Tis’ the season where I really start to print my summer images and thus wonder about how printing from Photoshop compares to Aperture.
As background, yes, I have been printing from Aperture for a few years and feel comfortable with it. I normally print 16x24 and I have figured out my best settings. Can’t say I am unhappy with the results at all, but am curious if Photoshop or other software will yield even better results. I do have to say I had tried Qimage last year when I ran Windows virtually and it was better than Aperture on print resolution. But it the improvement was marginal and not real evident on every print. No doubt if I made a living selling prints, Qimage would be used for sure.
But with a new Mac, I don’t want to install Windows again to run it. Since I just got back to using Photoshop consistently the last year, I obviously will be testing Photoshop now. That said, I still would like to hear other experiences folks have had. If I don’t have to, I won’t waste a lot of expensive paper on experimentation.
Ken
PS applies more sharpening when printing small. At 16x24 there is really no difference. PS’s sharpening on small prints is really very good. I’ve not compared for a while at this size, but there’s no reason why Aperture’s sharpening shouldn’t be as good … it’s just that Aperture lets you choose if you want it or not, whereas PS just does it that way. Similar to Phase cameras. They apply sharpening by default and you have to enter a negative number to set it to zero. Aside from that, colour is the same, pretty much indistinguishable. If this wasn’t the case, then the entire colour management thing would be pointless.