# Prints aren't as sharp as file? HELP!!!



## mamarazzi_hrd (Aug 13, 2008)

I have a new D300 and I took some really great shots of my 2 year old daughter. When I pull them up in Lightroom, they are super-duper sharp but when I send them off for prints, they come back just "OK"....they loose some of that sharpness. Is this normal???? How do I fix this?

TIA!


----------



## Easy_Target (Aug 13, 2008)

Could be the printer they're using. Could also be your blowing them up too much. More details please?


----------



## mamarazzi_hrd (Aug 13, 2008)

Well I have sent them to two different labs with virtually the same results. I am not blowing them up at all. I only printed a 4x6 proof....


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 13, 2008)

What are the specs of the file that you are sending?


----------



## mamarazzi_hrd (Aug 13, 2008)

Here is one of them

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28195310@N02/2746425831/in/set-72157606670882710/

Taken at 1/80 f/8 200ISO at 125mm with D300 - 55-200mm VR lens

Very slight editing in Lightroom exported as a full size jpeg in sRGB and sent to printer.


----------



## mamarazzi_hrd (Aug 15, 2008)

Someone has to know something? Do I have to sharpen every photo? Even photos that look tack sharp online and in Lightroom/Photoshop. 

I mean, why strive for perfect sharpness when it won't print that way?

Do smaller prints print less sharp than like say an 8x10?

Anybody, can someone help me sort out this mystery????


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 15, 2008)

When you send the file to the lab...what is the size (in pixels)? And what is the resolution set to?

For a 4x6 print, the file should be 1200x1800 pixels and set to 300 PPI.


----------



## mamarazzi_hrd (Aug 15, 2008)

The file is 2848x4288 @ 240 PPI, I just sent the orig file and through ordering software chose 4x6 print. I assumed that since it was larger than the size I wanted to print the PPI would be okay at 240, should I have exported from Lightroom as 300PPI would that have made the difference?


----------



## Sandspur (Aug 16, 2008)

I'd say so, yes.  Every lab may be slightly different in the "ideal resolution" department.  But 300 dpi is the universal standard.

I've used several online services, and have a pro gallery with Shutterfly where I sell a lot of work.  My standard submission to them is always 8x10 @300 dpi.  Plus - I have it in my contract that they do not use their auto fix feature on any of my work since  I've already done everything - crop, levels adjustment, sharpening (yes always!) and whatever else I think is needed.

Whoever you're using, ask what their ideal criteria are.  OR submit at 300 at the target size and always sharpen (but only when you're viewing the image at the target print size.)
 I hope this helps.  I know how frustrating the process is.

I think they key concept here is that you MUST set up EVERY file yourself, including size and resolution.  Otherwise you're at the mercy of some machine's best judgement about your work.

PS - I use another lab for posters, and their specs say 256dpi - no more, no less.  Go figure.


----------



## Jaymz77 (Aug 18, 2008)

I noticed you sent them a .jpeg.. A jpeg is a compressed image format and can on occasion lose its original details. I would recommend exporting as a .tiff and see if that is better. And always size the photos at the desired print size and at least 300dpi, since if the printer has to size it, they may not take in concideration the extra detail.


----------



## mamarazzi_hrd (Aug 18, 2008)

Jaymz77 said:


> I noticed you sent them a .jpeg.. A jpeg is a compressed image format and can on occasion lose its original details. I would recommend exporting as a .tiff and see if that is better. And always size the photos at the desired print size and at least 300dpi, since if the printer has to size it, they may not take in concideration the extra detail.



When I save a .tif file it asked for a compression of either a) NONE b) LZW or c) Zip. So which one should I choose?


----------



## clupica (Aug 19, 2008)

mamarazzi_hrd said:


> When I save a .tif file it asked for a compression of either a) NONE b) LZW or c) Zip. So which one should I choose?


I think any service bureau that can accept a tif will be able to use either compressed or non-compressed. The non-compressed image will be a much, much larger file; in general use LZW not zip. BTW: LZW is a lossless format so no infomation will ever get lost using LZW.

