# Upsizing pictures for large canvas



## jointdoc (Aug 11, 2012)

I have a picture from my 5D MKII that is full frame that I want to print on a 30x40 inch canvas for my office waiting room wall. I need to upsize the picture which is a HDR Landscape from Maine and I can't decide whether to use Photoshop CS5 and upsize by 10% each time until I get it large enough or buy Perfect Resize 7. The waiting room is small so people will see it up close which I believe it will require 240 dpi. I have not done this before and I want to get it right the first time. 

Any suggestions?


----------



## Kernuak (Aug 11, 2012)

For printing on canvas, you don't actually need as high resolution, 150 ppi is fine and many are printed as low as 100 ppi. If you print at 40x27 inches, that will give you over 140 ppi, which is more than adequate for canvas.


----------



## jointdoc (Aug 11, 2012)

Thank you Kernuak that was my impression but my lab insists on 240 DPI. I will call them back. Anyone else with first hand experience in this situation?


----------



## Aglet (Aug 11, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> For printing on canvas, you don't actually need as high resolution, 150 ppi is fine and many are printed as low as 100 ppi. If you print at 40x27 inches, that will give you over 140 ppi, which is more than adequate for canvas.



Agreed. I've got a 36" wide canvas I processed from a Rebel XTi, works out to about 140ppi in final form, and it looks just fine from normal viewing distances, maybe a touch soft from close up but the canvas texture complements it and people love looking at it.

When I tried Perfect Resize I did not like the output from it for close up inspection. I'd use it on a billboard or a huge print where nobody's going to look too closely at it. It does do some strange things to improve acutance at a distance but it's not a "photographic" look if you're fussy. It depends on the image, it may be acceptable. You can download and try a demo for free.

Upscale your image to the requested 240ppi the shop wants, and, as others have stated, using PS bicubic larger, in ONE step, then carefully sharpen the resulting image for an optimal appearance using some of PS's various sharpening tools. Some 3rd-party plugins from Topaz or Nik Software can also do slightly different sharpening methods which may provide a slight advantage but not likely enough to warrant using them.

And if your clients are wincing in pain while they wait, maybe they'd prefer something a little softer and soothing to look at anyway.


----------



## zim (Aug 11, 2012)

Hmmm…. very interesting Perfect Resize 7 was definitely on my software list but these comments are making me wonder. Anyone care to come to it’s defence? I remember a post some time ago where someone was extolling it’s virtues but I can’t remember the context now.
Also can anyone clarify that Bicubic Smoother in Elements 9 which is what I use to enlarge is exactly the same as is in the full product?

Thanks


----------



## Quasimodo (Aug 11, 2012)

Interesting question. I had a long talk with a friend of mine who is a graphic designer, and he tried to make me understand, that the 5D II was capable of large pictures with excellent size. He argued that if you put it next to a medium format copy of the same image, you would probably spot a difference, but in itself it is more than enough for the kind of room you are talking about. He argued further that if we were talking billboard size, the distance of which you look at the picture would still make it a great and sharp photo. 

I value my friends knowledge highly, but I still wanted to see how things are in real life. I am waiting for a copy of a picture I took with the 5D II and the 100 F2.8L HIS. I upsized it in photoshop CS6 (just did it in one go (from 240 dpi to 300, and resized it to 100 width and 70 height. That made the jpg to 47,2mp. I am anxiously waiting for the print  The picture is enclosed below, and I plan to hang it on the wall in my kids room.

G.


----------



## stanleykozak (Aug 12, 2012)

The place where I got one of my images printed from a single frame of the 5DIII to 60" canvas, used Alien Skin Blow Up 3. Might be worth of a trial to see how you go. The end result was great!


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 12, 2012)

I've used genuine Fractals with great results with Lower MP cameras. Wouldn't hesitate to use it if needed to blow up my 5D3 photos.


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 12, 2012)

Get a trial version of some of the above software and try it, vs just plain photoshop. You can try it on screen for nothing, you can crop out a sample and print it at walgreens for $.15 a print. (blow it up to 30x40, then crop a 4x6 piece, and print it.) You can even take that to the room and try it out on the wall.

I will wager that you won't be able to tell the difference. I wonder if some of the one trick pony upsizing programs add a little sharpness or vibrance to make you say oh wow this is better...


