Help with photo printout

[BobCap]

I have a photo that I was sent by a client for some POS posters we are doing.

They look fine on the computer screen.

When they print out they look like the attachment. It is supposed to be out of focus...I'm talking about the brown areas around the face.

I am printing from AI CS4 to an Epson 9800.

I've tried almost everything I can think of...HELP

Bob Cap
AAI
Gilbert, MN
218-749-4056
bobcap@mchi.com

 

[OldPaint]

the original picture.....what DPI is it? how much bigger are you making it then the original?

 

[BobCap]

the original picture.....what DPI is it? how much bigger are you making it then the original?

From what the ad agency says - 300 dpi 17.79" x 13.33"

From Getty Images.

About double

 

[SightLine]

What does Illustrator say? Just click on the image and it should tell you about the image at the top left including the PPI.

 

[BobCap]

I don't think the issue is resolution related...look how crisp the text looks below.

The issue is that the person's face looks like it had a weird "artistic" effect put on it - right?

Correct. The persons hand and all of the other graphics including a logo are crisp. I know the photo is supposed to be out of focus, but it's the extra dark areas...

The photo is on Getty Images 8800 7741

Thanks

 

[SightLine]

Maybe correct, maybe not. Does not matter what the vector elements print like nor what Getty says about the photo. It all about how the photo is in the illustrator document and the illustrator file itself. If the photo is (placed) linked instead of embedded and/or the illustrator file resolution (document raster effect settings) are set at 72 dpi then the details in the photo are going to get blown (especially on big enlargements) out also can get weirdness if embedded or linked images are RBG while the document is CMYK, etc. If the photo is linked and the original linked file is not present Illustrator is just giving you a crappy low res 72 dpi/ppi preview and that is all it can print. If you look at the photo details in Illustrator first it will tell you the ppi of the embedded or linked image (will just say image if embedded or linked if placed as well as the color mode of the image and its PPI). Also don't forget that Illustrator is not a RIP and is not going to scale and handle larger format output as well as a RIP will.

 

[BobCap]

Maybe correct, maybe not. Does not matter what the vector elements print like nor what Getty says about the photo. It all about how the photo is in the illustrator document and the illustrator file itself. If the photo is (placed) linked instead of embedded and/or the illustrator file resolution (document raster effect settings) are set at 72 dpi then the details in the photo are going to get blown (especially on big enlargements) out also can get weirdness if embedded or linked images are RBG while the document is CMYK, etc. If the photo is linked and the original linked file is not present Illustrator is just giving you a crappy low res 72 dpi/ppi preview and that is all it can print. If you look at the photo details in Illustrator first it will tell you the ppi of the embedded or linked image (will just say image if embedded or linked if placed as well as the color mode of the image and its PPI). Also don't forget that Illustrator is not a RIP and is not going to scale and handle larger format output as well as a RIP will.

AI says the image is embedded, CMYK and 300 ppi.

 

[Gino]

I don't know, but maybe the viewing distance will have a part in this. Heck, from my house, they look just fine.

Seems as if, maybe someone at the ad agency needs to get their head out from behind a monitor and take a look around in the real world and make some better judgement calls on what's acceptable or not.
​

 

[GAC05]

Can you set your view of the photo in AI to "Actual Size" (Ctrl+1) and pan to the guy's face in pixel preview? Post up a screen cap so we can see.
The size of the Getty preview is too small to tell if the issue is with the photo.
I'm thinking it is the photo with the guy's hand clear and detailed in your print sample.

wayne k
guam usa

 

[BobCap]

I have looked at it a million ways.

I have also tried printing it as a much smaller size that the actual.

The photo looks fine on my 32" monitor, when it prints it turns to sXXX.

I have also tried printing it on a Epson 7300 and a Mutoh VJ1304. I sent it trough the RIP for the mutoh. Same thing...

I'm listening and trying to learn...

 

[BobCap]

I don't know, but maybe the viewing distance will have a part in this. Heck, from my house, they look just fine.

Seems as if, maybe someone at the ad agency needs to get their head out from behind a monitor and take a look around in the real world and make some better judgement calls on what's acceptable or not.
​

Now if I could get my client to view it that way...