As for fuzziness, are you examining the photos at 100%? What looks sharp at normal screen viewing is not nearly as sharp when viewed at 100%. 

Also, digital images are soft by design, go figure. Consummer P&S cameras do in camera sharpening and other manipulations to provide results pleasing to P&S shooters (As does Adobe Camera RAW if you're not watching). dSLRs provide the maximum amount of pixel information and do not generally sharpen the image in camera. Nikon RAW images will not be sharpened but the jpgs coming out may be depending on your settings. Digital RAW photos should almost always be sharpened (read should be, but I'm hedging to avoid argument  ) before sending them to the printer. And printers use 300 dpi except under special conditions.

I think that you can tell Lightroom to export the images at 300dpi. You can do the sharpening in Lightroom but I prefer to do it in Photoshop. Unfortunately, sharpening is a near artform in itself. I think I saw a book title recently for a book on nothing but sharpening.

Charlie


----------



## laurentharari (Aug 19, 2008)

mamarazzi_hrd said:


> I have a new D300 and I took some really great shots of my 2 year old daughter. When I pull them up in Lightroom, they are super-duper sharp but when I send them off for prints, they come back just "OK"....they loose some of that sharpness. Is this normal???? How do I fix this?
> 
> TIA!


Well if you are quality freak like a lot only one solution:
Do it yourself. One may think that printing professional will do a better job than you, but after years of practice I realized that this is not true because nobody cares about your image as much as you do.
So if you own a nice d300 get yourself a nice printer and then youll be happy about the end result. Epson, HP (read my blog on hp printing http://laurentharari.blogspot.com/ )? I own both brands they are both top brands to be trusted.


----------



## mamarazzi_hrd (Aug 19, 2008)

*As for fuzziness, are you examining the photos at 100%? What looks sharp at normal screen viewing is not nearly as sharp when viewed at 100%. *

Thanks Charlie for your input! I actually was viewing the image at 200 and 300% and it was super sharp.....that is why I expected flawless images when I had them printed.


----------



## clupica (Aug 19, 2008)

mamarazzi_hrd said:


> *As for fuzziness, are you examining the photos at 100%? What looks sharp at normal screen viewing is not nearly as sharp when viewed at 100%. *
> 
> Thanks Charlie for your input! I actually was viewing the image at 200 and 300% and it was super sharp.....that is why I expected flawless images when I had them printed.


I sort of expected you would have done this, but you never know. And others that have the same problem may not have checked. Sometimes I get lazy and don't check and, of course, that's when there really is softness.

I think the 240 dpi Nikon default is probably the culprit, as has been suggested. Another possible source of trouble can be the paper the labs are using. Check around and see if they have a choice of paper. As for your own printer, it really depends on your needs. But ink-jet printing is inferior to what most commercial labs offer. Commercial printing is done in a way to similar to tradional photo printing and uses a chemical process. The results will hold up better for the most part.

Or do as I do when it's REALLY important, send it to a lab and have a digital c-print made. Many consider this to be the only true archival print.

Seroiusly, the default Nikon 240 dpi is most likely the culprit. You can set Photoshop ACR to open in 300dpi and Lightroom can be set to export images in 300dpi.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Jon0807 (Aug 19, 2008)

I've printed out 4x6's with shutterfly at 72 dpi and they came out really sharp.  I've even printed out larger prints at 72 dpi with great results at mpix.  Who are you going thru for prints?


----------



## mamarazzi_hrd (Aug 26, 2008)

Well I have tested prints from Mpix, Millers, Nations Photo, CPQ, ACI, WHCC and H&H.

So far I have noticed that the larger prints like 8x10 print sharper than wallets and 4x5's....wonder why this is true? But with all my testing I believe CPQ maybe the sharpest output with H&H a close second.

I still don't understand why these images are not as sharp as what I see on screen......these images are soooo sharp in Lightroom and Photoshop, but print not-so sharp. I mean, they are ok.....my clients probably couldn't see a difference, but I can! It drives me crazy. Could it be something with the fact that these are the first prints I have had printed with my D300? Maybe a setting that is default with this camera that wasn't with my D40x? 