----------



## funkboy (Aug 12, 2012)

well, after some googling, it turns out that a thread on this forum is the best summary of the upresing section of Reichmann's print tutorial: 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3610.msg83945#msg83945

lots of great points in there, all of which make good sense to me...

Schewe makes some great points in this one as well: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/983614


----------



## Quasimodo (Aug 12, 2012)

funkboy said:


> well, after some googling, it turns out that a thread on this forum is the best summary of the upresing section of Reichmann's print tutorial:
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3610.msg83945#msg83945
> 
> ...



Really interesting. I will actually take time this fall to watch the full tutorial.

I have a couple of questions:

Why would you need or in what situations would you need 420 or 720dpi? (as mentioned in the article you referred to.

Has anyone any personal experience with the Canon Pixma Pro 1?


----------



## M.ST (Aug 12, 2012)

Use Perfect Resize 7 Pro. It´s better than the Photoshop CS6 functions.


----------



## funkboy (Aug 12, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> funkboy said:
> 
> 
> > http://forums.adobe.com/thread/983614
> ...



If you dig down through the comments on the Schewe article on the Adobe forum, here's his recommendation about final output resolution for printing from Lightroom:



> Times have changed. The bottom line now is if the native resolution of your image will print at under 360 PPI for Epson or 300 PPI for Canon/HP, upsample to 360/300 in LR and apply the correct output sharpening. If the PPI is over 360/300 but below 720/600 PPI, upsample to 720/600.
> 
> As for Photoshop, you would have to upsample and then output sharpen...I really don't print much from Photoshop any more since it's a better workflow from LR.



He goes on to state that output resolutions above 720dpi (or 600, depending on your printer) are only worth messing with in specific circumstances (mostly proofing) with specific printers. He also recommends picking the algorithm based on personal taste and the subject matter (e.g. a given algorithm will react differently to human skin in portaits vs. textile patterns or landscapes).

This argument makes a lot of sense to me. Assuming you've got a modern Epson printer, it's going to resample anything under 360dpi up (or down) to 360dpi if you've got it set at that resolution, and up (or, more rarely, down) to 720dpi (via the "photo RPM" or whatever the driver calls the max resolution option). You're much better off doing the upsampling in LR and adding some output sharpening than blindly letting the printer driver do all that for you.

He also argues against throwing away pixels wherever possible, e.g. if your image's native rez is 450dpi it's better to upres to 720dpi and output sharpen than to discard data by downsampling to 360. You also clearly don't want the printer driver to be doing the downsampling for you either.


----------



## Quasimodo (Aug 12, 2012)

funkboy said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > funkboy said:
> ...



Thank you for your insightful answer. I realize that there is many things I have to learn. I have no clue what my dpi is from the camera. I mainly shoot with a 5D II and a 1Ds III. When I open it in photoshop the default seting used to be 240, and after I changed the number to 300; it now opens images at 300. I have no clue if that is from the camera or anything. .. The Pixma Pro 1 I am looking at offers 4800 x 2400 dpi, and according to different reviews I have seen it can print gallery quality prints. I have no clue if the DR or resolution of my 5D II can utilize this. I have earlier had quite cheap printers and have seen that there are great differences on the paper print, and I am looking for the best results of my pictures (given my limitations as a photographer and my equipment).


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Aug 12, 2012)

Eh, I see lots of bad advice on this thread.

Let me try to cut through it all with but a single bit of advice.

*DO NOT RESIZE.*

Either you have your own large-format printer that you'll be using or you don't.

If you do, you're not coming to the Canon Rumors forum for advice on how to use it, which means that, if you're here and reading this, then you're not the printer operator.

Resizing is a job for the printer operator. That's what you're paying for.

Just prepare the file to the best of your abilities, and let the printer operator figure out how to get the best possible output for that particular printer.

You're not only not going to do even as good a job as the seasoned pro, you're going to make things worse. Once you've done your resizing, the damage you've done to the file can't be undone.

So, just hand over the file and be done with it. If you don't like the results, discuss it with the printer operator and be ready to take your business elsewhere.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Robert Mark (Aug 12, 2012)

I'm happy to chime in from the viewpoint of someone who 1) deals with low resolution files every day, 2) owns both Canon 60" and Epson 64" printers, and 3) prints giant photos on canvas for a living (canvasmojo.com).

