To what extent, (image on screen vs. image on print), is what you see what you get?

[Amy Choue]

Before learning Affinity, I hardly thought about this. Then, I simply assumed that what I see on screen will be approximately the same as what will get printed on paper. If there is going to be a great degree of difference between them, how is design possible? 

And then, I began hearing about what big differences there can be. I picked up at some point that the reason designers work on Mac is because on Mac "what you see is what you get," whereas on PC, that is generally not the case. 

The book covers I am trying to create are based on portraits of historical figures. There is one for a book that I am planning on publishing soon and there are some others that I am using more as occasions for practice. For the book soon to be published, I will of course order an author copy before it gets published and see the print result of the cover image (and all other sorts of things). 

But I am wondering, if an image of a small size looks good on a 6x9 (in) cover, is it possible that the actual print version is going to be strikingly different? 

Here's a portrait of Robespierre from Wikipedia, 440x618 pixels. And next to it is this image placed on 6x9 size paper in Publisher. Placed on this size, that small size image from Wikipedia looks good enough to me. But, is it still possible that it will come out quite differently on paper? 

 

And this is what I didn't expect, but when I tried to "export" that image, the dialogue box shows the size as 1800x2700 px. Which is a good enough size for 6x9 book cover! And this exported JPEG file of the image, when imported back into Publisher, does seem to have enhanced image quality. Or maybe I am seeing what I want to see. 

My apologies for a long post. I would like to know what I can think of the image as I see it on screen as a preview version of how it will look on paper. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions! 

[thomaso]

2 hours ago, Amy Choue said:

If there is going to be a great degree of difference between them, how is design possible? 

Before DTP and WYSIWYG designers used to have or need more 'imagination' capabilities, early computer type setters did type 'code' (e.g. as green text on a black screen and similar to CSS and HTML nowadays) with text format definitions typed as text (e.g. "size: 12 pt") and they did not get the visual result before output (print on paper or film).

2 hours ago, Amy Choue said:

But I am wondering, if an image of a small size looks good on a 6x9 (in) cover, is it possible that the actual print version is going to be strikingly different? 

Apart from a possibly change in colours (depending on your monitor quality and calibration) there is generally a difference in resolution. A screen displays with pixels of a specific hardware size and density (additionally influenced by the system software settings for the graphic card). The monitor resolution is usually below the visible resolution of a printed result (while the screen resolution increases over the decades due to technical development).

The human eye has a resolution of about 300 dpi at a 'normal' reading distance (if you go closer to your screen you might see its single pixels). That means if you display a layout on screen in its physical (printed) output size you will not see all details (not all available pixels of a displayed image) – whereas when you display all details it will appear with larger dimensions than its printed result.

So, to check sharpness for instance you need to display all pixels whereas to judge text size for instance you need to display in physical output size. – To switch between this two zoom levels you can use the View > Zoom options "Pixel size" (all pixels) and "Actual size" (physical output).

It may require some experience with screen view versus print result to get used to the differences and recognize possible issues (.e.g criticial sharpness, insufficient image resolution). So it may help if you create a page with a sample image in various sizes (note, for every size you get the effective resolution displayed in the upper left corner of the Toolbar) and compare the displayed content on screen with a print of this page on paper.

[v_kyr]

1 hour ago, Amy Choue said:

Before learning Affinity, I hardly thought about this. Then, I simply assumed that what I see on screen will be approximately the same as what will get printed on paper. If there is going to be a great degree of difference between them, how is design possible?

A screen device (a display/monitor) and printed paper (output via some printer device) are conceptual, from their workings, used color models, used color spaces (gamut), resolution wise ... etc. two completely different pair of technical shoes here.

1 hour ago, Amy Choue said:

And then, I began hearing about what big differences there can be. I picked up at some point that the reason designers work on Mac is because on Mac "what you see is what you get," whereas on PC, that is generally not the case.

This WYSIWYG metapher stems from old/former computer time areas and is nowadays not the case, so not valid anymore with graphics based displays everywhere. Thus today it doesn't matter if you use a Win or Mac PC.

1 hour ago, Amy Choue said:

But I am wondering, if an image of a small size looks good on a 6x9 (in) cover, is it possible that the actual print version is going to be strikingly different? 

Here's a portrait of Robespierre from Wikipedia, 440x618 pixels. And next to it is this image placed on 6x9 size paper in Publisher. Placed on this size, that small size image from Wikipedia looks good enough to me. But, is it still possible that it will come out quite differently on paper? 

The whole depends on several factors here, size wise the screen resolution PPI vs printer resolution DPI and of course also the color output accuracy & reproduction ... etc. So there can be quite many influencing differences between how things look on a screen/display vs how things look then printed out on paper instead. - The great challenge here is to produce a printout which resembles/looks exactly like the on screen preview then.

