Can I make photo prints at greater than 300ppi?

[qwerty]

Hello

I need to make digital photo prints at a resolution much greater than 300ppi.
I need about 1000ppi.
But all the "1 hour photo" digital photo printing labs can only print at 300ppi.
It seems to be an industry standard. Every digital photo, whether it is 5 megapixels, 10 megapixels, 16 megapixels, 24 megapixels, etc...gets reduced to a lousy 2.16 MP image (1800x1200 pixels) for a 4x6 inch print.
If all you want is a 4x6 print then any photo with an image size greater than 2.16 megapixels is irrelevant. It will be scaled down to 2160000 pixels (that's 1800x1200 pixels) regardless of the original image size because there are no commercial photo printers (as far as I know) that can print greater than 300ppi (ppi means "pixels per inch").
As a result, the prints today are unacceptably bad quality.

Gone are the days when you could take out a magnifying glass and look at a photograph and see what was printed on a licence plate way in the background or on a T-shirt or recognize a face in a crowd.
Obsolete projection printing made from enlargers produce much finer detail prints.

Apparently there are film recorders that can put high definition digital images onto film.
Those negatives could then be put into conventional photo enlargers and then much finer detailed prints can be made onto photo paper.
However, making photo prints this way is expensive and inefficient.

Is there any such machinery that can squeeze, for example, a 6000x4000 pixel image directly onto a 4x6 inch area of photographic paper? (That comes out to 1000ppi.)






PS
In fact, the photo printing standard really ought to be raised from 300ppi to 2000ppi.
This is because the resolution of the finest grain film (and photo paper) is generally considered to be 4000ppi (if you count 1 grain as 1 pixel) by the photo industry scientists. (That's what I was told and what I read anyway. This makes sense since scanning negatives at 4000ppi is a common professional practice. And they really ought to be scanned at 8000ppi if you consider the Nyquist theory!)
According to the Nyquist theory, an image must be scanned or captured at double its resolution in order to preserve every grain or pixel in that image. (The pixels of the original scanned image and its resulting copy image never line up exactly. So scanning an image at twice its resolution ensures that every pixel in the scanned image has at least 1 pixel of its own in the copy image. If you think about it, this theory can quite easily be geometrically visualized or proven.) Therefore since photo paper has 4000 grains per inch, an image could be safely projected to it as high as 2000 grains (or pixels) per inch.
So if you want the new "digital prints" to have that same fine detail as the best analog prints from the past then you need to print digital images at 2000ppi!

But for now I'll be satisfied with 1000ppi.

 

[carioca]

Hello

I need to make digital photo prints at a resolution much greater than 300ppi.
I need about 1000ppi.

So if you want the new "digital prints" to have that same fine detail as the best analog prints from the past then you need to print digital images at 2000ppi!

But for now I'll be satisfied with 1000ppi.

Epson printers can print at 360 and 720dpi, but I doubt that you will see any difference.

Let's take a 24MP sensor camera:
(let's keep it square to make the example simpler)
This sensor would give you a resolution of 4898x4898 pixels.
With a print resolution of 1000ppi, this would result in a final image size of 4.89x4.89inches, or, in the case of your 2000ppi request, 2.44x2.44inches final print size.

Now, if you want to print an 11x14inch print with 1000ppi, you would need a sensor capable of 154MP, or in the case of 2000ppi, 616MP(!).
See where this is going...
(I'm not even thinking about file storage)

Maybe you should change your lab, or try an Epson, Canon, etc... home printer.
I usually look at my images at comfortable viewing distance, not with a loupe.

Sidney

 

[MikeSeb]

You're wasting your time on this Golden Fleece hunt, for the reasons Sidney wrote.

Your eye won't be able to discern a difference in quality.

 

[qwerty]

Epson printers can print at 360 and 720dpi, but I doubt that you will see any difference.

Dpi (dots per inch) is not the same thing as ppi (pixels per inch).
It usually takes several dots to make a single pixel.
Each printer has its own way of doing this and this is not standardized.

