming their allegiance to a particular platform than a particular brand of anything else.
I was just funnin’ when I made the Mac versus Win comment, because it’s so much more common to see people proclaiming their allegiance to a particular platform than a particular brand of anything else.
Ain’t that the truth! The Mac vs. PC thing can turn into a religious war at times. But other people have proclaimed allegiance to printer and scanner manufacturers in this forum. If you find something you like, why not praise it? Not everybody has the same needs or tastes. The French have an expression for it..
chacun a son gout
It means "everyone to his own taste." I don’t have a lot of use for the French, but they were right about that. 🙂 Bert
Beth, No need to ask for forgiveness. Did i sound upset ? well, maybe just a little… I didn’t think i had done anything wrong but…. you made me realize that I share my love ‘too’ much when it comes to my Epson. I totally understand there are other photo printers that are equally as good and that it does entirely depend on the user. I had mentioned to someone else a few days back that photo printers have come a long way in the past 3 to 5 years because of the new found love for digital cameras. Manufacturers know they must step up to the plate when it comes to ‘photo printers’ or they are basically done. Thanks for coming back… 🙂 🙂
Usually I find what you are saying pretty clear and easy to understand but somehow you lost me on the part about having to change the oil in your car to ensure that your Epson printers continue to work flawlessly.
BUT…..3 of the top 5 are Canon and one of them has more stars than the Epson! So…..
🙂
Yeah, GO CANON! 😉 (I’m just kidding. Actually, I always liked Epson and have only gone with Canon because of the way Epson treated me as a customer, which was POORLY. Will never buy Epson again after what they did. But come to think of it, I’ve had fewer troubles with my Canon than with that Epson for which I paid three times as much)
Jodi, *I*, personally, am just teasing. 🙂 With all of the Epson sweet talk, I figured I had to jump in and say something about my printer, too. 😉 Only problem is that I got it as a result of a bad Epson, so unfortunately that came out in the story. (sorry if I sounded negative, but I’m *still* ticked at Epson for their treatment of me) If you have great luck with your printer, then all I can say is keep on doing what you’re doing!
