I haven't been induced to change my practices.Įxcept-a few years back, I watched a conversation between Jeff Schewe and Michael Reichmann. In the years since then third-party programs have improved, but so has Photoshop. For the heck of it, I checked out the notion that upsampling to a printer's native resolution (360 or 720 PPI in the case of Epson other manufacturers may be different) produced a higher quality print then letting the printer's driver handle this (which it does behind the scenes when you hand it something of a different PPI).
The takeaway, if all that is seriously longissimus, non legi is that the improvements were modest, nothing was superior under all circumstances, and Photoshop's built-in resizing algorithms worked, on average, as well as anything else. It also seems to be fundamentally misapplied-the times when I do need sharpening output are when I'm printing very small, not very large, as the printer rendering algorithms tend to suppress very fine, low-contrast detail.Īs for upsampling, I gave that a thorough inspection about a dozen years back in these very pages: Sharpening for output has, for me, translated into harsh, unrealistic edges and a degradation of what I would (imprecisely) call photographic quality. I am, for the most part, not a fan of "sharpening for output" nor of upsampling programs.
0 kommentar(er)
