• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Best way to enlarge an image

Rachel Foster

New member
A friend has asked me to print this image for him.

Changingtimes.jpg

However, it is tiny. I tried enlarging it with cs4 but it looked awful, even after sharpening. What is the best way to go about this?
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
A friend has asked me to print this image for him.

Changingtimes.jpg

However, it is tiny. I tried enlarging it with cs4 but it looked awful, even after sharpening. What is the best way to go about this?


Hi Rachel

I can't see the image at the moment - not on my home computer - but the amount of enlargement an image will take is dependent on several variables including the level of detail in the image, the print substrate (canvas is quite forgiving), the viewing distance, your an=bility to add noise to trick the eye and just viewer sensitivity to images lacking real detail. I once printed a 16 by 12 from a 1.3Mp P&S image and it looked fine, but it was not detailed and I was careful about upressing and sharpening.

Mike
 

Michael Fontana

pro member
450 x 300 pixels? that's good enough for a stamp.

Your friend is kidding; you need something with beef on it, either a big print or a bigger file.
 
A friend has asked me to print this image for him.

Changingtimes.jpg

However, it is tiny. I tried enlarging it with cs4 but it looked awful, even after sharpening. What is the best way to go about this?

Hi Rachel,

Who has the copyright of the image, are we allowed to modify it.
Is this the original/only file, or is there a TIFF version available (it might give a bit more accuracy to work with).

Cheers,
Bart
 

Rachel Foster

New member
I will double check copy right. There is no copyright in the file info, but it was taken with a 10D. I'm wondering if 10d is a pro camera?

The man center back is my friend. He asked me to print the image. It's a keepsake photo as he no longer plays with that group. Unfortunately that is all he has.

This is a some of his music.
 
I will double check copy right. There is no copyright in the file info, but it was taken with a 10D. I'm wondering if 10d is a pro camera?

The 10D is an earlier consumer/prosumer camera (assuming we're talking about a Canon model), but that doesn't really matter. If the photo was taken by a Pro, then the Pro probably has the copyright, and the original file (3072 x 2048 pixels). That would be a better starting point for a print.

The man center back is my friend. He asked me to print the image. It's a keepsake photo as he no longer plays with that group. Unfortunately that is all he has.

This is a some of his music.

We should at least put in a reasonable effort to find the photographer. When that fails, we can try our skills on the tiny version as provided.

Cheers,
Bart
 

StuartRae

New member
Hi Rachel,

Qimage has much better re-sampling algorithms than the bi-cubic used by PS.

I have an A3 print from an old 2.5" b&w photo made by careful scanning and then printing with Qimage which looks fine when viewed at a reasonable distance. Having said that though, I doubt that it will be possible to enlarge a small JPEG very much.

Regards,

Stuart
 

StuartRae

New member
Hi Rachel,

I tried enlarging it with cs4 but it looked awful,....

It will look awful on the screen. Have you tried printing it?

Later.........

I've just used Qimage to make an A4 print (now destroyed) which, although a tiny bit soft, looks quite presentable when viewed at a distance of 12".
 
Last edited:

Rachel Foster

New member
I checked copyright again. It was not taken by a pro, no copyright issues. I'll email the band boss and see if there is a bigger image available.
 
I checked copyright again. It was not taken by a pro, no copyright issues. I'll email the band boss and see if there is a bigger image available.

Hi Rachel,

Thanks for checking. It can also lead to a better quality print for your friend. Even when the original image file is no longer available, perhaps a good quality print on glossy paper can serve as a basis, either by photographic reproduction or scanning.

Just to make sure, copyright doesn't belong only to professionals. The photographer, no matter his/her professional status has the copyright (unless a contract exists stating otherwise, e.g. hired hand). When the image was taken as a friendly gesture, I have less of a problem with accommodating the request for a better starting point for printing than Photoshop manages (and Photoshop is not very good for the task).

The subject of enlarging is an interesting one by itself, and can be subject to almost religious debate on various forums. It would be a worthwhile subject for OPF as well, so we could use your tiny image as an example if that's okay with those involved. Increasing a tiny image to a size fit for decent output dimensions, is not much different from using a larger file for exhibition size prints such as Nicolas Claris does. It's all about preparing optimal input for a given print process, and resampling/enlarging is often a significant part of it.

Cheers,
Bart
 

StuartRae

New member
Hi Bart,

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter of up-sampling. Currently the best I can find is the 'hybrid' method in Qimage, but I suspect there may be better.

It will of course be difficult to judge which is best without printing, because as Rachel discovered all severely up-sampled images look awful when viewed on a monitor.

Regards,

Stuart
 
Hi Bart,

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter of up-sampling. Currently the best I can find is the 'hybrid' method in Qimage, but I suspect there may be better.

It will of course be difficult to judge which is best without printing, because as Rachel discovered all severely up-sampled images look awful when viewed on a monitor.

Hi Stuart,

As usual, it depends on the enduse of the image. In general, it doesn't matter how a close-up looks (on screen), it only matters how it looks at the intended output viewing distance/magnification. Another criterion that may be important is how long it takes to produce an enlargement. For most purposes, it would not be acceptable if it took several hours per image to produce an enlargement.

Having said that, there are a couple of methods that have a foundation in scientific research and that have a reputation of producing a good compromise between the possible artifacts associated with interpolation. Subject matter, e.g. line drawings instead of photographic images, can play a role in choosing the best compromise.