Each printer manufacturer is free to come up with its own creative and/or complex way of putting the standardized digital file it is given to paper.
In other words if a company wants to invent a good printer they try a lot of stuff out and see what works...
The dpi rating of one printer doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the dpi rating of another.
The dpi ratings of printers don't mean very much and can be deceptive.
It's the ppi ratings that matter.

Here is a good article on this subject:
http://www.printrates.com/resources_DPI_PPI.php


One thing for sure is that the ppi rating of a printer is always less than or equal to its dpi rating.
Do Epson printers rated at 360dpi and 720dpi mean 360ppi and 720ppi?
I don't know.
But they certainly fall short of the 1000ppi I want.

Let's take a 24MP sensor camera:
(let's keep it square to make the example simpler)
This sensor would give you a resolution of 4898x4898 pixels.
With a print resolution of 1000ppi, this would result in a final image size of 4.89x4.89inches, or, in the case of your 2000ppi request, 2.44x2.44inches final print size.

True

Now, if you want to print an 11x14inch print with 1000ppi, you would need a sensor capable of 154MP, or in the case of 2000ppi, 616MP(!).
See where this is going...
(I'm not even thinking about file storage)

No, I am not interested in making 11x14inch prints at 2000ppi or even 1000ppi.
I am working with 24MP files. That's it. My picture files do not need to be any bigger than that right now. This is already better than 35mm film. (35mm film has a digital equivilant of 21,427,242 pixels. (Here is the math: 36mm x 24mm x 4000pixels/25.4mm x 4000pixels/25.4mm = 21427242 square pixels))

A 24MP picture is a 24MP picture. It doesn't matter how big you print it. It doesn't matter if you make it into a 4x6inch print, an 8x12inch print, a 13.334x20inch print or a 4x6foot print.
As the prints get bigger their resolution no longer needs to be as high.
If I print a 24MP picture at 1ppi then it will be 4000x6000inches or 333x500feet big. Woooah! That's the size of a building. I better stand back a mile to see that.
If I print a 24MP picture at 300ppi then it will be 13.334x20inches big.
That's still way to big to walk around with.
I am not going to reduce the size of my photos to 2.16MP just so I can fit it onto a 4x6 print at 300ppi.
It defeats the whole purpose of having a high megapixel camera.
I want most of my prints to be 4x6inches big but I want to put 24 megapixels of picture information on them.
Therefore I must print at 1000ppi.
That's slightly higher resolution then using an enlarger to project all 21.4 million grains of a 35mm negative onto 4x6inch photo paper.

That was the standard 20 years ago.
Why can't that be the standard today?

Maybe you should change your lab, or try an Epson, Canon, etc... home printer.
I usually look at my images at comfortable viewing distance, not with a loupe.

Sidney

I want to see all 24MP of information in my pictures.
But I want them to be 4x6inches so I can store them in a shoe box not a book shelf.
If you print them at 300ppi you will be able to see every detail at a comfortable viewing distance. But they will be 20 inches wide....and you can't walk around with 20 inch pictures. You might want to hang 1 or 2 of them on your wall maybe.

So there are 3 ways of looking at the finest details of a 24MP picture down to the pixel level:
1. Print it at low resolution so it becomes a very big picture. This way you can see the pixels with the naked eye.
2. Forget looking at a physical print of it and just zoom in on the digital file with Photoshop.
3. Print it at high resolution so it becomes a manageable size and look at its finest details with a magnifying glass!

Option 1 is not realistic. How are you going to handle a stack of huge photos?
Where are you going to store them?

Option 2 is not practical either.
In the real world most people want to see real printed photos and not deal with computers. It is more comfortable and natural that way. I personally would rather look at a stack of finely printed photos one at a time from a shoe box than look at them in Adobe Photoshop. It is a "hands on" kind of thing. What am I going to do if I want to look at a small low resolution photo print more closely? Am I going to get off my seat, go to my computer and find the high resolution version of it in Photoshop? That's not always practical. And I am going to put in dedicated time to look at these photos on a screen anyway. But sometimes I don't have time to get to my computer right away. And what if these photo files get lost, misplaced, or archived far away and you cant get to them easily?