1 hour ago, Amy Choue said:

And this is what I didn't expect, but when I tried to "export" that image, the dialogue box shows the size as 1800x2700 px. Which is a good enough size for 6x9 book cover! And this exported JPEG file of the image, when imported back into Publisher, does seem to have enhanced image quality. Or maybe I am seeing what I want to see. 

Depends on the above said and of course on the used document resolution here.

[Old Bruce]

4 hours ago, Amy Choue said:

... when I tried to "export" that image, the dialogue box shows the size as 1800x2700 px. Which is a good enough size for 6x9 book cover! And this exported JPEG file of the image ...

I just want to add some unasked for advice.

Please get in the habit of not using JPEGs for printed work. There will come a time when you export a JPEG and it will have jpeg compression artifacts. Use TIFF, yes the files will be bigger but no jpeg compression artifacts.

[dominik]

4 hours ago, Amy Choue said:

 If there is going to be a great degree of difference between them, how is design possible? 

I want to add to the other good answers and suggestions that it helps to do test prints if possible. E.g. on a book project some time ago the print house involved offers free prints except for the cost of one example (they call it their 'free' or 'fun' plan for non commercial publishings). That way I was able to do a test print with exactly the same paper and printing machines as with the final product. This was very helpful to get an idea of what the differences between screen and print is.

Over time you can develop knowledge of what on screen will come out in print.

It also may help to order paper samples from your print house if they offer any. Some also offer colour tables on different papers from their machines.

d.

[Chris26]

Hallo Amy, there is so much to say one hardly knows where to begin.  Maybe in the first instance  I will outline some ideas that might be useful to help you:

1. There is one catastrophic difference between a proper computer screen and a laptop screen - the laptoop screen is completely inconsistent in ts representation of tone and colour unless you keep the screen at a consistent angle and you look at it at a consistent angle. Always before print I have my laptop screen at a certain known angle where I am assured that the lightness and/or darkness of the image will come out roughly as I am seeing it.

2. Sharpness.  The dot that is laid down on your paper will spread, this means that the sharpness on your screen will not be the sharpness you will get on any photographic paper.  What you will always always need to do is to sharpen for print, make a copy of your image and OVER sharpen to compensate for the printer ink.  You will find that you will have to over-sharpen in an ugly way for matt paper and cheapy paper, but for gloss you will only need to sharpen less than you would do for matte.

3. Colour.  I assume you have not gone through the monitor calibration and getting custom ICC profiles for your paper, this is ok.  You can still be confident that what you don't see on your screen is what you want on your print out 🙂 (the same as saying that you can be confident that what prints out is what you want in spite of the screen).  Download a test image from Northlight Images, from here https://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printer-test-images/  Keith's site is an excellent source of knowledge.  Print a colour image out from here and note the differences between screen and print.  This will take so much guess work out of this cunundrum that we all have had to face.

4 There is some advantage in converting JPEG to TIFF before doing any adjustments, then print from TIFF.

5.  The image that you are showing above, if this was mine I would use HIGH PASS sharpening just before I print it.  If a 2 pixel radius looked perfect, then I would double it at least for print. But this is only based upon what I am seeing above. 

I hope something here is useful.

 

[MikeW]

Is that image the size Wikipedia shows--440x618 px--then resized to fit a 6x9 in cover (presumably with bleed)?

If so, it will have too few pixels per inch for a decent print.

[Affinityconfusesme]

if you change the measurements to inches then the size should be correct for printing.

[MikeW]

6 hours ago, tzvi20 said:

if you change the measurements to inches then the size should be correct for printing.

And what do you think that will do for an undersized image? It will still have the same number of pixels. 

[Affinityconfusesme]

The size of the image should be fitted to the size of the document to ensure correct sizing.

[MikeW]

1 hour ago, tzvi20 said:

The size of the image should be fitted to the size of the document to ensure correct sizing.

That's not how all this works. Resizing the as-is image literally spreads the pixels apart, making each individual pixel larger by whatever the percent of enlargement.

Can one resample and resize to obtain more pixels per inch (ppi)? Sure. Some applications do it better than others, but with the high percentage of enlargement this small image requires, details such as the hair, etc., will be noticeable.

The image above will be a mere 66 ppi once sized to a 6x9" page.

[markw]

Me, for a 6” x 9” printed image, I would be looking to use an image which is already in the region of 1800px x 2700px +/- for it.

