# Selecting a print base/paper



## rfdesigner (Oct 29, 2016)

So I've recently got my first 18x12 prints back and I'm looking at them and thinking, "very nice but not as sharp as they were on the screen" (can't complain they only cost me £1.25 a pop, DSCL labs here in the UK, they do more advanced stuff too)

I did apply 100% sharpening with a radius of 1 pixel for printing in PS, so I'm guessing I'm hitting the limits of the printer/ink/paper... and if I can see it then I KNOW youngsters will see them as soft, I'm just getting to the point of needing reading glasses (at least when I'm tired), but haven't got them yet.

Image files were 20MPix (6D), so about 300dpi on 18x12 from camera.

So.....

What gives sharper results than "standard" printing, I've seen a lot of adverts, but what works without breaking the bank, what do you choose?

TIA


----------



## chauncey (Oct 29, 2016)

I can only assume that you have PP your images at 100%, which you should be...and that you are soft-proofing.
I am a believer in metallic paper and metal prints. Do not neglect to consider the cost of framing...perhaps a metal print would be economical.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2016)

Nowhere near enough sharpening for print. 

Sharpening for print is dramatically different from sharpening for screen and nobody has a decent WYSIWYG screen to print view even if you set up PS with custom screen resolution and go to Print Size in magnification.

As a learner rule of thumb get the image on screen to print size and then sharpen to a point where it is a touch too much for the screen, depending on the paper this will normally be close to where you will want it for print. Matt papers and canvass can take even more, metallic prints and gloss finishes might be a little less.

Don't forget there are commonly three types of sharpening, capture sharpening to counteract the AA filter and should be consistent with all images from a single camera and is global. Creative sharpening, this is subject dependent and normally localised, things like eyes in a portrait etc. And finally output sharpening, this is where experience plays its part, output sharpening is size and media dependent, same paper but different sizes needs different output sharpening, as does same size but different paper or screen!


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 29, 2016)

chauncey said:


> I can only assume that you have PP your images at 100%, which you should be...and that you are soft-proofing.
> I am a believer in metallic paper and metal prints. Do not neglect to consider the cost of framing...perhaps a metal print would be economical.



thanks, yes I'm discovering framing can be expensive, I've seen "metal prints" but weren't sure if they were really worth it.

Process:

1. Camera RAW -> DPP
2. Apply lens corrections, unsharp mask, finest res @2 stops from zero (I calibrated with some images of resolution charts then processed to find how much sharpening produced the highest MTF without any oversharpening)

at this point I have corrected the lens and the sensor softness.

I also sort out the white balance, levels curves etc before transferring to PS

3. Add selective sharpening to suit the shot, typically none, or very little, and any other PS stuff.
4. Finally add the sharpening for printing, I chose 100% at 1 pixel radius for my latest few shots.

here's a full res example, note at 100% it looks oversharpened as this includes item 4 above:


----------



## zim (Oct 29, 2016)

I use dscl's premium service, Fuji c-type mainly and sharpness of a print has never been an issue, colour yes but entirely down to me learning.
18x12 is really quite small you shouldn't be having sharpness issues unless there is something fundamentally wrong with the file.
I've found them very helpful, talk to them.


----------



## zim (Oct 30, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Nowhere near enough sharpening for print.
> 
> Sharpening for print is dramatically different from sharpening for screen and nobody has a decent WYSIWYG screen to print view even if you set up PS with custom screen resolution and go to Print Size in magnification.
> 
> ...



+100 
I was thinking that advice would have saved me a few waisted prints in the past but in reality the road to getting good prints doesn't really have shortcuts.


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 30, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Nowhere near enough sharpening for print.
> 
> Sharpening for print is dramatically different from sharpening for screen and nobody has a decent WYSIWYG screen to print view even if you set up PS with custom screen resolution and go to Print Size in magnification.
> 
> ...



As my subsequent post showed, I do use 3 phases of sharpening.

You describe 100% at 1 pixel of PS "smart sharpen" as being "nowhere near enough".

Can you suggest what you might choose for A3 prints of a 20Mpix FF image.. I'm not looking to blindly copy what you suggest, just to know for reference. For instance do you use something closer to 400% at 5 pixels (a substantial increase in sharpening over 100% at 1pixel radius)


----------



## zim (Oct 30, 2016)

hi rfdesigner
I took the liberty of downloading the portrait. Couple of things.
For Fuji c-type processing I'd change is the size of the image your sending in to the actual print size so..
50x75 @75ppi
to
12x18 @ 300ppi (bicubic sharper)

Don't let the printer control scaling, DSCL recommend that. I'd also add the appropriate ICC profile, info and download on their web site.

The next thing I'd do would be to adjust the image for print sharpness (for web/screen sharpness looks great)
I wouldn't normally apply the same amount of sharpening to the whole image especially a portrait I'd layer that up. That's not really the issue you have though. I tend to use Unsharp Mask for subtle correction and Adjust Sharpness for more robust corrections.
This image could be printed using
adjust sharpness, amount 50%, radius 2.5, remove Gaussian blur, more refined, ticked
Applying that to an already sharpened image is a bit too much especially for the face but that's the kind of sharpness you can push to in a print, useless for viewing on screen at 100% of course.

