Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
How do I get "clear" images when printing a 16x24 of a hi-res .jpg
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
Dec 21, 2013 08:56:55   #
beauxPatrick
 
I just completed a shoot and they were Pet Portraits... shot under "cool" studio lighting (5000K) with out strobe. Av at 16 with shutter speed as low as 1/60 when zoomed... the slightest movement and I got a blur...

There is a reason for the "cool" lighting and no strobes... I am a Pet Friendly photographer and don't do anything to startle or upset the animals... 99% of my shots are good... a few did not turn out as well as I would have liked...

I had to have them printed at 16x24(20) and I saved each image at 16x24 at 288 dpi... when printed, I am disappointed in the quality of the enlargement... close up, they seem too soft... at a distance they look great... did I screw up by changing the dpi... even though I used a multiple of 72?

What should I have done...

beaux
Varhol_group
Varhol_group...
Adams_5274
Adams_5274...

| Reply
Dec 21, 2013 09:11:49   #
boberic (a regular here)
 
beauxPatrick wrote:
I just completed a shoot and they were Pet Portraits... shot under "cool" studio lighting (5000K) with out strobe. Av at 16 with shutter speed as low as 1/60 when zoomed... the slightest movement and I got a blur...

There is a reason for the "cool" lighting and no strobes... I am a Pet Friendly photographer and don't do anything to startle or upset the animals... 99% of my shots are good... a few did not turn out as well as I would have liked...

I had to have them printed at 16x24(20) and I saved each image at 16x24 at 288 dpi... when printed, I am disappointed in the quality of the enlargement... close up, they seem too soft... at a distance they look great... did I screw up by changing the dpi... even though I used a multiple of 72?

What should I have done...

beaux
I just completed a shoot and they were Pet Portrai... (show quote)


They look pretty good to me. More important is if your clients liked and then bought the shots. There is an old expression- don't let perfection be the enemy of good. Some times good is good enough. Although striving for perfection is always a valid objective, it's the striving for that goal that is rewarding.

| Reply
Dec 21, 2013 09:15:16   #
legion3
 
what lens were you using

| Reply
Dec 21, 2013 09:22:58   #
Dave_TX
 
If the printer operates at 300dpi and you supplied the JPEG image at 288dpi it will have to be converted yet again. JPEG compression is "lossy". That means that every time you open a JPEG image, do something with it, and then reconvert to JPEG you degrade the quality of the image. When you PP JPEG images you should always PP a copy of the original. I always lock my JPEG originals so that I won't inadvertently write over my original with a processed version. Merely rotating the JPEG image so that it is easier to view in the folder degrades the image. You can convert your original JPEG to uncompressed TIFF, do all of your processing, and then when you are ready to send the image to the printer convert it back to 300dpi JPEG. Whatever you do, avoid running an image through the JPEG conversion process multiple times.

| Reply
Dec 21, 2013 09:31:21   #
Meives
 
[quote=beauxPatrick]Patrick, If you want the best analysis please post and click on “store original”. This will show the camera settings to help advise. David

| Reply
Dec 21, 2013 09:33:25   #
ronwande
 
In the second image the pillow looks sharp in a plane I think is a bit in front of the dog, though the dog's mouth looks pretty well in focus.

Responders in UUH frequently ask for more information. In this case I think that is necessary. The images you uploaded are very low resolution.

At 288 ppi, the image was about 31 megapixels in "lossless" form, i.e. saved as a TIF or "flattened" PSD file.

Did you sharpen the image after resizing? What camera?
Or how many megapixels original image? Did you crop, and if so, how much?

16 by 24 prints are possible but as Murphy said, "If anything can go wrong, it will".

Save the original image as a JPG with near the highest quality, 80% to 90%, 10 on a scale of 1 to 12 or 8 on a scale of 1 to 10. If the resulting image is more than about 4 megabytes, resize downward a little until it is around 4 and then upload the images again here with Store Original checked so they can be downloaded and looked at.

| Reply
Dec 21, 2013 13:14:07   #
Heirloom Tomato
 
Sharp or not, they are ADORABLE!!!! So cute.

| Reply
Dec 22, 2013 07:59:16   #
Alfresco
 
This illustrates an excellent reason to shoot raw. I've been shooting raw for several years with a nikon D700 and saving the photos on a iMac using iPhoto and Aperture. Either program automatically converts the raw files. No matter what I do to the photo or how many times, no quality is lost. I've taken photos with my iPhone that look good on the iPhone and iMac and print well at 8 X 10 but fall short at 17 X 23. The reason, JPEG! Just saying. Everything about the photo looks great and you've put a lot into the studio and lighting with a lot of attention to detail, take it to the next level and try raw. It's like driving a Porsche on the track using street tires. Just saying.

| Reply
Dec 22, 2013 08:00:54   #
wildconc2001
 
Beaux, those are very nice shots. When you do this work you should save all of your originals in either Tiff or Photoshop files after shooting in raw. For each size that your client wants, you should size up or down from your original and finish by converting to a jpeg file at a resolution of about 300. You must also sharpen the image properly for that size of image. At that point you can put the image on the screen at the finished print size and view for yourself as to how sharp it is.
Ronwande is absolutely correct with all of the questions he has asked. All of those things factor into whether or not you can make a quality image of that size.

| Reply
Dec 22, 2013 08:12:35   #
Papa Joe
 
beauxPatrick wrote:
I just completed a shoot and they were Pet Portraits... shot under "cool" studio lighting (5000K) with out strobe. Av at 16 with shutter speed as low as 1/60 when zoomed... the slightest movement and I got a blur...