[PaulEC]

Although Wiki Commons only has this low res version of this particular image, higher res versions of the same image are available from Alamy (£40) and Getty Images (£375). However, there are some similar, but higher resolution, portraits of Robespierre available on Wiki Commons.
(For example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Robespierre_(BM_1929,0608.31).jpg)

[v_kyr]

53 minutes ago, PaulEC said:

but higher resolution, portraits of Robespierre available on Wiki Commons

Yes, people have to learn to recherche the right way for media!

 

[Oufti]

Hello @Amy Choue

Regarding your initial question, there are two different places of particular interest, as underlined above.

1. In the Contextual toolbar, next to the image name, you will find the image definition (its own dimensions, in pixels) together with its enlargement (in percent) and resulting resolution (ppi). — Circled in orange.
2. In the title bar of the window, next to the file name, the window zoom factor. — Circled in blue.
    

To view how large your page will be printed, choose View > Zoom > Actual size (100%)

To view how good your page will be printed, choose View > Zoom > Pixel size (or roughly 400%)

 

On 9/10/2023 at 2:31 PM, thomaso said:

The human eye has a resolution of about 300 dpi at a 'normal' reading distance (if you go closer to your screen you might see its single pixels). That means if you display a layout on screen in its physical (printed) output size you will not see all details (not all available pixels of a displayed image) – whereas when you display all details it will appear with larger dimensions than its printed result.

So, to check sharpness for instance you need to display all pixels whereas to judge text size for instance you need to display in physical output size. – To switch between this two zoom levels you can use the View > Zoom options "Pixel size" (all pixels) and "Actual size" (physical output).

I totally agree with that practical advice. In my experience — and given my sight ability, my material,… —, I consider in general approach that:
« Whatever I can discern under very close scrutiny on my screen with a window zoomed at around 400% (or probably better, as you say, set to Pixel size), I will see it also when printed on a good press (art books). And what I can't see on screen at this zooming factor will be indiscernable on print. » 
(This is more or less corroborated by maths, but I prefer not to elaborate on this part as it gets soon confusing, and is quite useless if you respect the above rule of thumb…) 

 

On 9/10/2023 at 12:43 PM, Amy Choue said:

when I tried to "export" that image, the dialogue box shows the size as 1800x2700 px. Which is a good enough size for 6x9 book cover! And this exported JPEG file of the image, when imported back into Publisher, does seem to have enhanced image quality. Or maybe I am seeing what I want to see. 

I prepared a document showing @Amy Choue's examples. (I used JPEG for exports but definitively TIFF is safer in real conditions…)

Robespierre-demo.afpub

 

Please, look first at it with menu View > Zoom set to "Real size" or 100% ; then set it to 400% or Pixel size, and compare if it still looks correct. 
If it's good in the two views, it will be good on print (at least for what concerns resolution, details and sharpness of the image). For colours, it's another bargain… 

• On the first spread, you'll find the images as they should be sized for a perfect professional printing:
  1. On the left your image placed at normal sizes for quality printing: i.e. @300 pixels per inch — a round value easy to remember, thus commonly recommended — and @254 ppi which is perfectly enough, given the quality of modern printers (2400 dpi). 
  2. On the right, the same page exported @ 300 dpi and placed back for comparison. There are not much difference to note, even when viewed at pixel size. Quality on screen is still correct, thus you can print it without fear regarding its resolution. There is only one major visible defect (lost guides?)
      
• On second spread, the image has been resized to fill the page (6" × 9").
  1. On the left — where the image has not been upsampled, only enlarged — you see easily how the pixels are now so big you can see each of them, even when viewed on screen @ 100 %.
     But to have an good idea of how it will look printed, you still have to toggle to zoom at Pixel size. And there, you really see the pixels but also many glitches, JPEG artefacts inherited from history of the file, etc. (the file on Wikipedia was not excellent but it did not appear till you enlarge it too much…) It is very poor quality. It will never print correctly.
  2. On right, after exporting @ 300 ppi, the image is apparently larger (it has more pixels) but it isn't more detailed at all.
     The upsampled image is a little bit more flattering, because squarish pixels are now rounded, everything is a little more blurred, but in fact it is not any better. Affinity's algorithm has just created intermediate pixels to fill the gaps.
     Your image is only diluted, like an old single malt drowned in soda water… There is no additional information, quality is not really improved after upsampling, even if lack of information is not so obvious at first sight. — So don't trust the resolution calculated on the left on your screen (300 ppi, as circled in orange on my screenshot above), trust what you see when zoomed around 400% (as shown in the blue circle)!
  
   

Original picture (440 × 610 pixels), resized  @ 417 %, i.e. placed  @ 72 ppi || After artificial upsampling @ 300 ppi (1800 × 2700 pixels).

 

Both are ugly.

