Need some confirmation on enlargement..

I rarely (read never) do enlargements beyond 16x20 and have been able to print those with no issue or resizing needed. I recently had an order on an image I'd shot with a 30D years ago and the client wanted it in a 20x30. I printed it with no new adjustments and its lousy (very choppy and pixelated). Unfortunately, I never planned on doing anything with this shot so I only have my jpeg on file at 2275x2063 and around 3.5mp. I read posts around here and to be honest, confusion set in and I wound up downloading the trial of Genuine Fractals, selected my 20x30 format at 250dpi and let the plug in do its thing. I'm left with a 7500x5000 18mp image that I am planning on printing this time. My simple question is if what I've done should render me a good enlargement. The image at the smaller size is fine in terms of quality and I've printed it for my own use at 11x14, its just the bigger size that is messed up and I am sure it can be enlarged that much, just not sure I know how.

Thanks in advance for the help. This is what I get for doing the majority of my work for folks who use the images for web use, not print so I've never learned the finer points of the print side.

here's the original shot I am referring to:

If this is the shot before running Genuine Fractals, how about you do the GF processing and then post a small crop here that would be viewed by us as if it was a "chunk" of that 20x30? Or, if you have a version of Photoshop you could use the Photoshop enlarger/resizer and compare that to the GF file and post a crop here.

In other words, viewing this compressed Web-size image makes it impossible to judge whether the image will stand up well to large printing.

But, I also wonder at your process in getting that 30D file printed -- modern printers tend to have built-in resampling and can produce pretty nice results from some pretty small-res images. I have nice 12x16 prints from files as low as 4 MP -- in other words they don't look "all pixellated" although if you look really closely you can see some breakdown of fine detail, and maybe with a magnifying glass you could see a little pixellation. And, if you really want to see pixellation, blow your image up on your monitor to 400% or more!

In the "old days" pixellation could be a significant problem because image resizing/resampling was not all very good, and printer drivers weren't able to keep up. That was back when Genuine Fractals had its hey-day and served a very valuable purpose. But things seem to have come a long way, both with printer software and with general-purpose editing apps.

Tony, thanks so much for the response. I've put a bunch of labeled images below, hopefully that helps. At the end of it, I think a 16x20 is a better print size for this image and think it could be done without any resizing but I'd love to hear your opinion as well as if you think the 20x30 works. On the 20x30, I cropped it to 4x6 aspect, then applied the GF software to resize.

100% crop of the original

I don't know. I really hate those haloes, but I am not sure whether they come from the resampling or the subsequent sharpening. Of course, the minimum viewing distance is 36 inches (and some say more), so when viewing the 100% crop be at least a yard from the monitor.

tzalman wrote in post #12418803
I don't know. I really hate those haloes, but I am not sure whether they come from the resampling or the subsequent sharpening. Of course, the minimum viewing distance is 36 inches (and some say more), so when viewing the 100% crop be at least a yard from the monitor.

agreed that the halos look awful on the enlargement but I don't really know how to tame that down or if it was produced during the resize since there was no subsequent sharpening added at all. I don't see it much in the original but at 100% in both the 16x20 and 20x30 its bad.

Hm, yeah, that last enlargment looks pretty bad, worse than I'd expect judging from the first ones.

I've done some 24x36 from my 20D and they were great though I did have the original RAW file to work from. When you have the print and you are looking at the "awful" part of it, how far are you viewing it from. A large print like this would normally be viewed at about 5 or 6 feet minimum, how does it look from that distance. Not many people, other than us pixel peepers, are going to go right up to a large print hanging on the wall and try and find soft edges or halos in it.

I've used Genuine Fractals (or whatever they are calling it now) for years and I would have expected better results. Did you make the larger print in one pass. Sometimes I have found better results in making it in two or three passes moving up a little each time.

one pass Sheldon. I expected it to look better as well. Granted, the original file was only 2.8mb but still, I should be able to blow that up with the 30D's resolution. Wondering if anyone would mind taking a shot resizing it for me if I sent the original file. I have to think I am doing something quite wrong.

ssim wrote in post #12419539
I've done some 24x36 from my 20D and they were great though I did have the original RAW file to work from. When you have the print and you are looking at the "awful" part of it, how far are you viewing it from. A large print like this would normally be viewed at about 5 or 6 feet minimum, how does it look from that distance. Not many people, other than us pixel peepers, are going to go right up to a large print hanging on the wall and try and find soft edges or halos in it.

I've used Genuine Fractals (or whatever they are calling it now) for years and I would have expected better results. Did you make the larger print in one pass. Sometimes I have found better results in making it in two or three passes moving up a little each time.

In your OP the pixel dimensions are not that of an original 30D file -- instead of 8MP it's closer to 5MP. Where is the original?

tonylong wrote in post #12419948
In your OP the pixel dimensions are not that of an original 30D file -- instead of 8MP it's closer to 5MP. Where is the original?

that is an excellent question to which I have no answer. This was never meant to be anything commercial. Its arguably one of the oddest crops I've ever done and I have no clue why I did it. I did print it as an 11x14 at home and just let the lab auto crop it and it looked great. Beyond that, all I have to work with is the crappy crop, lower mp jpeg and a client that wants it enlarged which I seem to have little clue as to how to do that properly. Its Murphy's Law in action for sure.

Sure, just stick it up on Yousendit or Mediafire.

tzalman wrote in post #12421885
Sure, just stick it up on Yousendit or Mediafire.

Thanks a ton Elie, will do.

tzalman wrote in post #12421885
Sure, just stick it up on Yousendit or Mediafire.

Elie, I hope this is okay in lieu of ftp but here's the direct link to the original file...right click, download. Thanks very much. I'll be glad to get this one behind me but grateful to have learned something in the process as well. Looking forward to seeing what you can do with it.

Scott

http://www.sephotos.ne​t/img/v17/p851130611.j​pg

Scott -
I messed around with enlarging to 9000x6000 with the resources that I have - Lightroom, Photozoom, and Picture Window Pro - trying different alternatives and combinations. I won't bore you with all the results, just the one I liked best, which was in PWP. The workflow was: 1. enlarge to 9900x6600 with Lanczos 8x8 core, 2. sharpen, 3. reduce to 9000x6000 with Lanczos 4x4, sharpen.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

tzalman wrote in post #12425944
Scott -
I messed around with enlarging to 9000x6000 with the resources that I have - Lightroom, Photozoom, and Picture Window Pro - trying different alternatives and combinations. I won't bore you with all the results, just the one I liked best, which was in PWP. The workflow was: 1. enlarge to 9900x6600 with Lanczos 8x8 core, 2. sharpen, 3. reduce to 9000x6000 with Lanczos 4x4, sharpen.

Thanks Elie. Definitely still lots of haloing but yours is absolutely cleaner than mine. Compared to the 16x20 GF version, I'm not so sure but its close. I am really leaning towards doing it in the 16x20 format. The client is good with that and it gives me just a little more margin for error, so to speak. I sincerely appreciate the help and education on some of this stuff.

Scott