Enlarging images for printing

[ChicagoJohn]

I would like to thank everyone who has commented on my question, and especially I'd like to apologize to sbingham for any taken offense, as my comments were only intended in humor.

Again, I have now subsequently enlarged and printed five images using the 110% method. All have turned out amazingly well and are hanging on the wall in my office.

I cannot see any difference between the result of this method and that of the $100 - download and try for free - program/plug-in method based upon fractals.

While I think there may be a difference at extreme magnification versus single stage upsizing using the bicubic smoothing selection in PS, if others think this is "urban legend", that's fine. When I am spending $10 printing a 20 X 30 in image at Costco, I prefer to take a few minutes and use the urban legend method, and, again, I'm happy with the outcome (as are those who have seen them) of five examples now, all photographers with some years of experience, though not perhaps 33

Again, thanks to all for commenting. I think I have a method that works for me.

[blougans]

Newbie here
I want to print a image to canvas, the size of the final print will be +- 2400mm x 1080mm, what is the relationship between the rulers (top and lefthand side) in photoshop in centimeters to actual printed centimeters on paper, I have set it to centimeters , when I view the image at 'actual pixels' the rulers 'jumps' , meaning that the ruler values are now expanded to where 1cm = to +- 1 inch if I use a stationery ruler to measure the photoshop ruler on screen, the image looks good/normal at this value(no pixelation) (@ view actual pixels )everything looks 'smooth'/proper ,
The image is currently cropped to 52,25x23,51cm (270ppi) or 5554pixels x 2499 pixels, how large should I enlarge/upsize it to, using the 10% / 110% method to get it to print proper @ +- 2400mm x 1080mm,
thanks.
mind the english please

p.s. I could be missing the boat completely

[bluemeanietsi]

[QUOTE=apaflo;1585603]
Ultimately, for Canon or HP printers image should be resampled to 300 PPI and sharpened by observation at that size, while for Epson printers the image should be resampled to 360 PPI and sharpened at that size.
[QUOTE]

This is something that bothers me because if you actually listen to Epson they tell you only to resample to the minimum resolution of the printer being 180, which works fine for making images larger than the native resolution. If I make them smaller and don't make them 360 I get some really strange jagged artifacts on my prints.

[sbingham]

Try an even fraction of 360, like 240 or even 180. I have been using 240 with great success on a half dozen Epson printers, from an early 1280 up though a 7900. Eric Chan (an Epson guru of the highest order and now working for Adobe in their Camera Raw department) once did some carefully controlled tests (as I also did) and discovered that 240 works great. In Photoshop:
In this order.
1- First set resolution at 240
2- Then set document size
3- Make sure all 3 check boxes are checked at the bottom. (Resample, Scale size, and Proportion) In PS CS6 simply choose Bicubic automatic. In PS CS5 or lower choose Bicubic Smoother for large prints. FORGET all this 110% step stuff. A colossal waste of time and achieves nothing.
I routinely print 16 x 24 inch prints (on 17 x 25 paper) every week using the above - and sell them.

[apaflo]

Originally Posted by sbingham

Try an even fraction of 360, like 240 or even 180. I have been using 240 with great success on a half dozen Epson printers, from an early 1280 up though a 7900. Eric Chan (an Epson guru of the highest order and now working for Adobe in their Camera Raw department) once did some carefully controlled tests (as I also did) and discovered that 240 works great. In Photoshop:

Of course 240 works great, but that is because it is a large fraction of 360, and the simple fact is that the print driver does convert it effectively to 360 PPI before printing. What you see at 240 is almost what you get; but if it is converted to 360 then you do see what you get.

There doesn't seem to be much point in doing it almost right...

In this order.
1- First set resolution at 240
2- Then set document size
3- Make sure all 3 check boxes are checked at the bottom. (Resample, Scale size, and Proportion) In PS CS6 simply choose Bicubic automatic. In PS CS5 or lower choose Bicubic Smoother for large prints. FORGET all this 110% step stuff. A colossal waste of time and achieves nothing.
I routinely print 16 x 24 inch prints (on 17 x 25 paper) every week using the above - and sell them.

Using 110% steps is sort of like setting PPI to 240... perhaps not colossal, but yes a waste of time.

[apaflo]

This is something that bothers me because if you actually listen to Epson they tell you only to resample to the minimum resolution of the printer being 180, which works fine for making images larger than the native resolution. If I make them smaller and don't make them 360 I get some really strange jagged artifacts on my prints.

Where does Epson say to resample images to 180 PPI?

Isn't it more like they say that is about the least you'd want to use, because the quality is diminished to the point of being unacceptable below that?

[sbingham]

To each his own. On my 27" monitor I simply can not see a difference in sharpening at 240 or 360 using USM (100%). Nor can I see it in a print (2' x 3'). Like those I sell and publish. Perhaps your eyes are better than mine. I convert all my Nikon D7000 and D800 raw files files to 240 tiffs. Why? because it works. I think we are arguing nuances that simply are not visible to the eye. I will say, however, that my 240 tiffs are considerably smaller than 360 tiffs. Anyway, enough of this.

[apaflo]

Originally Posted by sbingham

To each his own. On my 27" monitor I simply can not see a difference in sharpening at 240 or 360 using USM (100%). Nor can I see it in a print (2' x 3'). Like those I sell and publish. Perhaps your eyes are better than mine. I convert all my Nikon D7000 and D800 raw files files to 240 tiffs. Why? because it works. I think we are arguing nuances that simply are not visible to the eye. I will say, however, that my 240 tiffs are considerably smaller than 360 tiffs. Anyway, enough of this.

I don't think it is so much a case of being able to see the difference between 240 and 360, as it is a matter of reducing the known error as far as possible in order to allow for the unknown error...

If we progressively go down from 360, to 240, to 180, to 120 and to 60 there is no question but that each fraction results in lower quality. At 240 we can't see it when everything is done exactly right. But on a day in and day out basis we don't always get everything exactly perfect. Being a little off at 360 is not a problem, but being off at 240 might be and at 180 certainly is. By working at 360 PPI we simply allow ourselves a little more working space.

[dmthompson]

Originally Posted by sbingham

To each his own. On my 27" monitor I simply can not see a difference in sharpening at 240 or 360 using USM (100%). Nor can I see it in a print (2' x 3'). Like those I sell and publish. Perhaps your eyes are better than mine. I convert all my Nikon D7000 and D800 raw files files to 240 tiffs. Why? because it works. I think we are arguing nuances that simply are not visible to the eye. I will say, however, that my 240 tiffs are considerably smaller than 360 tiffs. Anyway, enough of this.

Apaflo may be technically correct but my experence like yours tell me if I send a file to a professional printer that is 240ppi or better I'm going to get back an excellent print suitable for framing and selling. It's the end result that matters and how much time you want to put into it.

Dwight

[apaflo]

Originally Posted by dmthompson

Apaflo may be technically correct but my experence like yours tell me if I send a file to a professional printer that is 240ppi or better I'm going to get back an excellent print suitable for framing and selling. It's the end result that matters and how much time you want to put into it.

Dwight

I'm not suggesting that your print won't be "excellent". I'm just saying it will not be as good as it could be. If A is okay when your grade could be A+, then you've got what you need.