Canon ipf6300 Print Sharpness vs Photo Prints

[winterlim]

I also forgot to mention. Because the paper width was 17", I printed larger images, next to the smaller ones. They came out fabulous. Very sharp (perhaps because they rely less on the tiny details). But the smaller ones, the details just got lost (especially the eyes as you can see).

[tonylong]

OK, Cy, the original photos were OK at these sizes. You say you tried to print them on 17" paper. Do you mean you tried to enlarge 3.5-inch photos to, say, 18 inches tall photos? I'm still not understanding what you are trying to do!

[winterlim]

Originally Posted by tonylong

OK, Cy, the original photos were OK at these sizes. You say you tried to print them on 17" paper. Do you mean you tried to enlarge 3.5-inch photos to, say, 18 inches tall photos? I'm still not understanding what you are trying to do!

Tony,
Sorry for not stating clearly. [I've added the ruler to make it clearer, should've probably done that from the start] The 2 images you see below are taken with my Canon Macro lens. The paper width is 17" (which you can ignore), but the actual size of the print for the 3-man band is only 3.5 inches in height, and the one below that showing the groom sitting down, the actual print size is only 1.5cm in height (from the groom's head to his feet). So you see, the actual print itself is very small, so what I am wondering is, can Canon's large format printers print very small images clearly.

Printing large images come out lovely, it's the small ones that I am wondering about. If i were to print a collage of small pictures with people's faces, my concern is that you can't make out any of their faces because the printer is incapable of printing in such minute details.

[Mark Vuleta]

I have used Optica One on my Z2100 but only once to do a test print. I calibrated the paper (the printer requests this if it has not used the paper before).

The calibration print is pretty sharp and the only image (the landscape in the image below) is fairly sharp and detailed as well.

While the paper will not provide the sharp definition of a high quality photo gloss, combined with your printer should give much better results than your indicating.

Have you done any of the maintenance tasks for your printer, i.e. print head alignment etc?.

[Mark Vuleta]

Originally Posted by winterlim

..................
Printing large images come out lovely, it's the small ones that I am wondering about. If i were to print a collage of small pictures with people's faces, my concern is that you can't make out any of their faces because the printer is incapable of printing in such minute details.

I think you are utilizing the wrong type of paper for the task you are attempting, I would suggest a semi-gloss photographic paper which will retain the sharp definition at such fine sizes.

[Lowner]

Originally Posted by winterlim

Tony,

Of course, in Photoshop, they were set at 300dpi and the original file was almost 6mb.

Why "of course" setting to 300dpi?. You seem to be mixing up dpi and ppi but even after that theres no requirement that I've ever heard of that demands a limit like that. Printers are capable of far more as even on a Canon printer it will be 300 dpi per colour.

[Mark Vuleta]

The paper does hold detail fairly well, just not as sharp as some. This is a scan from my printers "Image Quality Print" designed to check the nozzle's etc & used to map-out bad ones etc. The details is pretty small (the numbers are slightly less than 1 mm high) and are still very legible (to those have reasonable eyesight).



I would make sure that your printer has a good nozzle check & clean & print head alignment and then try again.

[winterlim]

Originally Posted by Mark Vuleta

I think you are utilizing the wrong type of paper for the task you are attempting, I would suggest a semi-gloss photographic paper which will retain the sharp definition at such fine sizes.

Mark,
You might be right. I've this far tested only 2 types of paper, one of them being the Optica One, and the other on Canon's Heavy Coated paper (provided free with the printer).

Actually this whole thread started simply because I would like to know if it's possible. Achieving it is possibly another whole discussion altogether. I was wondering if anyone had printed anything this small, with a printer this big.

The printer is spankin' new, I wasn't sure if I needed to do a cleaning. But in any case, I did a nozzle check, and the printed lines came out sharp as heck.

I took a couple more images (using the same macro lens) of my printouts (photo credit to my friend, a very talented wedding and portrait photographer from France, Jacques Mateos). They're about a 4x6 to 5x7 printout and they're very clear. They were printed on the same print job as the tiny images we've been discussing.

[winterlim]

Originally Posted by Lowner

Why "of course" setting to 300dpi?. You seem to be mixing up dpi and ppi but even after that theres no requirement that I've ever heard of that demands a limit like that. Printers are capable of far more as even on a Canon printer it will be 300 dpi per colour.

Richard,
The dpi vs ppi discussion still escapes me no matter how many times i go over them. But what I am trying to say is that I've already set everything to the recommended or highest settings, so I am guessing it's not the setting (maybe?)?

[Mark Vuleta]

Originally Posted by winterlim

Mark,
You might be right. I've this far tested only 2 types of paper, one of them being the Optica One, and the other on Canon's Heavy Coated paper (provided free with the printer).

Actually this whole thread started simply because I would like to know if it's possible. Achieving it is possibly another whole discussion altogether. I was wondering if anyone had printed anything this small, with a printer this big.

The printer is spankin' new, I wasn't sure if I needed to do a cleaning. But in any case, I did a nozzle check, and the printed lines came out sharp as heck.

You should be getting better than you have indicated. Even the heavy coated paper will not be as sharp or defined as a gloss or semi-gloss photo paper but there are disadvantages of these papers as well.