So therefore option 3 makes the most sense even though it is kind of obvious and old fashioned:
The solution is to print these photos finely and look at them with a magnifying glass when you need to!

 

[carioca]

I want to see all 24MP of information in my pictures.

Sorry, I don't get it.

I don't know what kind of images you take (are you working with scientific images?), that would justify your point.

In my case, I have always preferred images with strong and captivating image content, even though sometimes not perfectly printed.

An image that has nothing to say and doesn't 'move' me (content wise), won't reveal more, even when it is printed in high resolution.

Sorry to be short, straight and honest.

Kind regards,

Sidney

 

[Loris Medici]

Use a 8000dpi film recorder to record all the digital info onto film then print onto real photo paper using an enlarger. That way you'll be able to get the whole information (actually only what wasn't lost in the enlargement phase) by looking with a loupe - if that's exactly what you want. Why you want that I can't say?

But all this is too much hassle ("anal" if you like); if I needed to see the full detail I'd prefer to magnify my *digital* images on my *screen* instead of trying to extract it from a 4x6 print using a loupe. I mean that's not what a 4x6 print was meant for in the first place.... No?

 

[mrred]

QWEERTY: Can you afford the lens for that 1000dpi/ppi (if it could exist)?

 

[6x7]

I think you have your units confused. You can easily print higher than 1000 DPI on an Epson, they lay down 1440 DPI or 2880 DPI.

 

[qwerty]

Use a 8000dpi film recorder to record all the digital info onto film then print onto real photo paper using an enlarger. That way you'll be able to get the whole information (actually only what wasn't lost in the enlargement phase) by looking with a loupe - if that's exactly what you want.

Yes, I know.
I already said this. If you look at my original post on the top of this page,
I said:
"Apparently there are film recorders that can put high definition digital images onto film.
Those negatives could then be put into conventional photo enlargers and then much finer detailed prints can be made onto photo paper.
However, making photo prints this way is expensive and inefficient."

Why you want that I can't say?

I already said why. Read the bottom of my last reply message above.

But all this is too much hassle ("anal" if you like);

That's right. It is. And it's expensive too.
I asked one place about this.
If I want to completely record a 24MP image to film it would have to be 4x5 film.
This is because if I write at 2000ppi (which is the maximum resolution at which I should write to film) 35mm film is not big enough.
Writing to 4x5 film costs about $100 per print!
And then add another $10 per print to project it to 4x6 photopaper using an enlarger.

if I needed to see the full detail I'd prefer to magnify my *digital* images on my *screen* instead of trying to extract it from a 4x6 print using a loupe. I mean that's not what a 4x6 print was meant for in the first place.... No?

No. High resolution just looks better.
And also for space saving purposes I like to cram as much picture information as I can on a 4x6 print.

Why do you want to throw that information away when you can keep it simply by raising the photoprint resolution standards?
I don't want to walk around with huge prints just so I can see more detail without a magnifying glass.

I will look at my pictures on a screen anyway. But it's also nice to be able to take a closer look at real printed pictures right then and there, in real time.
And what if I don't have time to get to my computer or lost the digital photofile? At least I have a hard copy backup.

The ability to make photoprints up to 2000ppi was the standard 20 years ago.
Why can't that be the standard today?

 

[Loris Medici]

...
The ability to make photoprints up to 2000ppi was the standard 20 years ago.
Why can't that be the standard today?

Because most probably you're the only one that actually requires it. That wouldn't qualify as a standard...

I print 360ppi images with my 1200dpi inkjet printer and the resulting prints have equal quality with conventional prints. (Keeping the different qualities of the surfaces out, that is.) I don't care to observe the prints with a loupe and I doubt anyone else (except you of course) would feel that is absolutely necessary. If it's good to my naked eyes - at whatever observing distance - it's good as it has to be.

