Enlarging photos
Feb 4, 2021 22:13:16 #
I have a question that I just can't find the answer to. How is it that a person can enlarge a photo to a poster size and get a clear image. There are pictures in motel rooms that have 4 X 5 foot
enlargements above the beds. I have a Nikon D 500 and it takes wonderful pictures, but an 11 X 14 or 12 X 16 would be the limit for a decent enlargement. My friend uses a camera phone and gets enlargements of 11 x 14 that are tack sharp. Does a high resolution scanner have anything to do with this process. Any answers to how this process works would be so appreciated.
enlargements above the beds. I have a Nikon D 500 and it takes wonderful pictures, but an 11 X 14 or 12 X 16 would be the limit for a decent enlargement. My friend uses a camera phone and gets enlargements of 11 x 14 that are tack sharp. Does a high resolution scanner have anything to do with this process. Any answers to how this process works would be so appreciated.
Feb 4, 2021 22:30:10 #
Without seeing actual examples together, elbow to elbow, we're left to speak to general principles.
Your 20.1MP D500 should print amazingly detailed images at 18x12in @ 300ppi that seem just as amazing at 27x18in @ 200ppi. All with no manipulation or resizing the image resolution.
Your 48x60in example may have come from a higher pixel resolution camera, say at 45MP D850 or a 50MP EOS 5Ds or a 60MP Sony a7RIV.
I mentioned seeing the actual images with your and our eyes all together. We all could then stand nose to image together and decide if the 48x60in print really is as detailed at the same viewing distance as the smaller prints? Or, as we stand back, are we seeing modern digital images that are amazingly detailed, but 'stretch' the available pixels over larger print sizes? Lower PPI ratios allow an image to appear to have the same detail when viewed from the distance that allows us all to see the entire image rather than nose to print like you can handle a smaller 11x14in print.
Your 20.1MP D500 should print amazingly detailed images at 18x12in @ 300ppi that seem just as amazing at 27x18in @ 200ppi. All with no manipulation or resizing the image resolution.
Your 48x60in example may have come from a higher pixel resolution camera, say at 45MP D850 or a 50MP EOS 5Ds or a 60MP Sony a7RIV.
I mentioned seeing the actual images with your and our eyes all together. We all could then stand nose to image together and decide if the 48x60in print really is as detailed at the same viewing distance as the smaller prints? Or, as we stand back, are we seeing modern digital images that are amazingly detailed, but 'stretch' the available pixels over larger print sizes? Lower PPI ratios allow an image to appear to have the same detail when viewed from the distance that allows us all to see the entire image rather than nose to print like you can handle a smaller 11x14in print.
Feb 4, 2021 22:32:44 #
I think you can go much larger than 12 x 16 with RAW images taken with a D500. Images straight from the camera are 13x20. Even so, use the 'Image Size' function in the current version of PS to enlarge to whatever size you are looking for. PS does a great job with enlarging photos.
Just be sure the "Enable Preserve Details 2.0 Upscale" is checked under "Preferences" and then "Technology Previews."
If you don't use PS, you now have another good reason to get it.
Just be sure the "Enable Preserve Details 2.0 Upscale" is checked under "Preferences" and then "Technology Previews."
If you don't use PS, you now have another good reason to get it.
Feb 4, 2021 23:16:30 #
There are image processing softwares using fractal technology that do an amazingly good job of expanding images.
Feb 5, 2021 00:27:14 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Without seeing actual examples together, elbow to ... (show quote)
Thank you CHG CANON for taking the time to respond. I am thinking on that and that all makes sense. I understand the distance thing, and I have to look more closely at the poster size prints. I think I need to go back to the basics and study resolution. Thanks again.
Feb 5, 2021 00:47:33 #
fredpnm wrote:
I think you can go much larger than 12 x 16 with R... (show quote)
Thanks fredpmn, I do have and use the current version of PS, but have not used that function. I will be anxious to practice with that. I am shy of an intermediate user of PS. I do not understand what you mean when you say that images straight off the camera are 13 X 20. Thank you for your time and response.
Feb 5, 2021 00:50:16 #
Merlin1300 wrote:
There are image processing softwares using fractal technology that do an amazingly good job of expanding images.
Thanks Merlin1300, I will be looking into that.
Feb 5, 2021 05:21:25 #
maren wrote:
I have a question that I just can't find the answe... (show quote)
The answer you seek, Maren-San, is here:
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm
So called "enlarging" software does NOT add detail, only interpolated pixels and some microcontrast enhancement, particularly on edges. It also often adds some undesirable artifacts.
This question comes up several times a week, yet the answer does not change - its all about viewing distance and human visual acuity, which diminishes with increasing distance. A 40x60 print needs only 40 ppi or so to look pretty sharp, which translates to 1600x2400 px, or just shy of 4 mp. Remember the days of multiplex theaters? The great looking Sony 4K films shown in the premium screening rooms are only 3840 x 2160 px, or 8.3 mp. Most people are unaware that with most images you really don't need super high resolution, nor do you have to resort to interpolation software to raise the pixel count - especially if you are anticipating normal viewing distances.
Feb 5, 2021 07:02:29 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
maren wrote:
I have a question that I just can't find the answe... (show quote)
Under the right conditions you should be able to get great 16X24 prints without an issue. I even get 20X30 prints from my D500, most of the time a 200-500 mm 5.6 lens is attached.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
And remember, the LENS takes the image, not the camera, sometimes a better quality lens can produce great images given the proper approach by the photographer.
Feb 5, 2021 08:25:47 #
maren wrote:
I have a question that I just can't find the answe... (show quote)
My first digital camera was a Nikon D3 which was 24mp. I used to print 24x36 prints on my Epson 7900 all the time with no issues.
Question is, how are you cropping your images? You need to make sure they are the size you want at 300 dpi.
Feb 5, 2021 08:43:18 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Without seeing actual examples together, elbow to ... (show quote)
I use Topaz's Gigapixel to enlarge images and it hardly has any impact on quality. Some image even look better. Check it out.
Feb 5, 2021 09:07:32 #
Ditto on Joe/s post about Gigapixel. When it was introduced, I didn't believe Topaz's claims, and downloaded the free trial, and was very impressed with the results. Check out the free trial and see if it works for you.
Here's a link to a good review from a respected photographer: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/topaz-ai-gigapixel-review/
Here's a link to a good review from a respected photographer: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/topaz-ai-gigapixel-review/
Feb 5, 2021 10:43:37 #
coolhanduke wrote:
Question is, how are you cropping your images? You need to make sure they are the size you want at 300 dpi.
Not necessarily so. Go back up and read Gene's post on viewing distance.
Feb 5, 2021 10:48:07 #
maren wrote:
I have a question that I just can't find the answe... (show quote)
You’re camera is quite capable of producing large prints. The larger prints are printed at a lower dpi (fits per inch). You can go poster sized too. Here is an interesting video.
https://mattk.com/the-easy-way-to-enlarge-your-photos/
Feb 5, 2021 11:01:22 #
Gene51 wrote:
So called "enlarging" software does NOT add detail, only interpolated pixels and some microcontrast enhancement, particularly on edges. It also often adds some undesirable artifacts.
So called "enlarging" software does NOT add detail, only interpolated pixels and some microcontrast enhancement, particularly on edges. It also often adds some undesirable artifacts.
While not adding high fidelity "detail", I would venture to say that for most people, interpolated pixels, micro-contrast and questionably perceived "artifacts" are more attractive and acceptable than ragged pixelation - maybe the lesser of two evils ? - but I could be wrong
- just sayin'.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.