Best way to make a large print from a small file? I've been asked/instructed to make an A3+ print from a colour image 1000 by 650 pixels. I'm thinking of resampling it by 100 pixel...

amwalker3 Loc: London UK.

I've been asked/instructed to make an A3+ [or as near as possible] print from a colour image 1000 by 650 pixels.

I'm thinking of resampling it by 100 pixel increments, using Automatic in Photoshop CC, up to 1800 on the long side, then printing at 100 pixels/inch.

Anyone got a better recipe?

Alan.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

What happens if you print a 4x6; scan it with enlarging? My scanner has the capability to enlarge when scanning.

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

I don't believe tiny steps will gain anything. It depends on the image of course as to whether the enlarged version works well enough. If the detail is not there to begin with, there is only so much you can do. I think I would use a 3 or 4 step enlargement. Not knowing what the image is, is like being in the dark.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

amwalker3 wrote:

I've been asked/instructed to make an A3+ [or as near as possible] print from a colour image 1000 by 650 pixels.

I'm thinking of resampling it by 100 pixel increments, using Automatic in Photoshop CC, up to 1800 on the long side, then printing at 100 pixels/inch.

Anyone got a better recipe?

Alan.

What kind of file are you starting with? RAW, Jpeg, other?

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Agree with fergmark,
years ago, you did have to use small steps in photoshop, but that's been changed quite a while ago. A lot of it will depend on how picky your customer is. If they will view it from far away, you may be able to get away with it. (a billboard can be done with a 1mp camera, but close up it's just horrible)

I don't have any experience with the 'perfect resize" program, but I have heard some people think it's the answer. Maybe there is a trial version?

The biggest issue is, there is only so much date in the image, so whatever program you use, will have to guess what to put in place of the missing pixels when it expands the image.... so whatever you do won't be perfect up close.

amwalker3 Loc: London UK.

dsmeltz wrote:

What kind of file are you starting with? RAW, Jpeg, other?

It's a .jpeg.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

amwalker3 wrote:

I've been asked/instructed to make an A3+ [or as near as possible] print from a colour image 1000 by 650 pixels.

I'm thinking of resampling it by 100 pixel increments, using Automatic in Photoshop CC, up to 1800 on the long side, then printing at 100 pixels/inch.

Anyone got a better recipe?

Alan.

A print of what? It depends on the subject matter.

Re-sampling to a larger size will lose sharpness but it may not matter if the subject is not sharp to begin with - portrait, out of focus background, etc. Just don't save over the original file.

You have nothing to lose by trying it other than your time, some paper and ink.

PS: I just saw your image. Is is impossible to retake it with more resolution?

Chefneil

I took an old film photo and mounted it on an easel then photographed it. After using PS, I was able to make the image as big as I wanted with no distortion or grain. So, I suggest that you print the image to what ever size you feel is best, at your printers' highest resolution, on matte paper. Take a picture of the printed image in RAW and work with that file. A lot of steps, but if it works...

olc

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

amwalker3 wrote:

It's a .jpeg.

In Photoshop click on the image then select Image Size. In the pop-up enter the final dimensions you want (do it in one jump not incrementally). Make sure to check the Resample box. Choose "Preserve Details" from the drop down and push the reduce noise slider to 100%.

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

Its still hard to tell without the download just what you have. What these people expect to see in a larger print is important. Not sure if its the color and graphics they like or if there is some surface texture that makes it work. I would say go for it and see what you get. No other way to really find out. You can employ sharpening to help simulate the texture to some degree. I have used Genuine Fractals. It does without question improve any enlargement, but its something I rarely feel I need to go to. PS will in most cases produce something so nearly as good that it simply does not make sense to use it. You did not say how you were getting it printed. They don't necessarily need 300dpi. 240 dpi should be ok but you should know before hand where you want to end up.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

amwalker3 wrote:

I've been asked/instructed to make an A3+ [or as near as possible] print from a colour image 1000 by 650 pixels.

I'm thinking of resampling it by 100 pixel increments, using Automatic in Photoshop CC, up to 1800 on the long side, then printing at 100 pixels/inch.

Anyone got a better recipe?

Alan.

Here is everything you need to know about printing and resolution:

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

The one thing you can't do, is make an image that has too little resolution look good at a large size, even taking into consideration viewing distance. You'll need at least 3.1 mp or more. And interpolation-based resizing to a larger size is only going to take what is there and stretch it and reduce aliasing, not add more detail. The result is still going to be soft at any distance with a 1.6 mp image.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

OK, I'll ask the question. Is that logo what you are wanting to print large for someone? Are you considering copyright issues? Is that your design? I'm not sure you are "allowed" to print and sell that.

Just wondering...

amwalker3 Loc: London UK.

dsmeltz wrote:

In Photoshop click on the image then select Image Size. In the pop-up enter the final dimensions you want (do it in one jump not incrementally). Make sure to check the Resample box. Choose "Preserve Details" from the drop down and push the reduce noise slider to 100%.

Interesting. Yours is the second reply arguing against incremental resizing. Not long ago, I seem to remember, it was fashionable.

"Print it and see" is the usual fall-back option. Saving paper and ink never trumps pleasing the customer.

Heyho,

Alan.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

amwalker3 wrote:

Interesting. Yours is the second reply arguing against incremental resizing. Not long ago, I seem to remember, it was fashionable.

"Print it and see" is the usual fall-back option. Saving paper and ink never trumps pleasing the customer.

Heyho,

Alan.

Has to do with may earlier question. If you are using a Jpeg there is too much risk of saving at an incremental size and losing more information. Had he said he had a RAW file, it would have been different.

amwalker3 Loc: London UK.

She, actually. Can't be too careful these days.

But I take your point.

What if I processed it in Adobe Raw and saved it as a .psd?