photo book print quality: large vs. medium (both softcover)
hello all,
I just wanted to share my experience about the difference in print quality between the medium softcover and large (in my case, softcover) books from iPhoto, something I wondered about before I took the plunge and ordered them.
I recently received copies of both, ordered a week apart, both using the 300 dpi hack, but unfortunately of diff't photos in each, so the comparison won't be too scientific.
First impressions: the photos in the large softcover seemed to me better than the medium. You can detect some very fine dots with the naked eye, in the places where a color shades into white. Overall, not objectionable at all, especially at a reasonable viewing distance. Akin to a decent/average inkjet photo. Meanwhile, the medium format struck me as having a worse print resolution, like a photo in a newspaper or cheaply printed magazine. The halftone pattern seemed more noticeable.
However, on closer inspection, side by side, I can see the halftone dots in each, and I wonder if they're actually printed at the same resolution. I think it was partly the bigger size of the average photo in the large book that convinced me it had a better resolution, and the smaller photos in a medium book can make the whole thing look bad. Also, I can definitely detect banding from the halftone pattern in the medium book that I don't notice in the large; but could this be due to the subject matter in the medium (blurred washes of muted color) more than a print resolution difference? Perhaps.
My conclusion: while it could be that the print resolution on the large is slightly better, I suspect my perception of the quality difference is based more on photo size and subject matter (sharp focus w/patterns, texture, moderate detail rather than empty color looks best). Still, despite my suspicion that the print resolution is the same, I can't shake the sense the large looks a little better.
Which is too bad in a way, as I think the medium has a lot going for it: it's cheaper than the large, and I actually much prefer to have a series of single, full-bleed images at 6x8 than two or three or more cluttered together on a bigger page for the same price. Plus I find the peek-a-boo cutout on the cover of the large book a bit cheesy.
So if you're going to go medium, I would definitely stay away from those six-photos-a-page layouts, especially if you have people in your small photos: their features will be degraded enough they start to look a little funny/unrecognizable. Bigger is better.
And if anyone has the same photo at the same size in two differently sized books to compare, that would settle things.
Also, I had a number of grayscale scans that I converted to rgb before adding to iPhoto, and the b&w photos printed in the book look great. While I would describe them as 'cool', I don't detect a noticeable color cast, and the blacks are decent.
Overall, as an amateur whose expectations were aimed a bit low, I'm pleased with both for the price, and will look to large for special occasions, medium for everyday photosets.
I just wanted to share my experience about the difference in print quality between the medium softcover and large (in my case, softcover) books from iPhoto, something I wondered about before I took the plunge and ordered them.
I recently received copies of both, ordered a week apart, both using the 300 dpi hack, but unfortunately of diff't photos in each, so the comparison won't be too scientific.
First impressions: the photos in the large softcover seemed to me better than the medium. You can detect some very fine dots with the naked eye, in the places where a color shades into white. Overall, not objectionable at all, especially at a reasonable viewing distance. Akin to a decent/average inkjet photo. Meanwhile, the medium format struck me as having a worse print resolution, like a photo in a newspaper or cheaply printed magazine. The halftone pattern seemed more noticeable.
However, on closer inspection, side by side, I can see the halftone dots in each, and I wonder if they're actually printed at the same resolution. I think it was partly the bigger size of the average photo in the large book that convinced me it had a better resolution, and the smaller photos in a medium book can make the whole thing look bad. Also, I can definitely detect banding from the halftone pattern in the medium book that I don't notice in the large; but could this be due to the subject matter in the medium (blurred washes of muted color) more than a print resolution difference? Perhaps.
My conclusion: while it could be that the print resolution on the large is slightly better, I suspect my perception of the quality difference is based more on photo size and subject matter (sharp focus w/patterns, texture, moderate detail rather than empty color looks best). Still, despite my suspicion that the print resolution is the same, I can't shake the sense the large looks a little better.
Which is too bad in a way, as I think the medium has a lot going for it: it's cheaper than the large, and I actually much prefer to have a series of single, full-bleed images at 6x8 than two or three or more cluttered together on a bigger page for the same price. Plus I find the peek-a-boo cutout on the cover of the large book a bit cheesy.
So if you're going to go medium, I would definitely stay away from those six-photos-a-page layouts, especially if you have people in your small photos: their features will be degraded enough they start to look a little funny/unrecognizable. Bigger is better.
And if anyone has the same photo at the same size in two differently sized books to compare, that would settle things.
Also, I had a number of grayscale scans that I converted to rgb before adding to iPhoto, and the b&w photos printed in the book look great. While I would describe them as 'cool', I don't detect a noticeable color cast, and the blacks are decent.
Overall, as an amateur whose expectations were aimed a bit low, I'm pleased with both for the price, and will look to large for special occasions, medium for everyday photosets.