Hmmm brand new!!, I would hate to think how much that would be in NZ

It will take a little while to get used to it, budget on going though about half of your ink and a heap of different papers etc before you find your niche/favorite combination. Are you operating with a calibrated monitor? how do your prints compare to your monitor?

All good fun, best of luck.

[winterlim]

Originally Posted by Mark Vuleta

You should be getting better than you have indicated. Even the heavy coated paper will not be as sharp or defined as a gloss or semi-gloss photo paper but there are disadvantages of these papers as well.

Hmmm brand new!!, I would hate to think how much that would be in NZ

It will take a little while to get used to it, budget on going though about half of your ink and a heap of different papers etc before you find your niche/favorite combination. Are you operating with a calibrated monitor? how do your prints compare to your monitor?

All good fun, best of luck.

Actually I am in Asia, and I paid an equivalent of US$4500 for it. The difference is that it comes with the stand (not sure if that's a norm elsewhere), with the technician setting it up at my place and installing everything, a full set of 130ml cartridges (on top of the starter 90ml set that came with the printer) and 3 years on-site warranty. Seems like the price is about the same in nz, but not sure if it comes with the freebies.

Yup, it's calibrated. I also manage to pick up the new SpyderStudio (i'd thought it best that with such an expensive printer, to invest in a decent colour calibration set)., The prints look fine on screen. I think I'm just going to head out and buy some cheaper paper to do my tests on. It's too expensive to do it this way.

[Ricardo222]

I have the Canon IPF 5100 17" printer and I have to say that the only time I've had an unsharp print from a sharp original was when I put one sheet of A3 paper in the cassette up the wrong way by mistake! What a mess!

I have found the printer excellent in every way. I use mostly Ilford Galerie paper in rolls but also the Canon Semi gloss heavy paper.
Warning...the heavy coated paper that came with the printer was a bit average, except for plans, but the Ilford in particular is very clear. I am about to try some Canson and will be interested to see the outcome.

Good luck. OP...keep trying and take Mark's advice...setting up a good printing workflow is a bit like setting up a good music system...it's about matching components so that everything is doing it's best!

[winterlim]

Originally Posted by Ricardo222

I have the Canon IPF 5100 17" printer and I have to say that the only time I've had an unsharp print from a sharp original was when I put one sheet of A3 paper in the cassette up the wrong way by mistake! What a mess!

I have found the printer excellent in every way. I use mostly Ilford Galerie paper in rolls but also the Canon Semi gloss heavy paper.
Warning...the heavy coated paper that came with the printer was a bit average, except for plans, but the Ilford in particular is very clear. I am about to try some Canson and will be interested to see the outcome.

Good luck. OP...keep trying and take Mark's advice...setting up a good printing workflow is a bit like setting up a good music system...it's about matching components so that everything is doing it's best!

Thanks Ricardo, yup, I will be going full on with Canson (heard some really good stuff about them) as well from paper to canvas, I just have to wait for the shipment to arrive. Unfortunately, the manufacturer in France is completely out of the Rag Photographigue A3 310gm. If you've got some tips on Canson, please share them. I plan on using their range exclusively, namely their Rag Photographique 310gm, the Duo 220g, and the Canvas HD. I'm betting a lot on them, so I hope it all turns out well.

[Ricardo222]

Originally Posted by winterlim

Thanks Ricardo, yup, I will be going full on with Canson (heard some really good stuff about them) as well from paper to canvas, I just have to wait for the shipment to arrive. Unfortunately, the manufacturer in France is completely out of the Rag Photographigue A3 310gm. If you've got some tips on Canson, please share them. I plan on using their range exclusively, namely their Rag Photographique 310gm, the Duo 220g, and the Canvas HD. I'm betting a lot on them, so I hope it all turns out well.

As I said, I'm about to try the Canson, so your inquiry will inspire me to get my butt into gear and do it. I'll keep you posted.

Regarding your unsharp images...the advice about checking the head calibration/alignment is good. The sharpness must depend somewhat on the distance of the head from the paper...which is why the weight of paper is one of the input requirements.

[tonylong]

Originally Posted by winterlim

Richard,
The dpi vs ppi discussion still escapes me no matter how many times i go over them. But what I am trying to say is that I've already set everything to the recommended or highest settings, so I am guessing it's not the setting (maybe?)?

With digital printing, the dpi/ppi "tag" typically means nothing, because you are printing the image to a particular print size. The ppi (pixels per inch) will be whatever the image actually resolves to for that print size.

Where people get confused some times is with the historical "dots per inch" when it comes to printing. "Commercial" printers (like for magazines and newspapers) are often printers that print at a specific "dots per inch" resolution, such as 300 dpi. In fact, if you look at some magazine photos with a magnifying glass you can see a very specific "layout" of dots on the page. This is evolving in the digital era, though -- today, you may not see that, since some publications have moved to the newer technology, and today's digital printers spray a whole lot more "dots" over an inch!

But for your in-house printing, the dpi/ppi tag is irrelevant. What matters is the actual resolution of the image.

And, if you recall, I asked you as to whether any of your prints turn out good, or is it just the few that are bad??