In a previous thread (find it here: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=13806 ) the question of file resolution in PPI for the ipf5000 was discussed.

Michael, in your response you did not mention at what file PPI you send your images to the printer.

This is what you said in the linked thread:

"I use PK Sharpener all the time.

Don't confuse printer output settings with file resolution. Set the iPF5000 to its highest res output and then forget about it.

Sharpen your files with PKS based on their actual output resoution.

Michael"

Would you mind giving a quick description as to how you size and or resample your images for print?

In other words, do you send the file from photoshop to the plugin at whatever PPI happens to result from re-sizing the image for desired print dimension with resample off? Or do you resample the PPI along with the print dimensions to a specific PPI setting such as 300 or 600 PPI?

Thanks,
Jake

Not the answer you were looking for but I find with the 16bit plugin feeding it a 600ppi file does look better. I don't bother uprezzing to the final print size rather I archive a master file 6" x 9" 600 ppi then let the plugin uprez it to the print size using bilinear method (sharpening 0). I initially RAW sharpen with DXO setting .50
I have tried Nik sharpener, PK sharpener, filterlabs focusfilter, optipix safe sharpen and find the easiest and as good as any of the others is PSCS2 smart sharpen (amount 45%, radius 0.9, lens blur, more accurate).
This is for 5D files. I had the AA filter removed and find setting DXO sharpen to .25 and smart sharpen amount 18% works well with the modified camera.
Hope this helps
Marc

Forgot to add: 2400 x 1200 16 pass bidirectional printing

This is interesting. What advantages/disadvantages have you found after removing the AA filter?

Where did you have this done?

http://www.maxmax.com/canon_5d.htm

There is a bit of controversy as to whether anything is really gained. There was a lot of discussion on various forums when this started, search and review carefully.

I find the images require much less software sharpening (both at the RAW conversion phase and the preparation for print phase) I wish I had the presence of mind to take identical before and after shots but I didn't. The images appear to be more three dimensional and palpable. Glossy surfaces are shinier and more realistic. I had the work done at Maxmax. (The printed full res Tiff looks better than the compressed Jpeg)

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment