I have a contributed image - piddly, low res thing, and the clients want to use it on a 24 inch poster - it would be about 16" high. what's the best way to do this? can it be done? i've downloaded alienskin's Blow Up, and am fiddling with that. should i do something else completely, like make into line art for the poster? and, how would i do that? any bright ideas?
Genuine Fractals is the software most often used for extreme enlargements, with Photoshop CS (any version) using the Bicubic Smoother algorithm supposedly almost as good.
For a 16-inch image you need about 2400 pixels (16" x 150dpi resolution) in that dimension ... depending on how big your original is you may not need to upsample (enlarge) as much as you think.
Chances are it'll look OK, as long as nobody gets right up to it and and scrutinizes it closely. Close up, it'll look awfully fuzzy. From a few feet back, should be passable. Just make sure their expectations are properly prepared.
Chances are it'll look OK, as long as nobody gets right up to it and and scrutinizes it closely. Close up, it'll look awfully fuzzy. From a few feet back, should be passable. Just make sure their expectations are properly prepared.
that's what i was thinking. apparently, the client has approved a small version, and now my husband has asked me to prep it for large scale. gah. i'm downloading genuine fractals too, see if it's any better.
Am confused a little, if the image is coming from an uncropped 20D file (RAW/Large JPEG) you should have no problems, if its from the 6*4 then you may well have issues.
no, no, this ain't my image. it's a little diddy one from some cheap point and shoot. it sucks. if only the boxer was in town, i'd say let me reshoot it. but he's over 500k away...
no, no, this ain't my image. it's a little diddy one from some cheap point and shoot. it sucks. if only the boxer was in town, i'd say let me reshoot it. but he's over 500k away...
I do it in a number of steps in CS2, very small increments, starting with going up in 5% steps, starting with bicubic smoother twice, down once in bicubic sharper, up twice in bicubic smoother, down once in bicubic sharper. These are just general starting points and depend greatly upon the initial quality of the image. Often when at full resolution, I zoom way in and do some final clean-up with the clone tool, especially along edges with a high contrast definition edge and also clean up any white halos using the clone tool in darken mode. It takes time, but can be done. Rare I ever get an image rejected anymore since I figured out a way to do it, and just makes my day when I get 30x40" print approval.
I do it in a number of steps in CS2, very small increments, starting with going up in 5% steps, starting with bicubic smoother twice, down once in bicubic sharper, up twice in bicubic smoother, down once in bicubic sharper. These are just general starting points and depend greatly upon the initial quality of the image. Often when at full resolution, I zoom way in and do some final clean-up with the clone tool, especially along edges with a high contrast definition edge and also clean up any white halos using the clone tool in darken mode. It takes time, but can be done. Rare I ever get an image rejected anymore since I figured out a way to do it, and just makes my day when I get 30x40" print approval.
Just to save your sanity Brad, it's been shown that from CS2 on, the small increments do not make a difference. It's likely CS is already doing that for you behind the scene.
What on earth, Brad, would you have that anyone would want a 30"x40", rofl!! :P Thanks Doc for the update as I am a student of the BRAD method and it does work. :)
Intuitively, increasing in integral increments (i.e., 200%, 300%, etc.) would seem more likely to create "accurate" results, by not having to create as many "tweener" or "fractional" pixels.
Just to save your sanity Brad, it's been shown that from CS2 on, the small increments do not make a difference. It's likely CS is already doing that for you behind the scene.
Well lemme see...
Canon 350D "Soccer Mom" 8.2MP camera and a Sigma 70-300.
Image size out of camera at 3456 x 2304 px.
Print version uploaded to DPCPrints:
7200 x 5400 at 13.9mb, and have successfully gone to 9,000 pixels.
I've looked at the same exact section of the same print, all after various methods, and I will say that it DOES make a difference.