 

[pschwart]

Yes, I know.
I already said this. If you look at my original post on the top of this page,
I said:
"Apparently there are film recorders that can put high definition digital images onto film.
Those negatives could then be put into conventional photo enlargers and then much finer detailed prints can be made onto photo paper.
However, making photo prints this way is expensive and inefficient."



I already said why. Read the bottom of my last reply message above.



That's right. It is. And it's expensive too.
I asked one place about this.
If I want to completely record a 24MP image to film it would have to be 4x5 film.
This is because if I write at 2000ppi (which is the maximum resolution at which I should write to film) 35mm film is not big enough.
Writing to 4x5 film costs about $100 per print!
And then add another $10 per print to project it to 4x6 photopaper using an enlarger.



No. High resolution just looks better.
And also for space saving purposes I like to cram as much picture information as I can on a 4x6 print.

Why do you want to throw that information away when you can keep it simply by raising the photoprint resolution standards?
I don't want to walk around with huge prints just so I can see more detail without a magnifying glass.

I will look at my pictures on a screen anyway. But it's also nice to be able to take a closer look at real printed pictures right then and there, in real time.
And what if I don't have time to get to my computer or lost the digital photofile? At least I have a hard copy backup.

The ability to make photoprints up to 2000ppi was the standard 20 years ago.
Why can't that be the standard today?

I am going to question some of your premises:
- This is because the resolution of the finest grain film (and photo paper) is generally considered to be 4000ppi (if you count 1 grain as 1 pixel)
- The ability to make photoprints up to 2000ppi was the standard 20 years ago.

I don't see any relation between the number of film "grains" and pixel count. The stuff we call grain in silver prints in not even individual grains, but clumps. Different developers will produce different grain densities, and this completely ignores chromogenic film where the image is ultimately formed by dyes, not metallic silver. Assuming 4000 ppi for film may make sense if it is scanned, but otherwise this has no relationship to the inherent resolution of the actual analogue film image. If we want to compare the resolution of digital vs film images, I think we need to use lines per mm as a common measuring methodology. This is fairly intuitive: for example, we know that a camera's megapixel rating is not solely responsible for the resolution of a digital image, and we also know that a 6 megapixel (pick your number) DSLR will produce a higher resolution image than a 6 megapixel point-and-shoot with a much smaller sensor (where resolution is the ability to discern adjacent line pairs).

Since images created by film recorders are likely to be used to create additional image generations, it makes sense for recorders to be able to lay down resolutions finer than the human eye can detect.
My guess is that most film images would not even benefit from a print > 360 ppi because they do not capture sufficient detail, or other defects limit the image quality.

A suggestion: try shooting, scanning, and printing 6x6 medium format. This may be the simplest upgrade to get the quality you want. I think you will be astounded by the amount of detail you can capture. Either printing the same number of square inches (4x6 vs 4.9x4.9) or the same enlargement factor (4) should be instructive.

 

[Oren Grad]

QWERTY: I understand exactly what you want - I want it too. But there's no way to get it with the inkjet printing technology currently available to the consumer.

Whether it's possible at all, I don't know.

 

[qwerty]

I am going to question some of your premises:
- This is because the resolution of the finest grain film (and photo paper) is generally considered to be 4000ppi (if you count 1 grain as 1 pixel)
- The ability to make photoprints up to 2000ppi was the standard 20 years ago.

I don't see any relation between the number of film "grains" and pixel count. The stuff we call grain in silver prints in not even individual grains, but clumps. Different developers will produce different grain densities, and this completely ignores chromogenic film where the image is ultimately formed by dyes, not metallic silver. Assuming 4000 ppi for film may make sense if it is scanned, but otherwise this has no relationship to the inherent resolution of the actual analogue film image. If we want to compare the resolution of digital vs film images, I think we need to use lines per mm as a common measuring methodology.

