PhotoKit Sharpener and SmugMug Printing - Settings? No idea what type printer SM uses

MichaelKirk

Is anyone using PhotoKit Sharpener for CS2/3 and printing here at SM? If so, what output settings are you using - Contone/Halftone/Inkjet?

I have no idea what kind or type of printer Smug Mug uses so not sure what output sharpening I should be using. Has anyone else done any print test and figured out what has the best results or better yet know what printer SM uses so I can match my output sharpening for running my own sample test? I did a search and there was a sample link posted from last year, but it is now a dead link.



Andy,
Can provide me or show me a link that gives me the details of the printer being used I could generate a sample gallery with different sharpening settings to run some of my own test prints.

PhotoKit Sharpener has three types of output sharpening:
1. Contone Output Sharpening (used for continuous tone printing processes
such as dye-sublimation and photographic printers) what ppi is the
printer?
2. Halftone Output Sharpening (designed for output processes that use a
conventional halftone rosette, such as the majoriety of printing presses
as well as dot based digital proofing systems)
3. Inkjet Output Sharpening (organized by output resolution and paper
type)

My "assumption" would be #1 and if I am correct what ppi printers are being use??

Thanks,
Michael

arodney

Use Contone.

claudermilk

This help page tells you exactly what printers SM/EZPrints uses: http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-quality

pathfinder

A good link to review from time to time Chris - Thanks.

MichaelKirk

Thanks...
I was looking all over for this page as I knew it had to exist - but was search deprived apparently at the time.

Now my only question would be EZprints is noted to use either a 302 dpi or 254 dpi printer. While PhotoKit Sharpener is displaying output sharpening as ppi.

How to compare dpi (dots per inch) to ppi (pixles per inch)??
Options for output sharpening for Contone are:
Contone 80 ppi
Contone 150 ppi
Contone 200 ppi
Contone 267 ppi
Contone 300 ppi
Contone 400 ppi

I tried finding out the info on EZPrints website, but it was not shown.



Thanks,
Michael

claudermilk wrote:

This help page tells you exactly what printers SM/EZPrints uses: http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-quality

rdlugosz

While I'm not against you moving ahead with this expiriment, I thought I'd mention that someone had done a test like this in the past & preferred the results that didn't include any specific output sharpening.

Let us know what you find.

MichaelKirk

I did a search..
and the only test I saw mentioned provided a link - but it was a dead link.

So you are saying that this "test" showed that there was no real difference in the final print weather there was any "output" sharpening applied or not? I find that very difficult to believe - I would like to see those reslts.

Michael

rdlugosz wrote:

While I'm not against you moving ahead with this expiriment, I thought I'd mention that someone had done a test like this in the past & preferred the results that didn't include any specific output sharpening.

Let us know what you find.

rdlugosz

MichaelKirk wrote:

So you are saying that this "test" showed that there was no real difference in the final print weather there was any "output" sharpening applied or not? I find that very difficult to believe - I would like to see those reslts.

Actually, IIRC the results were that he *preferred* the image *without* the additional sharpening. I agree that this is a strange finding, because the proper output sharpening (specific to the target printer) should result in a better print - when viewed at the proper viewing distance.

I think that last part is the key & I wasn't able to find the post via search either... perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up without being able to cite a source, but I do remember it (mostly because it surprised me)!

I'd say that the chances are quite good that the test I mention was *not* conducted properly & I'd really like to know the results of your findings... it sounds like you are dedicated to conducting a proper expirament.

MichaelKirk

No problem
No problem mentioning a thread and not being able to fine it amongst millions of threads - they get overwhelming. :help

I want to run a test on print output for a few reasons.
I am using all new software - Lightroom and CS3 and using PhotoKit Sharpener as my sharpening tool.
I am now using two camera bodies (D200 and D300) and want to try and make sure thye output from both cameras is very similiar.

With so much "New" gear and so much new to learn, I want to make sure my print outputs are a step up from what I was offering last year. Last year was my 1st year into photography and trying to earn some $$ from it. I did much better than I ever expected so this year I want to really steup up my game. There are more and more people using decent digital equipment that I need to make sure my final product is worlds better. Plus I made some strides into the magazine world and want to work more with magazines and make sure my images are using the correct type and amount of sharpening (that is someting I am working on outside of SM of course).

So....in order to do that I definately want to make sure my "editing" workflow is top notch and I am not doing something basically stupid that would ruin my otherwise good work. I could go out and guestimate my best sharpening guess, trial and error and order dozens and dozens of prints and take weeks/months of time to see what works best, but it would be a hugh time saver knowing what printers I need to match my capture sharpening efferst to and have to possibly only order a dozen or so sample test prints and have it all said and done in a week or so.

Thanks for your imput and stay tuned!
Michael

rdlugosz wrote:

Actually, IIRC the results were that he *preferred* the image *without* the additional sharpening. I agree that this is a strange finding, because the proper output sharpening (specific to the target printer) should result in a better print - when viewed at the proper viewing distance.

I think that last part is the key & I wasn't able to find the post via search either... perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up without being able to cite a source, but I do remember it (mostly because it surprised me)!

I'd say that the chances are quite good that the test I mention was *not* conducted properly & I'd really like to know the results of your findings... it sounds like you are dedicated to conducting a proper expirament.

rdlugosz

While you're at it, have you checked out the "From Camera to Print" video series from The Luminous Landscape? It's well worth the $35 to anyone interested in making quality prints.

Here's a direct link and more that I've had to say about it on my blog.