Maybe I'll get ripped by other more experienced printers but that's my experience, hope it helps a little.


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 30, 2016)

zim said:


> hi rfdesigner
> I took the liberty of downloading the portrait. Couple of things.
> For Fuji c-type processing I'd change is the size of the image your sending in to the actual print size so..
> 50x75 @75ppi
> ...



thanks, that's very helpful.

Size: that's weird, I set it to 18x12 inches and 300dpi in PS, and when viewed "print size" it shows exactly the right scale on screen... is this another thing where there's yet more hidden settings?
I did a profile check with "proof colours" using their icc profile, but to get a jpeg output the only way I found was to use "save for web", is that wrong, did that aso undo the size?

The jpeg I posted included the "print sharpening" so to my eye it's a bit "much" sharpness wise.

I think I'm going to have to run off a sheet of crops at different sharpness settings as well as reviewing how PS works when it comes to outputs and profiling.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 30, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Nowhere near enough sharpening for print.
> ...



If you dropbox me the file I'll apply the sharpening I would use for a Premium Lustre print. I can't work on your posted file because it already has your sharpening on it.

As an aside, my workflow for this is to have the file processed to preference, I then put this in a group and duplicate it, I then have two windows open with both images. I then apply the printer profile to the original and make adjustments to that original to bring the two images together (normally shadow detail and slight colour adjustments), this makes the print image replicate the previously edited image. I then put those print adjustments into another group and throw the duplicate away. 

I then turn the entire original with print profile adjustments into a Smart Object and apply Smart Sharpening. I do this so the sharpening is not only editable, though it is Smart for scaling so you don't need to resharpen for different sized prints as it resamples the sharpening automatically, but also you can apply a mask to get different levels of sharpening across the frame from one sharpening operation.


----------



## LDS (Oct 30, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Don't forget there are commonly three types of sharpening, capture sharpening to counteract the AA filter and should be consistent with all images from a single camera and is global. Creative sharpening, this is subject dependent and normally localised, things like eyes in a portrait etc. And finally output sharpening, this is where experience plays its part, output sharpening is size and media dependent, same paper but different sizes needs different output sharpening, as does same size but different paper or screen!



Correct. Books like "Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom" (Fraser/Schewe) or "The Digital Print" (Schewe) - may help to understand how to properly sharpen photos with those tools for different use.

There are also some plug-ins that may help to get the desired result quicker - i.e. Sharpener Pro (Google Nik Collection, now free, a review here: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/plugins/sharpening_nik3.html), or PhotoKit Sharpener (PixelGenius, developed in collaboration with the authors named above).

The advantage of these tools is they have built-in many rules for different output devices and paper types.


----------



## zim (Oct 30, 2016)

_Size: that's weird, I set it to 18x12 inches and 300dpi in PS, and when viewed "print size" it shows exactly the right scale on screen... is this another thing where there's yet more hidden settings?_

No idea! all I know is that was the size and ppi pse reported when I downloaded the file.

_I did a profile check with "proof colours" using their icc profile, but to get a jpeg output the only way I found was to use "save for web", is that wrong, did that aso undo the size?_

I add the icc profile (Premium Lustre is actually my fav.) during raw conversion I use DxO at the moment. I definitely wouldn't use 'save for web' though for print output. 'Save As' with highest quality. 

_The jpeg I posted included the "print sharpening" so to my eye it's a bit "much" sharpness wise._

I think the trick is to know just how far you can go though for a given size of print. The best advice I can give here is to take up PBD's generous offer!

regards


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 30, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> If you dropbox me the file I'll apply the sharpening I would use for a Premium Lustre print. I can't work on your posted file because it already has your sharpening on it.
> 
> As an aside, my workflow for this is to have the file processed to preference, I then put this in a group and duplicate it, I then have two windows open with both images. I then apply the printer profile to the original and make adjustments to that original to bring the two images together (normally shadow detail and slight colour adjustments), this makes the print image replicate the previously edited image. I then put those print adjustments into another group and throw the duplicate away.
> 
> I then turn the entire original with print profile adjustments into a Smart Object and apply Smart Sharpening. I do this so the sharpening is not only editable, though it is Smart for scaling so you don't need to resharpen for different sized prints as it resamples the sharpening automatically, but also you can apply a mask to get different levels of sharpening across the frame from one sharpening operation.



That is extremely generous of you, thank you very much.

Here's the link.. my painfully slow internet is currently uploading the file it may take a while at a few 10s of k/sec upload (the nearest fibre is about 5 miles away)

I did try a TIFF but that's 115MByte, so would take all night to upload, so here's a max quality JPEG.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44641599/IMG_2656_plain_vanilla.JPG


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 30, 2016)

LDS said:


> Correct. Books like "Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom" (Fraser/Schewe) or "The Digital Print" (Schewe) - may help to understand how to properly sharpen photos with those tools for different use.
> 
> There are also some plug-ins that may help to get the desired result quicker - i.e. Sharpener Pro (Google Nik Collection, now free, a review here: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/plugins/sharpening_nik3.html), or PhotoKit Sharpener (PixelGenius, developed in collaboration with the authors named above).
> 
> The advantage of these tools is they have built-in many rules for different output devices and paper types.



thanks very much for the pointers, I'll look them up.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 31, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > If you dropbox me the file I'll apply the sharpening I would use for a Premium Lustre print. I can't work on your posted file because it already has your sharpening on it.
> ...