Ok, by "1 grain" I mean a very small area on the film that can record only 1 discrete color value. In that sense it is like a pixel.

Is that the technical laboratory correct definition of a grain? I don't know. But that's what I (and probably most photograhers) think it means. But for purposes of simplicity right now, I define a grain, a line and a pixel to mean the same thing.

So if film can resolve 4000ppi then that equals 4000pixels/25.4mm which equals 157.48 pixels per mm or 157.48 lines per mm. That's close enough to 160 lpmm.

So if your going to use "lines per mm" let's just say film can resolve, at best, 160 lines per mm. (This would give it a digital equivilent resolution of 4064ppi.)

A suggestion: try shooting, scanning, and printing 6x6 medium format. This may be the simplest upgrade to get the quality you want. I think you will be astounded by the amount of detail you can captu.re. Either printing the same number of square inches (4x6 vs 4.9x4.9) or the same enlargement factor (4) should be instructive.

Yes, but how am I going to make high resolution prints of those images?
I don't want to go back to shooting in film and then use a conventional enlarger to make analog prints.
That was a nuisance.

 

[3Dfan]

Yes, but how am I going to make high resolution prints of those images?
I don't want to go back to shooting in film and then use a conventional enlarger to make analog prints.
That was a nuisance.

It is my understanding that there are a few digital enlargers on the market, or at least there were.

I agree 100% that the 300ppi limit (400ppi if you really look around) is a bit lower than it ought to be. I shoot stereo photos which are viewed under magnification, so every extra bit of resolution is worth it for me.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Qwerty, I found lab prints did not match what I used to get from an enlarger but am happier now I found a lab prints at 400dpi.
If you find a lab that makes Lambda prints and and are very specific you want 400 dpi not 200 that should be better than 300dpi.
Not the lab I use but it gives some properties of Lambda prints:
www.plexiphoto.com/engels/lambda.html

 

[pfigen]

The original poster in this thread I think is slightly optimistic in his estimation of just how much information a reflective print actually holds. Most estimates put that at around 200 dots per inch of real on paper resolution. In years of scanning all sorts of prints, I'd say it might be a bit higher, but not really more than 300 dots on a smooth gloss paper.

The problem with his theories is that they completely leave out the possibilities for optical and mechanical losses at every step of the way. Enlarging lenses for analog prints simply aren't that sharp and the paper subtly blurs the image when viewed at high magnification. Print on anything other than the highest gloss paper and that phenomenon is further evidenced.

Add the fact that color neg material does not resolve the detail that he claims, putting the whole line of math into question. Plus you can't make a straight across analogy between number of pixels in a digital capture and a optically scanned image. Assuming that the number of pixels in an optical scan equals the amount of detail in a digital capture is a classic example of a false equivalency. It leaves out too many of the factors that are needed to assess actual image quality.

Finally, the bottom line is that the current state of digital printing yields digital prints that are very pleasing to the eye viewed at any distance. Isn't that what we're all after anyway?

 

[Bob Carnie]

My Lambda prints at 200ppi and 400ppi, very unlikley the OP could tell the difference if I laid two 30x40 's out on a table of the same image at the two different resolution options.

 

[Diapositivo]

Kodak seems to be betting heavily on their new line of printers (printing industry: books, magazines, that stuff) that will be able, IIRC, to print at 600 ppi while modern high-speed printing technologies typically arrive at 300 ppi and rarely to 400 ppi.

I asked at sister site APUG a question about how that compares with an analogue fine art print, and how are the difference among the three discernible by a user with a normal sight.

I received an answer saying that a print at 600 ppi would be perceived as better than a print at 300 ppi and that an analogue fine art print would have a still higher resolution and be perceived as having it.

Fabrizio

EDIT I do suspect that the eye will have to be trained by continuous exposure to 600 ppi before noticing the difference between 300 ppi and 600 ppi. It's a bit like tasting wine, or listening to hi-fi, etc. our brain needs some time to learn to discern fine details but when it learned the difference of the lesser quality becomes easily apparent.