In general, an algorithm known as 'Mitchell' (from the researchers Mitchell and Netravali) strikes a good compromise when upsampling/interpolating. It retains some of the sharpness, but avoids severe blocking, ringing, and aliasing. It is a specific mix of parameters used in a more general cubic filter algorithm.

Qimage, with an emphasis on print output, offers a very efficient workflow and it delivers high quality output. It also offers the Mitchell type of interpolation, but also some other methods. I prefer the Hybrid SE method (only available in the Studio Edition) for general work, because it delivers very natural enlargements with an even better suppression of jagged edges than the Mitchell method does, but at the expense of a little sharpness (there is always a trade-off). The Hybrid (i.e. non SE) method adds a little edge contrast which might turn into visible halos, but only on very large magnifications. Hybrid SE offers a very good startingpoint for further sharpening, e.g. time consuming deconvolution sharpening, when one prints to a file instead of a printer.

There are also other applications/plugins that can help with enlarging, but they require input for the best results, and are not always the best solution for a specific task. For the best results, one should have a good understanding of the specific goal and output modality. Qimage offers a very good path to quality output, but the interface takes a bit of getting used to. For most photographers who produce printed output, it's a no-brainer, a must have program for the toolkit. It is a Windows program, but it apparently also runs fine on Macs (e.g. with Parallels).

Cheers,
Bart
 

Rachel Foster

New member
End-use for this image is as a personal memento for Dan. I'm going to fiddle with it in photoshop and have it printed so I can see the difference myself. And I'm very, very interested in Qimage.
 

StuartRae

New member
Hi Bart,

Thanks for the info.

In general, it doesn't matter how a close-up looks (on screen)....
Indeed. What I was trying to say that it's impossible to judge how well the up-sizing works without printing (or whatever).

Qimage ........... but the interface takes a bit of getting used to
You're not joking :)

Regards,

Stuart
 

Tim Palmer

New member
If you are just going to "play around" in Photoshop and not use a 3rd party product, then here is a trick I've used with fairly good success.

Convert the image to LAB space.
Select the "L" channel.
Enlarge about 20% of desired end result size.
Repeat the enlargement in small increments until the goal is reached.
Apply any unsharp masking you may want.
Select LAB channel (combined).
Convert back to original or desired color space.

The 3rd party programs work better, but if you are playing around or on a budget give it a whirl.

Tim
 

StuartRae

New member
Hi Tim,

Thanks for the suggestion. It appears though that it can be dangerous to flit in and out of the Lab colour model, especially if you don't perform all conversions in 16-bit. I've seen it suggested that you can lose over 80% of colour information by converting from the RGB model to the Lab model in 8-bit.

Regards,

Stuart
 

Rachel Foster

New member
I have official permission to use the photo: "Sure...please use that picture for whatever means you'd like." I will cc the email to Asher if anyone remains concerned. And, unfortunately, that's the only extant version of the image it seems.
 
I have official permission to use the photo: "Sure...please use that picture for whatever means you'd like." I will cc the email to Asher if anyone remains concerned. And, unfortunately, that's the only extant version of the image it seems.

Hi Rachel,

This is about as far as I can take the small JPEG (8 x 6.7 inches on a 96 PPI screen):

Changingtimes.jpg


ChangingTimes_96PPI.jpg

If you like, I can send you a link by PM to a larger version for printing. Just let me know what type of printer is going to be used (300 or 360 PPI), so I can prepare it for those specs at the same size (or another size).

Cheers,
Bart
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Rachel,

This is about as far as I can take the small JPEG (8 x 6.7 inches on a 96 PPI screen):

Changingtimes.jpg


ChangingTimes_96PPI.jpg

If you like, I can send you a link by PM to a larger version for printing. Just let me know what type of printer is going to be used (300 or 360 PPI), so I can prepare it for those specs at the same size (or another size).

Cheers,
Bart


Interesting that the faces suffered the most but could be cleaned up in a software dedicated to portraits, such as Portrait professional, but one would limit it to getting rid of obvious blotchiness and avoid harming the edges.

Asher
 

Robert Watcher

Well-known member
Most important are the expectations of the person wanting the print. Just like some of my wedding or portrait customers who would make prints from the online 450 or 500 pixel proofs that I would provide for making their selection - your person will likely be quite satisfied just to have a print, even though it cannot live up to a high standard that a photographer would want.

From a normal viewing distance, I was even quite surprised when I recently visited the home of a couple in Nicaragua who I supplied a 4x6 print to last year. They had the print scanned and enlarged at a local print shop, to 16x20 and had dropped the background out to make a nice portrait that is framed and hanged on their wall. While I would never sell a final portrait of that quality that would cost them $400 for that size - - - most people can't tell the difference - especially if there is nothing to compare to and it comes cheap or free. People view larger prints from a greater distance - no from inches away where they may recognize all of the imperfections.

Please do not make a judgement based on what you see on your own screen, or from efforts being made online to show you the effects of enlargement. They mean nothing. You will have to print the file to see the result. It is the only way. The simplest and best option for my upsampling, is using Photoshop and Bicubic Sharper. When I send files to professional labs, their very expensive RIPs will generally do a slightly better job, and so I send the file as-is.

In your case, you could end up spending hours and hours and in reality see no appreciable difference - - - or at least not a difference that the person who asked you would recognize. BTW - a suggestion above of adding noise to the file when upsizing, will cover many of the artifact issues when printed. I often do this.
 
Top