Re: Quasimodo's comment "I have no clue what my dpi is from the camera" — there is no DPI from you camera. Don't worry about it. It's just pixels, the camera doesn't assign a pixels per inch value. The 5d Mark II from the original post has 5616 x 3744 of them. DPI depends entirely on what size you print the image. I'm not sure why Photoshop started assigning an arbitrary 240 PPI value to images, but it really doesn't matter. Print your 5d Mark II file on 8x10" paper, and the file becomes 561 pixels per inch (way more detail than you can see). 

Re: Jointdoc's comment "my lab insists on 240 DPI" —* this is a red flag*. I wouldn't trust a lab that made a blanket recommendation like that. A quality lab is usually better at adjusting the resolution than most advanced amateurs. 

When we print photos on canvas, we deal with two different types of customers: 1) people who send us an unmodified JPEG and just trust us to make it look good, and 2) people who have tweaked the file in iPhoto, Photoshop, or Lightroom. Our position is that the tweakers have invested a lot of time getting their image looking just how they want it. We want to deliver a product that matches or exceeds their expectations. We ask if we should "print the image as is" or adjust it to look right on canvas. 

Jointdoc, we would be more concerned about your expectations. Do you have a calibrated display? What is it's luminance setting? If you did all your tweaking on a monitor (desktop or laptop) with it's brightness level set to more than half-brightness (over 100 candelas per sq in) and you told us to print the file "as is", you would be sorely disappointed. The canvas print would be way too dark for your liking and it wouldn't match the bright vivid image you saw on the screen. But many of our customers have fully calibrated systems and for them, we still perform some important pre-press operations, even when they say to print "as is".

Here's what we do to your un-upressed file:

If you chose our higher end archival process, we'll convert the file to 300 dpi so we can send it to the Canon printer (which has 600 dpi print heads). If you chose our more affordable archival process, we convert the file to 360 dpi for the Epson (720 dpi print heads). We don't do this so you can see more detail (you can't). We do it so that we control the printed output, not the print driver. If you send us a file that would end up with less than 100 apparent pixels per inch in the final printed size, we'll contact you to discuss options. Usually, what happened is that the customer had mistakenly sent us a version of the image that iPhoto or Windows had automatically scaled down. In that case, we show the customer how to send us the full resolution image file.

If you want a 48" x 72" from your Canon 5d2 file, we will have to upres the file (it would be 78 PPI if we didn't) but it's probably better to let us do it (for free). 

Kernuak is correct, there is no need to use more than 150 PPI for canvas. This bears repeating: you can't see any more detail over 150 PPI on canvas. So to get a 40" wide print, sending us a tweaked 5d2 file in its native resolution results in a 140 PPI image. No need for uprezzing.


----------



## jointdoc (Aug 12, 2012)

Thank you Robert Mark. 

I will see what my lab has to say. My monitor is calibrated with the i1 Display 2 with a luminance of 120 and it took me a while to get my prints correct. Initially they were too dark due to poor monitor calibration which is why I got the i1 Display 2. I plan to get a printer next year and will need to get something to calibrate my monitor and printer. Getting opinions from several people is very helpful and then checking resources. Trying Resize 7 and comparing to Photoshop was surprising. I have been unimpressed with the advice from my lab. I am thinking about changing. They are local and I can get my prints in a couple of days which is important. I usually print anywhere from 8x10 to 16x20 and until this point resolution has not been a problem.


----------



## 1255 (Aug 12, 2012)

agree with robert mark and trumpet. leave it to the pros.


----------



## jointdoc (Aug 12, 2012)

If I leave everything to the Pros then why shoot. This is my hobby and I want to learn. If I left everthing to the Pros then why take pictures? You can hire people for that. Eventually I want to buy my own printer but I want to work on taking and processing pictures first.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 12, 2012)

jointdoc said:


> If I leave everything to the Pros then why shoot. This is my hobby and I want to learn. If I left everthing to the Pros then why take pictures? You can hire people for that. Eventually I want to buy my own printer but I want to work on taking and processing pictures first.



+1 !!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Aug 12, 2012)

jointdoc said:


> If I leave everything to the Pros then why shoot. This is my hobby and I want to learn. If I left everthing to the Pros then why take pictures? You can hire people for that. Eventually I want to buy my own printer but I want to work on taking and processing pictures first.



If you want to go that route, fine...but be prepared to spend a *LOT* of money figuring out what you're doing.

The main thing that the pros at the print shop have that you don't is a lot of experience in using those printers.