 

[rjssigns]

From what the ad agency says - 300 dpi 17.79" x 13.33"

From Getty Images.

About double

^^^^^^^^^
IMO the crux of the issue in is bold. If you are going to double the size the image should be run through an up-res program. Doubling the size of an image without and image processing program will result in expanding the size of file aberrations. We use OnOne Perfect Resize with great results. IIRC you can get a free trial from them.

In our workflow TIFF files give us the best output when dealing with difficult images.

 

[peavey123]

I'm no print print pro by any means...But is this not considered banding? or posterization? Have you tried changing your rendering intents from relative to perceptual?

 

[bob]

I'm no print print pro by any means...But is this not considered banding? or posterization? Have you tried changing your rendering intents from relative to perceptual?

Exactly so.

Why has it taken a plethora of nonsensical responses, most of which demonstrating an abysmal level of critical thinking, for someone to observe what actually is going on and get around to this? It has little if anything to do with resolution and most likely has far more to do with just how the RIP is dealing with an out-of-focus image with subtle color shifts on a definable line. I.e. banding.

To add to the above post, if merely changing rendering intents doesn't do the job, as with any persistent banding, try adding a bit of noise to the image.

 

[rjssigns]

Exactly so.

Why has it taken a plethora of nonsensical responses, most of which demonstrating an abysmal level of critical thinking, for someone to observe what actually is going on and get around to this? It has little if anything to do with resolution and most likely has far more to do with just how the RIP is dealing with an out-of-focus image with subtle color shifts on a definable line. I.e. banding.

To add to the above post, if merely changing rendering intents doesn't do the job, as with any persistent banding, try adding a bit of noise to the image.

Oooh goody the God of printing has spoken in his classic condescending tone. You really are a piece of work.

 

[BobCap]

Using Perfect Resize to make the image a higher resolution mad no difference. (A cool program maybe)

I will try adding some noise and see what happens.

I have printed it in every format available.

 

[BobCap]

Adding noise made no difference...

 

[Graphic Destruction]

Really grasping, but I've seen similar things happen when transparencies or blurs are added in PS or Illy then saved as a JPG or Tiff. Try having them save as a PNG, it handles transparency better sometimes. It's worth a shot.

 

[Asuma01]

If I had to hazzard a guess I would say that your media profile isnt handling the shadows very well. It looks like to me its supposed to be a subtle gradient. But that your profile is laying down to much ink on it.
I highly doubt that its a problem with the file/photo itself. To make sure flatten the whole file as a tif and reprint a test. if it looks the same, then I would start suspecting your media profile.

Out of curiosity. Do you create your own profiles or did you download one? Have you tried ripping it using a different but similar profile? I would also reccomend like others have suggested and try changing your rendering intents.

can you post the file so we can see what it supposed to look like?

 

[BobCap]

Really grasping, but I've seen similar things happen when transparencies or blurs are added in PS or Illy then saved as a JPG or Tiff. Try having them save as a PNG, it handles transparency better sometimes. It's worth a shot.

The photo came from an online graphic service. Getty Images. Their downloads only are available as jpegs.

 

[BobCap]

If I had to hazzard a guess I would say that your media profile isnt handling the shadows very well. It looks like to me its supposed to be a subtle gradient. But that your profile is laying down to much ink on it.
I highly doubt that its a problem with the file/photo itself. To make sure flatten the whole file as a tif and reprint a test. if it looks the same, then I would start suspecting your media profile.

Out of curiosity. Do you create your own profiles or did you download one? Have you tried ripping it using a different but similar profile? I would also reccomend like others have suggested and try changing your rendering intents.

can you post the file so we can see what it supposed to look like?

I have flattened it and printed it as a tiff.

We create our own profiles here and have for several years. I've never had this type of issue before.

I'll try to attach the original file.

 

[Graphic Destruction]

The photo came from an online graphic service. Getty Images. Their downloads only are available as jpegs.

I'm assuming someone did some more work to it before sending to you, again, totally grasping at straws on this one.