Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 14 Jun 2010 (Monday) 15:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Enlargement - Not enough pixels - Help please

 
yellowmr
Member
Avatar
86 posts
Joined May 2006
     
Jun 14, 2010 15:05 |  #1

I recently won a photo contest at work with this picture. The top winners will have the pics blown up to around 20 x 24 and they will be displayed at my work. I've searched everywhere on my hard drive for the full resolution original and I can't find it. The resolution of this image is 1900 x 1300 (or thereabouts).

Can anyone please help and use some software that can 'upscale' the image to a larger resolution without degrading image quality too much. Is that possible? I've heard of some programs that can do this, but I really don't know too much about it. This is my first photo contest win and I don't want to blow it with a poor resolution print. I can email the image if anyone is willing to help. Thanks.

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4700245478_cfdd7717be.jpg

XT
sig 18-50 2.8, 50 1.8, sig 10-20ex, 70-200 f4L, 430exII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Sdiver2489
Goldmember
2,845 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 111
Joined Sep 2009
     
Jun 14, 2010 15:07 |  #2

yellowmr wrote in post #10360832 (external link)
I recently won a photo contest at work with this picture. The top winners will have the pics blown up to around 20 x 24 and they will be displayed at my work. I've searched everywhere on my hard drive for the full resolution original and I can't find it. The resolution of this image is 1900 x 1300 (or thereabouts).

Can anyone please help and use some software that can 'upscale' the image to a larger resolution without degrading image quality too much. Is that possible? I've heard of some programs that can do this, but I really don't know too much about it. This is my first photo contest win and I don't want to blow it with a poor resolution print. I can email the image if anyone is willing to help. Thanks.

QUOTED IMAGE

Your image is about 2.5MP, I'm afraid there is no real way to save it. You can upscale it in photoshop but you aren't going to gain any detail. I'm afraid you'll either have to keep searching for the original or deal with a somewhat blurry enlargement.

If you sign up for a flickr pro account and you originally uploaded the full resolution image then you will be able to access it there.


Please visit my Flickr (external link) and leave a comment!

Gear:
Canon 5D III, Canon 24-70L F4 IS, Canon 70-300L F4-F5.6 IS, Canon 100mm F2.8L IS Macro, Canon 35mm F2.0 IS, Canon 430EX II-RT, Canon 600EX II-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JEC
Senior Member
Avatar
334 posts
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Centerville, Ohio
     
Jun 14, 2010 15:12 |  #3

Send me a copy.
I'll print it at 20 x 24 and see how it looks.

jc@kosins.com (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Jun 14, 2010 15:16 |  #4

No resizing will create detail where none exist. AP did a Head-Head comparison of the best selling resizing software on the market and concluded that a) none were worth buying and b) the results were worse than not resizing.

Your 1900 x 1300 res. Is that the original or just a downsized copy? I always keep my original RAW's filed (seperately) just in case. You really should do something similar in future.

Most images can be printed at a res as low as 150 to 180 ppi without obvious drop in quality, which means you can go to 13 x 9 or thereabouts. Provided the displayed image will only be viewed from a reasonable distance, this could be halved again, which is about what you want. So if you can be sure no one will have their nose on the print you should be fine.


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yellowmr
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
86 posts
Joined May 2006
     
Jun 14, 2010 16:22 |  #5

Thanks for all the replies. I'll try to find that original file one more time. The only thing I can think of is that I heavily cropped the original, and this is the result. Oops. Lesson learned!

Thanks again.


XT
sig 18-50 2.8, 50 1.8, sig 10-20ex, 70-200 f4L, 430exII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,467 posts
Likes: 193
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Jun 14, 2010 16:50 |  #6

Give this a try:
http://www.outbackphot​o.com/workflow/wf_60/e​ssay.html (external link)
It won't create new detail, but from a safe distance the print might look pretty decent.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
carshop
Goldmember
Avatar
1,845 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
     
Jun 14, 2010 17:09 |  #7

Thanks for the link, will try it.


ShawnSmugmug (external link)/Flickr (external link)/LikeMyFacebook (external link)
Canon 7D Gripped|Canon 20D
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS|Canon 24-105|Canon 18-135
Canon 580 EX II|Sigma 18-50 2.8
Canon 55-250|Sigma 17-35 2.8| 2 Pocket Wizard II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
asysin2leads
I'm kissing arse
Avatar
6,328 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Lebanon, OH
     
Jun 14, 2010 17:10 |  #8

Lowner wrote in post #10360888 (external link)
I always keep my original RAW's filed (seperately) just in case. You really should do something similar in future.