Large-format printers actually aren't that expensive to buy -- on the order of a 5DIII plus a couple lenses. Less than a 1DX, and much less than a Big White. And they're actually cheaper to operate on a dollar per square inch basis than desktop printers...you're buying ink literally by the gallon, so you get substantial discounts over buying it by the tablespoon.

On the other hand...you're going to be making a lot of test prints to figure out just how to make the thing do what you want it to. That will include color charts that you run through your spectrophotometer so you've got a color profile for every paper stock you use...but, first, for third-party papers, that'll mean experimenting with all the different media settings to figure out just how much ink you can lay down before it starts to pool and smudge. And then you'll finally get to move on to making test prints of real files that you've upsized / sharpened / whatever so you can figure out what workflow works best.

If you really want to do all that yourself, there's no deep magic to it...just the time and expense of doing all that grunt work.

But...the catch is, it will get _very_ expensive to do all that on somebody else's printer, because they're going to charge you full price for each print. And that price will have factored into it not only the capital expense of the printer, not only the cost of the consumables, not only the cost of the maintenance, not only the cost of the salary of the operator, not only the cost of the building rent and all the rest of the business expenses, but enough to make a bit of a profit at the end of the day.

So, my advice -- take it or leave it -- still stands.

Don't do any resizing or output sharpening; just make the photo look good on your monitor. Leave that to the pros.

Or, be prepared to invest at least as much time and money (and floor space!) into printing as your service provider....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## jointdoc (Aug 12, 2012)

I have learned some interesting things in this process. I have two landscapes including cliffs and the sea. I resized my pictures and used Photoshop with "canvas reveal all" to look at them side to side like they will be on a wall. I learned in this process that the horizons were not on the same level. This would have looked odd on the wall in this particular situation. I was able to re-edit one of them so the horizon is the same. If I had just sent these off to the printer I would not have figured this out until after I spent several hundred dollars and put them up on the wall. I think I have this down and have learned a lot in the process. I do appreciate everyone's suggestions. This is a learning process. I don't intend to buy a printer to do canvases and the people who do will certainly have much more experience than I will ever have. But this is my hobby and I derive a lot of pleasure from this. I do need help and have found forums can be very helpful and I have to take the good advice with the bad and learn from my mistakes and take joy in my successes.


----------



## 1255 (Aug 13, 2012)

@jointdoc -- no need to carry it to an extreme and ask why shoot? i was simply trying to offer you helpful advice. 

i most certainly encourage you to practice and to learn everything that you can about upsizing and printing. which is exactly what i did. and now i can and do happily print in my studio, even at large scale. 

but i still choose to work with a professional printer on nearly all of my jobs. 

if you need to print something large, especially from a small file, and you want it to look as good as it possibly can, based on my own experience i think that the best thing you can do is to find a good printer, build a relationship with them, and work closely with them. give them a raw file to work with, and have something you've printed yourself at small scale that will help to communicate what you want to achieve. this, i think, is simply the best way to produce large scale prints. 

and again, i'm simply trying to offer helpful advice. practice, experiment, print, enjoy.


----------



## Robert Mark (Aug 13, 2012)

Jointdoc, if you're ever interested in learning more, have a question, or just want to talk shop, I welcome your contact. We're all photographers, and you probably have skills that are better than mine in your area of passion and expertise. I certainly intended no disrespect in my earlier post and wouldn't want you to think that we would want to stifle your growth in your art and craft.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 13, 2012)

I'm in a similar boat as JointDoc.
Fortunately, I have 2 really good print shops locally available to do my large format printing and they both know their stuff very well. And I'm thankful that the real perfectionist printing service is the lower cost one for me too.

But like TP sez, it doesn't cost that much to buy a large format printer, and while searching for a better price to get my canvases done I've run across a lot more print shops using the latest greatest prograf or other printers who don't have a clue when it comes to printing photos or fine art! These guys are cranking out material for banners and trade shows and all manner of commercial printing but that's not the same as knowing how to get the best from a photographic image. 

Visit the shop, do they have a lot of really WOW stuff on display? Or are they more about biz-cards and retail signage? Talk to the people doing the printing and try gauge how well they know their stuff. Can they explain why their requirements are what they are?.. and does it make sense?

I've done some printing, WAY in the past on smaller hardware. Now considering setting up an Epson R3000 for use at home to try my hand at producing the smaller size, low volume stuff that my main service can't do as efficiently. things have changed a bit but the basics are the same. If you intend to do your own printing as part of the enjoyment of photography as a hobby, it's kind of like having your own darkroom back in the film days. There's going to be a whole lot of things to learn, spend time and money on and take up space in your house. Hopefully you learn the right stuff quickly and get to enjoy some good output without getting discouraged.

And, there is no one right way to do all printing. Various methods can work and sometimes different approaches can yield equivalent or similar results. And some others can lead you down the path to making pure waste. If you're prepared to spend the time and $, you can learn a lot about having someone do the printing for you until you nail a process that's consistent, or you can invest in your own equipment and procedures.

How much fun can you afford? 

It's rewarding to have control over the whole process from image capture to final print, after all, that is the final link between your vision and the viewers' eyes. My fine-art-printing friend is always chiding me for not doing my own printing. I think I'm about to take his advice, I'm ready.


----------



## @!ex (Aug 13, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Eh, I see lots of bad advice on this thread.
> 
> Let me try to cut through it all with but a single bit of advice.
> 
> ...



Dumb.

I resize all the time. in fact, I've resized to billboards and fine art gallrey prints at 40x60 from an old pentax K10D at 10mpx. Use genuine fractals (now known as picture perfect 7). It works amazingly well. If you live in the Denver area and have seen an advertisement (billboard size or smaller) for the university of colorado football or basketball team in the last 4 years I resized it myself.


----------



## Gothmoth (Aug 13, 2012)

M.ST said:


> Use Perfect Resize 7 Pro. It´s better than the Photoshop CS6 functions.



as stated a few times that can be argued about.
perfect resize can do strange things to textures as was written above already.

and it only looks sharper because it has sharpening build in while you have to manually sharpen when using PS tools.

it´s better for computer graphics sure. but photographs.... i don´t think so.

it may look better as "one click" solution.. but you can get to the same results with the PS tools.


----------



## Gothmoth (Aug 13, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> *DO NOT RESIZE.*
> 
> 
> If you do, you're not coming to the Canon Rumors forum for advice on how to use it, which means that, if you're here and reading this, then you're not the printer operator.



well the photoshop gurus dare to say something different and my experience too.

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/workflow/the-right-resolution.html

the resize algorithms build into printers are often worse then those from photoshop or lightroom.

and if you send an image to a company like cewe, mpix etc. they either do NO sharpening at all or a standard sharpening (the same sharpening for ALL images of a certain print size).
the better companys give you a choice if you want them to apply a default sharpening or not.

how can that be better then individual resizing and sharpening at home??



> Resizing is a job for the printer operator. That's what you're paying for.



LOL... do you think there is an operator looking at your individual picture when you send an image to a company like MPIX? get real!! they process probably over a million images a day.

they use pre-calibrated systems and nobody will do an individual resizing/sharpening for your image. and as i wrote above the internal printer resize algorithms are often not the best.



> Just prepare the file to the best of your abilities, and let the printer operator figure out how to get the best possible output for that particular printer.



good luck with that!!
if you give such an advice you also have to tell the people they have to use a fineart printshop!
not one of the well known and big companys.

because without that advice.. it´s truly a bad advice overall!


----------



## 1255 (Aug 13, 2012)

@!ex -- love your work


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 13, 2012)