 

[JBrunner]

I suggest a Speed Graphic, and a contact printing frame.

 

[donbga]

Kodak seems to be betting heavily on their new line of printers (printing industry: books, magazines, that stuff) that will be able, IIRC, to print at 600 ppi while modern high-speed printing technologies typically arrive at 300 ppi and rarely to 400 ppi.

Perhaps you mean 600 lpi (lines per inch) which is the printing industries dimension for resolution. 600 lpi would indeed produce extremely high quality probably indistinguishable from a photograph (optical) print.

 

[Diapositivo]

Perhaps you mean 600 lpi (lines per inch) which is the printing industries dimension for resolution. 600 lpi would indeed produce extremely high quality probably indistinguishable from a photograph (optical) print.

I really mean 600 ppi. I go by memory. There was an interview with Perez of Kodak recently linked somewhere on APUG. In the interview, Perez talked about how "excited" he was about the new development in Kodak printing technology. As far as I remember, he specifically mentioned that so far there was no digital technology able to produce that resolution with the printing speed required by the industry. Kodak hopes to "revolutionise" the industry by bringing high resolution digital printing at high speed.

It is one of the two rabbits in the hat that Kodak relies on to get out of their unfortunate digital state, the other rabbit being IIRC the inks for ink-jet printers, which cost more than the competition but provide higher quality.

Maybe somebody can locate the interview.

I really think it is 600 ppi he was talking. If his predictions come true, we are going to see, with some years of gradual adaptation, some kind of an advent of "high definition" in printed books, magazines etc (supposing people is willing to pay for the better paper required to reach this resolution). That might even, maybe, help resuscitate the state of printed publishing. LCDs don't certainly go down to 600 ppi.

Fabrizio

 

[jd callow]

I would think the long term strategy would be to have the higher quality become mainstream as the upper end pays for development. I know a couple years back Kodak thought they had a consumer win when they introduced a line of inkjet printers whose ink cartridge replacements were far cheaper than the competition. I don't know how that went, but no one here or else where that I've noticed raves about their Kodak printer.

 

[Moopheus]

600 lpi would indeed produce extremely high quality probably indistinguishable from a photograph (optical) print.

Some years ago (early 90s) when I was doing some print buying I got some print sample from a shop in Arizona that were claiming to do 4-color 600 line screens. They were pretty amazing. Very nearly photo-print quality. The dots could not be seen with the normal loupe I used to check proofs! I don't know how they did it, it was a proprietary process, and they charged a hefty premium for it. The tolerances for dot gain on the press must have been crazy.

 

[Moopheus]

I really mean 600 ppi. I go by memory.

Yes, I think he was talking about 600 dpi resolution for the newest Nexpress printer. This would be roughly equivalent to a traditional 300-line screen, which is pretty good (most normal color book printing is usually 133-150 line screen). Xerox claims the iGen4 can do a 300 line screen, so I don't know if the Nexpress will really be much better (I don't have any personal experience with them). Of course Kodak will say it is.

 

[pfigen]

Years ago I had a client who insisted on printing her brochures with a printer who printed at 300 l/s, which, of course, were very sharp, but had other problems. The scans were four times the normal size for that output and worse, you really needed a 4800 dpi imagesetter to make your plates and keep the potential of a full 256 levels per channel. Because they were using much lower res imagesetters, the tonality and smoothness suffered, but they were certainly sharp. So, in the end, the additional cost of the scans, the longer time it took to work on huge files and the premium paid for the printing was just not worth it. No one in the target audience for the brochures knew or cared and ultimately it was just a vanity project for this middle manager type who had been sold that bigger is always better.

Maybe they're making strides with the newer digital presses but all the output I've seen looks poorer than comparative output from an offset press using the same resolution specs. As far as photographic prints are concerned, until the medium itself can resolve more than it can now, there's not much point in anything beyond a real 300 dpi or so on paper. Print on textured or fine art papers and those numbers go way down.