I always back my RAW files onto DVDs and store them. They are also on our network drive that I can access remotely. It makes it nice when I'm not at home and want to re-work an image.


Kevin
https://www.google.com ….com&ctz=Americ​a/New_York (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JEC
Senior Member
Avatar
334 posts
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Centerville, Ohio
     
Jun 14, 2010 17:20 |  #9

yellowmr wrote in post #10361317 (external link)
Thanks for all the replies. I'll try to find that original file one more time. The only thing I can think of is that I heavily cropped the original, and this is the result. Oops. Lesson learned!

Thanks again.

So you actually have a 1900 x 1300 image to print, or do you just have the sample you posted here?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JEC
Senior Member
Avatar
334 posts
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Centerville, Ohio
     
Jun 14, 2010 17:36 |  #10

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #10360836 (external link)
Your image is about 2.5MP, I'm afraid there is no real way to save it. You can upscale it in photoshop but you aren't going to gain any detail. I'm afraid you'll either have to keep searching for the original or deal with a somewhat blurry enlargement.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that a 2.5 megapixel file would print out pretty nicely at 20 x 24. (The 1900 x 1300 pixel dimension isn't exactly 24 x 20 though)

Commercial wide format printers (the machines, not the people) and the print drivers do a pretty nice job with interpolation.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
photoguy6405
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,306 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 18
Joined Feb 2008
Location: US Midwest
     
Jun 14, 2010 17:44 |  #11

Side note: Very nice photo.


Website: Iowa Landscape Photography (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear List & Feedback
Equipment For Sale: Canon PowerShot A95

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
poloman
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,442 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Southern Illinois
     
Jun 14, 2010 19:44 |  #12

Here is something to try if you have photoshop...
Open the image
Edit/image size
Make sure aspect ratio is locked. Now set the inches to what you want and set resolution to 360 ppi...use bicubic sharper.
Hope it helps you.


"All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my right hand!" Steven Wright

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Jun 14, 2010 19:53 |  #13

That image looks like it could scale up quite nicely. Other than the water drop, there really isn't much fine detail there that would be missed.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TroyRaymond
Member
Avatar
221 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2008
Location: McBain, MI
     
Jun 14, 2010 20:22 as a reply to  @ bohdank's post |  #14

I've had plenty of things printed up large as stickers. I know they use different types of printing materials and inks, they're just large inkjet... Anyway, I've had 4mp images enlarged up to 98" and they still look perfect. The guy says that my prints are cleaner than everyone's work that goes through. If there isn't a lot of detail and you don't mind loosing some noise and texture, I enlarge with Genuine Fractals then run it through Noiseware Professional. A lot of the detail will still remain, its removing all the noise that allows much larger smooth prints.

Just tossing the idea out there if nothing else works... I can edit a sample if you'd like.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ccp900
Goldmember
1,542 posts
Likes: 138
Joined Jun 2006
     
Jun 15, 2010 04:55 |  #15

poloman wrote in post #10362369 (external link)
Here is something to try if you have photoshop...
Open the image
Edit/image size
Make sure aspect ratio is locked. Now set the inches to what you want and set resolution to 360 ppi...use bicubic sharper.
Hope it helps you.

isnt it like 10% more of your target size and use bicubic smooth then reduce by 10% and use bicubic sharper?? i think thats what i read before...

not sure if genuine fractals can help you....maybe you can ask the makers via email....


[Sony A7R Mark 3 | Sony A7S | Sony Zeiss 16-35m f/4.0 | Sony FE 28m f2 | Sony Zeiss 55m f1.8 | Sony FE 28-70m f/3.5-5.6 | Helios 44-2 | Helios 44-3 | Nikon 105m f/2.5 AIS | Contax Zeiss Planar 50m f1.7 | Contax Zeiss Planar 100m f2 | Voigtlander Nokton 40m f/1.4 | Canon 24-105m f/4.0L | Canon 85m f/1.8 | Sigma 30m f/1.4 | Canon 10-22m f/3.5-4.5 | Canon 100m f/2.8 Macro USM | Canon 580 EX Ver 1.0]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,642 views & 0 likes for this thread
Enlargement - Not enough pixels - Help please
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Constantin
832 guests, 203 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.