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 31 May 2017 (Wednesday) 18:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Resizing an Image Question

 
Bogino
Senior Member
Avatar
465 posts
Gallery: 29 photos
Likes: 119
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Southern California
     
May 31, 2017 18:20 |  #1

Typically when I edit my photo's they tend to wind up being around 100 KB. I don't keep my original files. I want to have one of my favorite images printed on canvas (posted the image below). However I'm told by the processor that the image size is too small. If I no longer have the original file am I out of luck as far as having the image printed or is it possible to increase the size of the image in order to meet the minimum size requirement? Thank You. BTW-- for my editing I use Lightroom.


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


Canon 7D Mark II; Canon 70-300mm "L"; Canon 100mm Macro; Tamron 24-70mm; Tokina 11-16mm 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
8,823 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 1852
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited over 1 year ago by Left Handed Brisket.
     
May 31, 2017 18:36 |  #2

Simple answer is yes, you are out of luck.

Less simple answer is that 100k is a file size, not pixel dimensions which is the primary indicator of potential output size.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Peano
Goldmember
Avatar
1,713 posts
Likes: 91
Joined Aug 2007
     
May 31, 2017 19:06 |  #3

Bogino wrote in post #18367830 (external link)
Typically when I edit my photo's they tend to wind up being around 100 KB.

That means nothing without pixel dimensions, but it sounds like you save at a pretty low quality setting.

I don't keep my original files.

Big mistake.

However I'm told by the processor that the image size is too small.

I think he's correct.


---
Peano
RadiantPics.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bogino
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
465 posts
Gallery: 29 photos
Likes: 119
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Southern California
     
May 31, 2017 19:29 as a reply to  @ Peano's post |  #4

These are my current settings in LR:

"Resize to Fit" box is "checked".
Pixel Settings: W = 850 H = 750

Resolution = 200 pixels p/inch

Am I way off on this?


Canon 7D Mark II; Canon 70-300mm "L"; Canon 100mm Macro; Tamron 24-70mm; Tokina 11-16mm 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,422 posts
Likes: 1793
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
May 31, 2017 19:34 |  #5

If you are using LR then your edits should be non-destructive. Just bring up the image and re-edit.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Peano
Goldmember
Avatar
1,713 posts
Likes: 91
Joined Aug 2007
     
May 31, 2017 19:39 |  #6

Bogino wrote in post #18367872 (external link)
These are my current settings in LR:

"Resize to Fit" box is "checked".
Pixel Settings: W = 850 H = 750

Resolution = 200 pixels p/inch

Am I way off on this?

Depends on what kind of output you're after. 850 px wide is smallish but OK for the web. 850 x 750 at 200 ppi will give you a print less than 3 inches wide.


---
Peano
RadiantPics.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,440 posts
Likes: 417
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Post edited over 1 year ago by davesrose.
     
May 31, 2017 19:52 |  #7

gjl711 wrote in post #18367875 (external link)
If you are using LR then your edits should be non-destructive. Just bring up the image and re-edit.

The original images will be lost if the OP deleted the original directory (or is directly reading from memory cards and reformatting them). Hopefully the OP might still have the original folder.

IMO, it's important to back up your RAW files and keep them: I've sometimes revisited them to change cropping or adjust post processing.

OP, you can't expect any enlargements with that small resolution. If you try to resize your exported image to something larger, it will just be computer software trying to make up extra pixels (it won't be as detailed as if you were using an image source with that resolution). With LR, I don't resize my images in my export settings.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 531
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
May 31, 2017 19:54 |  #8

You say you "don't keep your original files" -- can you be more specific? When you open an original in Lightroom, what are the measurements?

Your camera should put out images with great resolution, What processing are you following in LR to produce small images? Unless you crop down to such small pixel dimensions, well, the Lightroom Export will let you keep the original pixel dimensions and has a decent PPI vakue, you definitely don't want to resize/shrink the image!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,023 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1284
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
May 31, 2017 20:18 |  #9

Bogino wrote in post #18367872 (external link)
These are my current settings in LR:

"Resize to Fit" box is "checked".
Pixel Settings: W = 850 H = 750

Resolution = 200 pixels p/inch

Am I way off on this?

This size is simply too small for anything but web use or a very small photo print. It is not going to be big enough for a decent print.

Do you shoot RAW or JPEG and do you actually delete the original file from your computer or just remove entry from Lightroom? If delete.... why?


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,426 posts
Likes: 175
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Jun 01, 2017 04:11 |  #10

-Please forgive me if I am mistaken, but I have a feeling that you are not aware what you are doing. In the case of this photo, at least, you are starting with an image from an expensive camera and an expensive and excellent lens (my personal favorite), capable of a highly detailed image that is 5472 x 3648 pixels (20 Megapixels) and ending with an image that is 850 x 750 pixels, 0.6 Megapixels, around 3%, which is less than that produced by the cheapest, junkiest phone-camera. Don't get me wrong; that's o.k. if you have a need for a low resolution, small sized image (I myself make a half-dozen nearly as small jpgs every Friday to put on my family's Whatsapp smartphone network), but by discarding the original you are locking yourself into a low quality photo with no way back. Sure, you can resize it upwards just as before you resized it downwards, but you won't get back to what you started with. Resizing destroys quality - upwards more than downwards - and the bigger the size change, the bigger the loss. The combination of the two will throw away a lot of the very photo characteristics for which you paid a lot of money.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bogino
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
465 posts
Gallery: 29 photos
Likes: 119
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Southern California
     
Jun 03, 2017 09:56 as a reply to  @ tzalman's post |  #11

I think you are correct. I need to take a class (or 2) in photo editing. I generally edit my pictures to share on Facebook, Instagram and a few other sites and although I use LR for my editing I'm far from understanding its full potential.


Canon 7D Mark II; Canon 70-300mm "L"; Canon 100mm Macro; Tamron 24-70mm; Tokina 11-16mm 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,714 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2173
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 1 year ago by Wilt. (2 edits in all)
     
Jun 03, 2017 11:01 as a reply to  @ Bogino's post |  #12

You do not need to take a class in photo editing to understand a basic concept...

Let us assume that you start with a high res JPG from your camera, its name happens to be IMG_1001 and it is 4000 x 6000 pixels in resolution.


  1. You open IMG_1001 and edit it however you need. You file it for sharing on the web as a file with 900 x 1200 pixels, with 'Save for Web' option, so that it meets the max res limits of your web forum site and does not contain any information you do not want diseminated, with the name IMG_1001_912, so IMG_1001 is still available unaltered for future purpose.
  2. You again open IMG_1001 and edit it to turn into a black and white version with full resolution (4000x6000), and you save it as IMG_1001_bw to send to a printing service to turn into a 20" x 30" print. IMG_1001 is still available unaltered for future purpose.



The teaching point...You can bring up a file over and over and over, and as long as you do not use 'File', but instead you use 'File as', you never overwrite the original file! So KEEP YOUR ORIGINALS, as you never know when you need the original to repurpose (like in the above mythical scenario I described)!

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rrblint
Listen! .... do you smell something?
Avatar
21,283 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1462
Joined May 2012
Location: U.S.A.
Post edited over 1 year ago by rrblint.
     
Jun 03, 2017 11:20 |  #13

As many have stated upsizing an image that has been downsized will never restore the original quality of the photo. However, the brilliant "Genuine Fractals" program does as good a job as is possible. I couldn't resist giving it a try. I used it to restore the image to original size. It turned out pretty good.


Mark

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

2,327 views & 1 like for this thread
Resizing an Image Question
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 letslivep
715 guests, 386 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.