Toggling view (zoom in to the max): 

 

 

 

[Amy Choue]

On 9/10/2023 at 9:31 PM, thomaso said:

with text format definitions typed as text (e.g. "size: 12 pt")

I am imagining this. Looking at a print and thinking of its digital version (and vice versa) must be something akin to this. 

On 9/10/2023 at 9:31 PM, thomaso said:

It may require some experience with screen view versus print result to get used to the differences and recognize possible issues

I discovered a relevant tutorial from Affinity's own Ally (she teaches most of the "Affinity for Beginners" and "Affinity ... beyond Basics" courses), about using AI Enlarger for enhancing resolution: 

 

She in the comment section gives a link to a free course (also done by her) on "10 steps to make any photo amazing." The course is a little under 1 hour. But watching it I couldn't help realizing that 1 hour-long tutorial demands at least 100 hours-long practice. It's really about a lot of practice, a lot of experience, lots and lots of them. If these softwares aren't about realizing the creative potential in us, much of those hours spent in practice would feel like wasted time. Fortunately they can so "bring your creative ideas to life" (Ally's words, in that course)!  

[Amy Choue]

On 9/10/2023 at 9:34 PM, v_kyr said:

Thus today it doesn't matter if you use a Win or Mac PC.

Reading about Mac vs. PC and "WYSWYG," I for a moment seriously wanted to have a Mac. To not want a Mac, that is good to know! 

[Amy Choue]

On 9/11/2023 at 12:22 AM, Old Bruce said:

Use TIFF, yes the files will be bigger but no jpeg compression artifacts.

I didn't know about TIFF before (though it is right there in Photo, in the Export dialogue box). I'll have to remember your advice. 

[Amy Choue]

On 9/11/2023 at 12:46 AM, dominik said:

Over time you can develop knowledge of what on screen will come out in print.

There is a print shop in my neighborhood. A small business with a few copiers and printers. I asked them about a test print for a book cover and they said yes, it's doable. So I am trying to figure out what to ask them for an actual "publishing company" quality print. Will "DPI 300" be enough, etc. 

[Amy Choue]

On 9/11/2023 at 1:16 AM, Chris26 said:

if this was mine I would use HIGH PASS sharpening just before I print it.  If a 2 pixel radius looked perfect, then I would double it at least for print.

After posting this, I discovered some tutorials about sharpening in Photo. So much of this feels overwhelming for someone beginning to learn to use Photo but, at the same time, it also begins to make sense little by little. Thank you for the comments! 

[Amy Choue]

On 9/11/2023 at 3:20 AM, MikeW said:

If so, it will have too few pixels per inch for a decent print.

Before using an image for a print, the first thing would be to ensure that it has the dimension of pixels the print size requires. I am learning bit by bit. 

[Amy Choue]

17 hours ago, v_kyr said:

Yes, people have to learn to recherche the right way for media!

Thank you for letting me know about this. I'll have to use the one with higher resolution. 

[R C-R]

56 minutes ago, Amy Choue said:

I discovered a relevant tutorial from Affinity's own Ally...

Just FYI, she is not a Serif employee. Affinity Revolution is a third party with its own web site, but is not owned or run by Serif.

[Amy Choue]

---

11 hours ago, Oufti said:

So don't trust the resolution calculated on the left on your screen (300 ppi, as circled in orange on my screenshot above), trust what you see when zoomed around 400% (as shown in the blue circle)!

Many thanks for the detailed comments! I've studied them.

I am not fully understanding all, but can I at this point have what you say and I quote above ("trust 400%, pixel view") as the one most important takeaway? Can I use that as a rule of thumb, in cases where the resolution of the image is the key and other factors can be neglected? That, if the image looks sharp and smooth enough at "pixel view," its printed version would be in the ballpark of "okay"? I've tried some images on this. Some looked horrible (I realized what "pixellated" means). Some looked decent. Some, okay. Below is one of the images I looked at pixel view on 6x9 paper. It looks good enough to me. But its pixel size is only 1047x1600. That size, according to what I have learned so far, is insufficient for a good quality print for 6x9 paper. In cases like this, what is seen on Pixel view can be trusted more than the image's actual pixel size? (Oh I'll probably try increase its pixel size first and then look at it again...) 

 

[dominik]

5 hours ago, Amy Choue said:

There is a print shop in my neighborhood. A small business with a few copiers and printers. I asked them about a test print for a book cover and they said yes, it's doable. So I am trying to figure out what to ask them for an actual "publishing company" quality print. Will "DPI 300" be enough, etc. 

Please be carefull, because the print shop near you may most likely not use the same machines as the publishing company. The results will not be the same. But, still, you can give it a go to get an impression of what your desing looks like when printed. Even if the results between the two printing processes will be different, if the one looks completely wrong it will be the same with the other company.

d.