Printing at sub par ppi

Hi all,

I hesitate to make my first post about ppi/dpi etc., but this is where I'm stuck and I can't find an answer (or rather, I find dozens of different ones).

My previous digital experience is with scanned negs and a small Epson r800 printer (mainly for dig negs) and I'm looking to move to a digital camera and (probably) an Epson 2880 with peizography inks. I had almost decided to go for a Fuji x E1 (which has a 16mp sensor) - I'm a bit of a rangefinder geek, it has good reviews and good glass, so it seemed a suitable choice.

However, at a print size of say 18"x12", this comes in at about 270ppi. There seems to be all sorts of varied opinions on what the Epson print driver does if it gets sent an image at less than its native resolution, but since I'll be using the RIP driver, I believe this is all fairly irrelevant.

Now, there does seem to be a fairly consistent (not necessarily correct) opinion that Epsons print best a 360ppi and it all gets a bit dicey under 300 and I want the prints to stand up to a buyer's scrutiny. Now a 16mp image comes in well under that (and a 24mp still gets to only 330ppi). I'm sure that all on here don't shoot with a 36+mp sensor, and since my budget is limited (camera, 1 lens and printer), i guess my questions are:

• Get the Fuji and stop worrying my ugly little head about ppi
• Get the Fuji and upsize the images (against my instincts)
• Get a bigger sensor (24mp max at mo)
• Abort the idea completely and remortgage the house for a MF digital back (might have a problem selling that one to the wife)

Sorry, a bit long-winded (and I do apologise if this is ground already trod - but I've been talking myself in and out of it for weeks and these kind of mistakes are an expense I can ill-afford). Any ideas; nuggets of wisdom?

Many thanks

I have printed 12 and 16MP images at 16x20 size on an Epson 3880. The results have been satisfactory; in other words I have put them on the wall. A very sharp 16MP will print better than a slightly fuzzy 36MP.

I can see the difference between the D800E and the D7000 I replaced when printed large, but at sizes my Epson 3880 can print it's surprisingly minimal if good technique is used for both.

I see no benefit to upsizing images before printing. I have tested a few of mine and either Lightroom or the Epson driver do a fine job (not sure all the time which software is doing the upsizing, but it does happen).

I have also done the tests of how much resolution is needed. The difference is almost non existent between 300 and 360ppi. 240ppi is my preferred lower limit, but even 180ppi looks ok for some images. You can test this yourself with your r800. Take a very detailed image and print it at 720, 480, 360, 300, 240, 180dpi. Look at the images as close as you can see them, and also at arms length. You will quickly know for you where the images start to fall apart.

I would get the Fuji, if that's the camera that appeals to you. I tried one out at the store and really liked it. But I'm sticking to my D800 and a smaller point and shoot (LX5 currently) as the best digital combo for me, but it's not because of the resolution difference.

Many thanks, Larry.

It was much easier in the old days: put all your money into glass and, if you run our of cash, make the camera out of a baked bean tin.

I think I'll take a punt and go for it. If I can't get the whole dig workflow thing to work for me, I wouldn't have lost a fortune (and I can still make some nice 8x10 negs). If it looks promising, I'll start putting my coppers in the jar for something with a bit more spunk, so to speak. Alas, the r800's a goner so I'm going to need a new printer regardless so, in for a penny, in for a pound, say I.

Thanks again.

A question back at you. Are you worried about the ppi for your digital negatives or when you are printing on paper? For digital negatives, I wouldn't worry because you will probably lose some of the resolution in the paper surface for an alternative process.

I have printed on paper for years at 360 ppi because it was a multiple of the printers ppi, 1440. I have the delusion that at one time this actually made a difference because of interpolating the dpi in the printer driver. This might be way to geeky and quite possibly nonsensical, but it makes me happy.

Hi Joe,

I'd like to be able to print both negatives and positives, but my concern was primarily about positives on paper. I figured that if the ppi was sufficient to print on paper, it would be good enough to print negs and, as you say, the paper surface is more forgiving in that regard. Also, large pt prints tend to be a bit pricey so I doubt I'd be churning them out on a day-to-day basis (although I do find alt process extremely addictive). This is a bit of a tentative step for me - if it works out, I can start to invest a bit more in digital capture but, with a young family and a bank account that bleeds out every month, I don't want to sink too much money in it at the mo.

I, too, have only ever printed at 360 ppi (and only negs) - as you say, something to do with driver behavior and dither patterns and other stuff I don't really understand, if I recall. On a small printer from scanned negs, resolution was never an issue and the results were good, so I didn't change. I think there is a tendency for those moving from film to dig to become pixel counters - after all, for many of us, finding the right analogue workflow to achieve the best possible prints was an evolutionary process that was forever ongoing (maybe I just speak for myself !). Finding the right film, right developer, right paper, tweaking techniques, studying magnified grain etc etc - the list goes on. I like my (film) negs as large as is practical, so I get a bit twitchy if I think I need 360 ppi and can only get 270.

By the sounds of it, the results should be, at least, reasonable. After all, I'm only testing the waters.

Many thanks.

my advise: put the next car purchase on hold an get a 36 Mp D800 and tell the wife how you sacrificed your needs to save the house.

Ralph is quite fond of his D800, and they most certainly produce great images. But to be honest I think you should try out Joe Lipka's suggestion before sinking a lot of money into a Nikon D800 and new glass.

My experience is that 240 dpi turns out very nice prints if I do my job on the front end. A sharp image prints quite nicely. Start getting in the habit of using a tripod and you might be surprised at how nice your prints are, even at a lower dpi than most recommend.

Camera resolution is nice but I really believe that really good technique is far more important than the latest and greatest sensor. YMMV

Pioneer said:

Camera resolution is nice but I really believe that really good technique is far more important than the latest and greatest sensor. YMMV

Click to expand...

I agree as far as resolution goes. But the latest sensors are miles ahead of the old ones as far as how clean the images are in the shadows. At least the 36MP Sony sensors are (and probably many others I haven't tried).

Use of a tripod is needed to get the most out of the D800E's resolution in almost all situations. Same with mirror lockup or pre-fire. If you want to shoot handheld in other than bright sunlight you might as well get a lower resolution camera.

I have printed large prints from 6x9 slide scans (up to 3x2 meter or 9 x 6 feet) @ 100 dpi, and they look fantastic.

The trick is the viewing distance: the diagonal of the final image should be the optimal viewing distance. The optimal viewing distance would be 310 cm, the size of the image 3327 x 2142 pixel (~ 7.1 Megapixel)

If you reduce the viewing distance to 100 cm, you need 10296 x 6627 (~ 68.2 Megapixel). With a 16 Megapixel camera you can print the same size with a viewing distance of 206 cm.

If your lens is really sharp from corner to corner and you can use a RAW image without artifacts, you won't have a problem to print your 18" x 12" which equals 45,72 cm x 30,48 cm.

There is an excellent online calculator for viewing distances, but only in German: Schrfentieferechner mit Zusatzfunktionen

I guess you can use google to translate this page for your purposes.