There is a reason for the "cool" lighting and no strobes... I am a Pet Friendly photographer and don't do anything to startle or upset the animals... 99% of my shots are good... a few did not turn out as well as I would have liked...

I had to have them printed at 16x24(20) and I saved each image at 16x24 at 288 dpi... when printed, I am disappointed in the quality of the enlargement... close up, they seem too soft... at a distance they look great... did I screw up by changing the dpi... even though I used a multiple of 72?

What should I have done...

beaux
I just completed a shoot and they were Pet Portrai... (show quote)



I think your shots are very good, and totally acceptable, BUT you may have answered your own question when you state, "...the slightest movement and I got a blur... "
Especially when you blow them up to that size, it's going to accent ANY movement of either the camera or subject. Just a thought...
Still fine shots though!

| Reply
Dec 22, 2013 08:37:36   #
Dlevon
 
boberic wrote:
They look pretty good to me. More important is if your clients liked and then bought the shots. There is an old expression- don't let perfection be the enemy of good. Some times good is good enough. Although striving for perfection is always a valid objective, it's the striving for that goal that is rewarding.


Here we go again. What is perfection? Perfection is in the eye of the beholder. They look good to me too! And what was meant by clear pictures? Photography is getting too complicated, mentally. Think it's time for all of us to dumb down, and really enjoy shooting, and enjoy whatever ends up!

| Reply
Dec 22, 2013 08:43:53   #
dpullum (a regular here)
 
Heirloom Tomato wrote:
Sharp or not, they are ADORABLE!!!! So cute.

Humph, girls, gooshie words like adorable!!! ssss Heirloom I agree.... Now back to the subject of JPEG Printing etc... I usually condense info from a reference but this on RAW and JPEG should be presented to you as a site and you can read it.... If I condensed it I would be labeled as a JPEGer.
Start at: http://www.scantips.com/basics09b.html
Then there is reference to: http://www.scantips.com/lights/pixels.html
for pix and printers. After reading all this, well, both educated and confused. Perhaps I should have simply agreed with Heirloom and added a VERY before her ADORABLE.

Let us not forget that some edit programs under preference have a compression slider. PSPro calls it the "JPEG Optimize"
Some Edit Programs will work with TIFF. By definition from PSP-X6 Help:
"TIFF — a standard file format for printing and sharing images between programs. This file format uses non-lossy compression"

This thing of softness and JPEG is a pox on all of us and this thread has forced me to read and understand that which I knew about but comfortably ignored before.

Thank you beauxPatrick for bring up the subject.

PS: check out Topaz Labs addon programs to bring out contrast in the hair and sharpen the details. Get a 30 trial. You can bring back to usefulness photos with problems... unfortunately typical of too much of my work!!

| Reply
Dec 22, 2013 08:54:02   #
mikegreenwald
 
Most of the factors mentioned above are correct. RAW is always the way to go when manipulation is planned; it tolerates PP better than any other format.
The was a plug-in called Genuine Fractals, later Adobe called it Perfect Resize, that did an exceptional job of upsizing photos with excellent retention of detail etc.. It seems to be missing from Photoshop CC, though I believe it was still present on Photoshop CS5. It is probably still available somewhere.

| Reply
Dec 22, 2013 09:18:09   #
David Kay
 
mikegreenwald wrote:
Most of the factors mentioned above are correct. RAW is always the way to go when manipulation is planned; it tolerates PP better than any other format.
The was a plug-in called Genuine Fractals, later Adobe called it Perfect Resize, that did an exceptional job of upsizing photos with excellent retention of detail etc.. It seems to be missing from Photoshop CC, though I believe it was still present on Photoshop CS5. It is probably still available somewhere.


Raw, JPG, Tiff, Sharpening, etc etc will not do anything to correct an image shot a 1/60 second and there is camera movement or subject movement. Subject movement would be impossible to correct, because you can't keep the animals from moving. However, camera movement can be corrected with a tripod and cable release.
The best suggestion to clear up that blur, is faster shutter speed. Open the aperture, increase the ISO or put more lights on the subject to keep DOF large and noise down.

| Reply
Dec 22, 2013 09:22:12   #
sidney
 
Pictures look good.. but a black backdrop would vastly
improve the picture .NOT being critical Just Critqueing.
keep up the good work..

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.