Not very generous really, but thanks.

Anyway, after downloading and playing with the file I believe I was wrong to initially point the finger at your 'for print' sharpening, it sounds like you have a very robust sharpening protocol and the numbers are certainly close to where I would go. I ended up with 135% at 0.8, so very close to yours.

So I took a look at DSCL and concluded it is their machine/process at fault. They use Fuji Frontier printers which are more than capable of sharp prints, but it is a wet process and is not an inkjet print.

I haven't prepared files specifically for Fuji Frontier printers but I do have prints from them and the don't lack sharpness, maybe not the razor fine definition so many seem to demand nowadays, but sharp enough. One key pointer is they use lasers to expose the paper and these work at 600dpi which is considered a comparatively low figure for inkjets which work in the 1440-2880dpi range, having said that Canon inkjets have a native resolution of 600dpi and Epson 720dpi. Obviously I don't know how many machines they are running but with that number of paper sizes it will be a few. I'd suggest sending in the same file with the same settings and get them printed at a different size on both edges so it probably runs through a different machine. If the results are the same then I'd politely suggest that at £1.25 for a 12x18, as you first suggested, you are probably hitting their quality/output thresh hold.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 31, 2016)

I print some large photos from my 5D MK III processed in photoshop and see no issues with sharpness. I did a 24 X 42 print recently of a large group of people and every face came out fine. Amazing, actually.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 31, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I print some large photos from my 5D MK III processed in photoshop and see no issues with sharpness. I did a 24 X 42 print recently of a large group of people and every face came out fine. Amazing, actually.



Nobody is suggesting otherwise. We are trying to pin down the reason for less than optimally sharp prints post capture and processing. Is it the processing (my first thought but probably wrong) or the print supplier? Evidence seems to point to the print supplier.


----------



## LDS (Oct 31, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> One key pointer is they use lasers to expose the paper and these work at 600dpi which is considered a comparatively low figure for inkjets which work in the 1440-2880dpi range, having said that Canon inkjets have a native resolution of 600dpi and Epson 720dpi.



Different technologies, one printing on "silver halide" papers with a layer for each CMY color (a continuous tone output), the other a half-tone device (laying dots on the paper surface only - and also inkjets printers are different from offset ones). It's the old PPI vs. DPI question. 

Different output technologies may require a different sharpening, because the image "pixels" are not created the same way.


----------



## tonyespofoto (Oct 31, 2016)

I would like to suggest to you the following website:http://www.pixelgenius.com/index.html Pixelgenius is run by some of the most forward thinkers in the industry. They have Photoshop sharpening software that is very good. Within it are quite a number of sharpening workflows, each of which run as an action/script. You need only choose your input file type (scans, scanning back, or digital camera, etc) subject type (there are about 20 to choose from) and whether you are applying Capture Sharpening, Creative Sharpening or Output Sharpening (screen, inkjet, etc.) The results are superb. There is also a very detailed downloadable primer on sharpening that you will find very instructive. I believe you can download a trial. Even if you choose not to purchase, the primer is excellent reading. I have used this now for several years (since CS4) and am well satisfied.


----------



## tonyespofoto (Oct 31, 2016)

In times past, it was common for labs to apply sharpening before printing. I don't think that is the rule now. I think that now, more often than not, the lab will print what you send them so it is on you to apply the most appropriate sharpening for the print and file size in question. Naturally, you would do well to call and ask. I think you are barking up the wrong tree in thinking an unsharp print is a fault of the process. I think this is unlikely. You are surely not the first person with questions like this. Call the lab and get their recommendations.


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 1, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Not very generous really, but thanks.
> 
> Anyway, after downloading and playing with the file I believe I was wrong to initially point the finger at your 'for print' sharpening, it sounds like you have a very robust sharpening protocol and the numbers are certainly close to where I would go. I ended up with 135% at 0.8, so very close to yours.
> 
> ...



Thanks very much for the feedback, looks like I got one bit of the processing about right then. I wouldn't point the finger at the lab, I think in terms of value for money it's exceptionally good and it's not that the quality is in any way awful, just that it isn't quite as good as I was really hoping for. That I need to go upmarket to improve quality is completely fine.

For others information, I did email the lab first and they confirmed they added no processing to the images, leaving me in total control, which is what I want. I had problems in the days of film of everything being "corrected" for under/over exposure.. until I found a local chemist (drug store) where the owner did the processing and was a bit keen so mucked around getting the exposure right, essential for my astrophotography I was getting into at the time, the main payment I had to make was being prepared to chat about the images with him, which was no hardship.


----------