It is just so frustrating to strive for sharpness, but loose that sharpness during the printing process.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 28, 2008)

Because sharpness also depends on the display medium. A typical computer screen has a larger dynamic range than a well lit print. There are whole products based around sharpening for different targets, and even Lightroom 2.0 has features under export which let you sharpen for screen display, printing on matte paper, or for printing on glossy paper. Although Lightroom's feature falls far short of Viveza's Sharpen Pro which has different sharpness profiles for Canon, HP, Fujifilm, Kodak etc printers, and for the various papers.

Assuming you're doing everything right, and the printing company is doing everything right, if you still insist that the images aren't quite sharpened to your tastes then these products may be worth looking into.

Alternatively maybe your mind has been poisoned by the ludicrous sharpening applied to images normally, especially those that come from every consumer digital camera. First common complaint when people switch from a point and shoot to an SLR is lack of sharpness. Without seeing what you're looking at it's hard to tell if the images are not sharp or if your mind is too sharp


----------



## holga girl (Aug 30, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Alternatively maybe your mind has been poisoned by the ludicrous sharpening applied to images normally, especially those that come from every consumer digital camera. First common complaint when people switch from a point and shoot to an SLR is lack of sharpness. Without seeing what you're looking at it's hard to tell if the images are not sharp or if your mind is too sharp



i have to respectfully disagree here. my film images were almost always tack sharp. i have been so disappointed since switching to digital that i sometimes contemplate switching back. i keep hoping i'll adjust.


----------



## Meysha (Aug 31, 2008)

I think Garbz was talking about a digital SLR, not film.

IMO, All digital SLR photos need to be sharpened. - You just have to find the right combination of in camera sharpening and post sharpening.

On the other hand P&S cameras have a tendancy to oversharpen to please consumers.


----------



## mamarazzi_hrd (Sep 1, 2008)

I think you guys are all missing my point......it is not that I am unhappy with the sharpness of my images from my digital SLR......they ARE tack sharp!!!! On screen in Lightroom and in Photoshop they are super sharp even viewed at 200%........it is the prints that I cannot get to come out sharp!!!!

I do have to say that I have since received a couple of 8x10s from CPQ Professional Imaging that ARE tack sharp! The 4x6s I got from them (from the same files) were not as sharp. So I think it is safe to say that sharp images loose fine detail(that makes them appear sharp) when printed on any image smaller than a 5x7 or 8x10.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 1, 2008)

Are you examining your prints and the end of your nose?  Hold them at least a foot away, or at arms length, how do they look then?


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 3, 2008)

Unless you're printing 100s or 1000s I'm not understanding why you don't print them yourself.  Canon says their new (3 years ago)  high-end printers ($300 LOL) make prints that will last 100 years in a photo book and 50 years (or something like that) if framed behind glass in the standard home setting. And that rating is supposed to be before they even begin to fade noticeably. I'm sure Epson and/or HP says something similar. A 7-ink ink-jet looks awesome and it's less than or about $1.00 to print an 8x10 considering ink and paper. 

Printing your own you will have complete control over how "sharp" they look. Print, check results, edit if needed and reprint. If you think it needs to be more sharp just load up PS and sharpen it more and press print.

Unless you're printing 100 copies of a 100 different jobs it's really fast too. I dunno what it is exactly for a 7-ink printer as they're a tad slower than my 5-ink printer but mine prints an 8x10 in something like 15 or 20 seconds.


----------



## holga girl (Sep 4, 2008)

mamarazzi_hrd said:


> I think you guys are all missing my point......it is not that I am unhappy with the sharpness of my images from my digital SLR......they ARE tack sharp!!!! On screen in Lightroom and in Photoshop they are super sharp even viewed at 200%........it is the prints that I cannot get to come out sharp!!!!
> .



i am getting the point. in fact, it is my point exactly. my film prints were sharp, my digital prints are not. on the screen the digis are great, but not on print. it is very frustrating. they also tend to always print darker. i need to find a better lab i guess. i am just not sure where to go. it is not practical for me to print a wedding out on my home printer, nor would i provide that to a client. but finding a decent, local lab has been trying.


----------