I started a thread much like this one called large prints and most people offered similar advice to here... After talking with pro labs, especially my lab, Bay Photo, they recommend for the best quality 300 dpi for standard prints, and canvas 240 minimum... Those recommendations are likely to cover their backsides in case for whatever reason, a person sends a low resolution files comes in, crap in, crap out, and then face litigation because of the bad wall print. The general rule of thumb is the 300 dpi rule can be broken depending on how far away the photo is intended to be viewed... for instance billboards get away with 72 DPI because they are intended to be viewed at a football fields distance or more away... Commercial printers print trade show display booth murals at 150 as it grabs peoples attention at about 20 or so feet away and by the time they are close, they are likely looking and talking to a booth rep, not the photo... Wall portraits are the same way... The closer the viewer is going to be viewing the print, the better the resolution should be... While i would be personally stunned having a large 30"x40" canvas over the couch and having a house guest look at the print up close checking for print quality, as a professional, I wouldn't want to limit my clients or give them any reason to doubt my artistry and quality. Kinda like the rule of thumb... even if it isn't your fault, if it can be perceived as your fault, then it is... After delving into the subject professionally, if printing for another person OTHER THAN YOURSELF, client or non, definitely upres it.. Most printers now-a-days professional or commercial, it's hard to see a difference between 240 and 300 dpi... so 240 is the minimum i'd print at to be frank... Photoshop can enlarge and does a decent job making files quick enough (depending on your computer speed and age), however it tends to give a softening effect (looks good from afar, crappy at 100%)... depending on how much you are upsizing it, it can be worse or better. Always do output sharpening... every printing resource you will see from adorama to topaz to commercial printers will suggest this... Printing on paper, depending on paper, ink, humidity, etc ink can dry quicker or slower than others and it just makes it look better... dont go overboard but a little kiss of sharpening will never hurt your image for outputting. Printers, just like any other business, the higher the workload, the less personal attention and QC each item will get... If they are high volume, as mentioned elsewhere, they may leave the upressing to computer drives and be generally overlooked until packaging. It it's a slow season, they may be more carefully screened along the way. If you pay more (standard vs economy for bay photo), the more chances someone will babysit your photo through the printing process. Even some processing, such as CMYK for professional commercial printers... Changing it from RGB to CMYK on personal computers using photoshop gives a more pleasing look at times for out of gamut processing than commercial printers drivers conversion methods... I know a graphic artist that made that mistake once using a nationally known commercial printer... She sent them an RGB file, the prints were awful and they couldn't figure it out... they reprinted the job but she did CMYK process at her end, and resent it and the color, while still out of gamut, were closer and more pleasing than the original RBG file the printer processed. This is an imperfect system and process, however the more you can take control of your print, the better... I've got nothing against pro printers, I love them and haven't really printed my own stuff in years... but sometimes you have to think for them at times... Printers see hundreds if not thousands of photos a day and yours is not any more special to them as the next guys, unless you pay extra to make it so... it's actually quite monotonous... I know, i used to work at a pro lab back in the day of film...


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Aug 13, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > Resizing is a job for the printer operator. That's what you're paying for.
> ...



You get what you pay for.

If you want Walmart prices, you'll have to settle for Walmart quality and customer service.

It should have been obvious from context that I was suggesting to build a professional relationship with the printer operator. A consumer-oriented mega-printer obviously isn't going to do that. If you're unhappy with the quality you get from a consumer-oriented mega-printer, spending five seconds in Photoshop to uprez and sharpen isn't going to solve your quality problems; you need to take your business to somebody who's selling what you want to buy.

Really, your rant is on the bizarre side. If people were comparing the produce selection at Whole Foods and Trader Joe's, and complaining that they weren't happy with what they were finding...and I suggested they try the local farmer's market (unless they wanted to get into gardening)...would you come back and suggest I'm an idiot because a bit of salt and pepper can really liven up the "fresh" salads on the dollar menu at McDonald's?

Cheers,

b&


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Aug 13, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Printers, just like any other business, the higher the workload, the less personal attention and QC each item will get...



So stop wasting your money on businesses that aren't selling what you want.

If you wanted a 1DX, would you buy a PowerShot because it was on sale and, hey, it's still a camera and it's a lot cheaper?

No?

So why on Earth would you put all that money and time and energy into capture and processing, only to go with the lowest bidder on final output?

It's like getting a dream stereo system...and then plugging in a pair of $10 earbuds to listen to it.



> Even some processing, such as CMYK for professional commercial printers... Changing it from RGB to CMYK on personal computers using photoshop gives a more pleasing look at times for out of gamut processing than commercial printers drivers conversion methods...



If that's the case, then the print shop doesn't have an ICC color-managed workflow. And, in this day and age, that's absolutely inexcusable, unprofessional, and incompetent. Yes, even though it's a common problem.

Might as well complain about a tire shop where the mechanics don't know how to use a torque wrench when putting the wheels back on the car. Would you really go back there ever again?

Cheers,

b&


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 13, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Printers, just like any other business, the higher the workload, the less personal attention and QC each item will get...
> ...



Trumpet, quite frankly, i dont know your experience or such in the industry, but I do work professionally and I pride myself in professional quality and products... My lab, Bay Photo, is used by some of the top pro's and frankly, for me, their quality is second to none, even for their economy services... and also frankly if they were to tell me to send in low res files promising to give me high quality large prints, i'd be skeptical... Plus, I personally dont mind taking that extra 2 minutes needed to ensure my files are as good of quality as needed to get what I need to get for my clients and my brand. 

