fine detail B&W prints?

[Daniel_Buck]

I've been using mpix.com to print my B&W photographs, the quality is decent but I mainly use them because it's so darn inexpensive, $2.50 for an 8x10 on Illford paper is hard to beat for photos that I throw into a box or a folder that don't get viewed very often.

I'm happy with the tones and the contrast, and even the paper. But it's the fine detail and sharpness that I really don't see in the prints! I've tried different down-sizing and sharpening methods, but nothing ever gets super sharp on the prints. So I've determined that for something nice and sharp with fine detail, I need to look elsewhere.

8x10 and 11x14 are my usual sizes. I'd rather keep price down as much as possible, but I realize that if I want a good print I'm going to have to pay for it. I don't mind that, since I have my 'decent photos' printed through mpix, and they are good enough. For my real good photos, I'd like to have them printed better.

I've been looking at a local lab (A&I) they have several different options for digital printing. B&W Fiber via Durst Lambada, Lightjet Digital Enlarger, Epson 9800 UltraChrome Inkjet/Giclée Printer, HP Indigo Digital, and so on. I don't really know what all those do, what would be best for what I'm looking for, sheer detail and crisp prints?

Any suggestions?

[rippo]

i've found mpix black and white to be pretty decent, but i also haven't been all that picky. any LF images i've printed with them have been 16x20 for the most part. wait...i just got an 8x10 portrait from them, taken on a homemade lens for my 4x5. i've just compared it to the downsampled file i uploaded to them (made an 8x10 at 300dpi), and i don't see any detail missing in the print that is there in the image. but that's hardly a scientific test, given the nature of the image and camera i used.

definitely check with other places and see how their prints look. but also consider if your scanning could be at issue. is detail missing from your print that you can see on the monitor?

[Daniel_Buck]

the scans have plenty of detail (a 4x5 scanned to 1200 or 2400dpi, downsized to 8x10) alot of detail is lost when I downres to my print dimensions at 300dpi (which is normal, right), However, after I sharpen the image looks very sharp on my monitor, and doesn't really seem to lack detail. The print never seems to look as sharp as what I see on my monitor. I guess maybe things on the monitor look deceptively sharp maybe? I know I've seen sharper prints though, and if most things prints at 300dpi, then it must be something about the mpix printing isn't printing at 300dpi, or it's just soft for some reason.

[Mike Tuomey]

daniel, have you considered intentionally oversharpening (as determined by monitor view) at several different degrees, printing the different versions, and comparing? mpix is cheap and you might gain insight into how much sharpening your scanned files need (or can take) to print out the way you expect.

[Daniel_Buck]

Mike, yes I have. I don't usually use a very large radius when I'm sharpening, individual pixel details pop out very nice on the monitor, but when I see the print I don't get the same 'pop' that I was expecting.

What I should do, is send a grid, pure black and pure white, and see how sharp the transition from black to white is. That might be a good way to see, no?

[Marko]

I concur with Mike, the print requires much more sharpening than the screen for the same effect. One of the possible reasons would be the ink "bleed" (or "dot gain" in parlance), depending on the paper and ink used, but that's for inkjet printers. I don't know what would be the exact cause on a Lambda or similar printers, probably diffusion or something along those lines that would soften up the edges.

But why don't you contact them and ask for their parameters or perhaps even their profile? That should help. If you don't get the response, you should do what Mike suggested - create a few test prints with various degrees of sharpening and compare them.

Personally, I get the optimum amount of sharpening for (inkjet) print when the things just start looking "crunchy" on the screen. Another method would be to reduce the image display to 50% or 25% (always make it an even reduction factor!) and use that display to sharpen up to taste. You'd need to experiment with that too to find the right size.

[Daniel_Buck]

I'll send a test tonight, I've never sent a test with several levels of sharpening on one page, I'll give that a shot, see what happens. I'll do strips, labled with the settings I'm using.

[Marko]

P.S.

I just read some of their FAQ and it appears that:

1. They OVERSIZE by 1.5% - 2% and they explain the reasons for it on their site

2. The optimal dpi is 250

3. Their color space is sRGB

4. They provide ICC profile on request

Knowing this, I would start by sending them a 250dpi image double the linear size, (along each side) that appears visibly oversharpened on the monitor and properly converted to their profile.

[Bruce Watson]

Mike, yes I have. I don't usually use a very large radius when I'm sharpening, individual pixel details pop out very nice on the monitor, but when I see the print I don't get the same 'pop' that I was expecting.

That's because the pixel pitch is considerably less with your monitor. Most monitors are displaying in the range of 72-100 ppi, while most printers are printing in the range of 300-360 ppi. Worst case, that's a magnification of 360/72 = 5x. So of course your sharpening looks better on your monitor, it is much bigger!

[Daniel_Buck]

... I would start by sending them a 250dpi image double the linear size, (along each side)...

what do you mean by 'double the linear size' ? do you mean for an 8x10, I should send it 16x20 at 250dpi?

I've requested their ICC profile for the Illford B&W paper process. You think an ICC profile would be needed for B&W images?

Thanks for all the help so far everyone, I hope the results improve! :-)


Bruce, yea I guess I'm being deceived by how the image looks on the monitor. Thanks for your explanation.