As far as commercial printers... it is what it is... I work with multiple agencies and graphic artists and out of gamut colors is ALWAYS an issue... personally just on my soap box it's inexcusable how the entire printing industry has not evolved the CMYK printing process... Epson printers now use 6-7-8+ inks standard just to enhance and broaden the scope of the color gamut output... however, CMYK is the same for the last decade... and god forbid you need another ink printed with your order, most agencies wont pay the extra cost as it comes out of their bottom line and should they pass the buck onto their client, the risk losing that client. icc profiles are great but not all commercial printers have them... Plus, iCC profiles still look best when you do the conversions yourself... we've tested it where you take RGB straight to their profile vs taking photos from RGB to CMYK to profile... There's just something better about taking that extra process to ensure the color change the way you want, perceptual vs relative etc... It's kinda like going from RBG to grayscale vs going from RGB to color mixor, take away color and mixing the channels until you get the look you want... it is that little bit more of control.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 13, 2012)

Awinphoto makes many more good points.

Back when my first digicam was a Canon PowerShot A20 I managed a lovely, very colorful shot of a sports activity which ended up on the front cover of a small national magazine. This would not have happened without the combined skills of 3 people. (I count myself as one of them)

I first had to uprez and sharpen the tiny 2MP shot to minimum screening rez as requested by the magazine's printer (180 lpi if I remember correctly). Before submitting the image I conferred with a friend in the graphics industry with a lot of experience. She had a quick look at the image and altho she liked what I'd done with it, took it and converted it to CMYK and did a little color adjustment to compensate for printing dot-gain, based on her experience and the kind of paper it was going to be printed on. The colors now looked off to me but I submitted the image, the magazine printed it as supplied, and it looked great!

With all that in hindsight so long ago what comes to mind is that printing, in all its various forms, is as much an art form as photography, with a huge number of variables. Hence, until you're doing all this on your own, find and work with a printing service that's familiar with creating the kind of output you want from the kind of files you supply.

I learned a lot from the first shop I found that was an art-quality printer and did a fair bit of my work there. It cost me a lot, but they worked with me and created beautiful prints from my sRGB files. As I learned more about the process I was able to take advantage of lower cost shops for some kinds of work by knowing their equipment and their procedures and adjusting my output files accordingly.

If you want your first big canvas print to go well, I'd suggest finding an experienced art-print shop to help you thru it. It may cost you more.

Then there's the whole to-varnish or not-to-varnish your canvas.. I get mine varnished by someone who's done a lot of work and research on this aspect. Resulting finish is very tough and durable, colors are great, and I don't have a mess to clean up at my facility.


----------



## jointdoc (Aug 18, 2012)

I did order two different 30"v40" Gallery Wrap canvas prints. I talked to my lab and the checked the files before printing and I received my order yesterday and they look great. I probably oversharpened one a little but that is when looking at it from 2 feet. These will be in a lobby and viewed from longer distances. I found that Photoshop worked very well for upsizing usint bicubic smoother 5% at a time. It would have probably worked fine not doing it incrementally. After enlarging and sizing I sharpened and saved as a s-RGB JEG. I appreciate the input from everyone.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Aug 20, 2012)

I have 24*36s fro my 5D3, converted from RAW to TIFF and off to the printers. Looks freaking awesome to me, and everyone else concurs. 


No need to make it difficult.

I also have a 40*30 on canvas from a 50D using the same approach, looks great.


----------



## Tim Larsen (Aug 21, 2012)

One of the pioneers of canvas printing was Simply Canvas. They recommend 100dpi for printing canvas. I use 100-150dpi all of the time on canvases from Simply Canvas and WHCC, both of which do a terrific job.

My billboard clients print at 6-12dpi, many banner in store like Target, Walmart, Gap, etc are 72-100 dpi on smooth substrate. 

The texture of the canvas and the finish over the top make 100-150 dpi very acceptable.

Here's a link to their 8x10 template. Open it in Photoshop and see that the files is 100dpi.

http://www.simplycolorlab.com/canvas_psdtemplates/30x40%20%2834x44%20with%20sides%20%29.psd


----------



## Tim Larsen (Aug 21, 2012)

Here's another good resources: http://www.geniusprinting.com.au/canvas-prints-blog/?tag=dpi


----------

