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

You should be examining your prints from a reasonable distance, not up close. Most people step away from a 36x48 - about 6 ft or more. As long as you have at least 64 ppi, which for your image will be 2304x3072 px, you image will look fine.

This should help clarify what you actually need, and dispel the common myth that you need much more resolution.

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

If you are using a commercial print lab, you don't need enlargement software - the raster image processor (RIP) they use will take care of the image optimization for their equipment. Creating a huge many megapixel image will make it difficult (slow upload) to send to a lab.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

Lots of good advice here. In addition, download the free trial version of Gigapixel and use it on a well exposed sharp image. IMHO it works better than Photoshop's offering, although the file sizes are much larger. When it first came out, I thought it was all marketing hype so I downloaded the trial and maxed out the size increase (to 8' on the long side). Made a believer out of me.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Hip Coyote

There seems to be quite a few independent variables at play here that you are going to have to investigate: You complain of pixilization.

Re Pixilization Issues:

CAMERA: I assume there is no issues with the camera and sensor but it could be possible.
CROPPING: As some noted, (and I noticed) at least one of the shots was cropped down quite a bit.
PRINTER: Are you using the same printer service? What were the settings they used and provided to them?
VIEWING DISTANCE: How are you viewing the piece. That is a very large piece and would take a rather large viewing space to properly view. There is also a sweet spot for sizing and viewing space. Ever walk into a small den and see someone with a massive TV screen? It is uncomfortable. If you view the piece up close, it will be pixilated. How does it look at a greater viewing distance. In fact, the larger the piece, the farther away you look at it and the less resolution you need. I read one recommendation that viewing distance should roughly be at 1.5 to 2X the length of the diagonal of the piece. In your case, the diagonal is 5 feet...meaning you need to be 8 or so feet away from the piece to even view it properly. Id say more like 10+ feet.

Re: Other issues

LENS: As Thomas noted, there is a sweet spot on the lens that you have to hit. Have you checked that out?
EXPOSURE TIME: I saw one photo at 5 seconds. I do not know, but assume your sensor could handle that easily and not produce any issues. (IMO, 5 seconds is a bit long for these shots.)
TRIPOD: I noted a 5 second exposure on one (I did not check all them out) shot. I assume the tripod is sturdy. No movement, etc. Hang something on it to stabilize even further.
SHUTTER RELEASE: I assume you took measures to activate the shutter without camera movement?
ND FILTER: Given the gear you have, assume the ND filter was high quality, and clean.
IS AND TRIPODS: I have no idea about Canon and the whole image stabilization lenses thing on tripods...but if that is your system, you need to know if the IS has to be off.

UHH member BurkePhoto knows a lot about printing...so hopefully he chimes in on this. Or send him a PM if he misses this post.

Re: Image Quality

You may want to put this in the Analysis Section of UHH and get some other feedback on the images.

Best of luck and happy shooting

out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

[quote=CHG_CANON]Starting with the first image, I see nothing in the pixel-level details that would be 'pixelated' in a 36x48 print. The image is currently sized 6240x4160px, for about a 130 pixel per inch (PPI) resolution at 36x48in. If this was the print file, there is the issue that the colorspace is not sRGB, but that should impact the printed colors, not the fine details of the print. Are you saying you got a printed copy back of this exact image file and there's problems, or something else?[/quote
Yes I sent this file out to Optimal Prints to be put on metal. 36Hx42L and is came back looking pixelated and just terrible. Not to mention it was bent really bad on two corners but that was due to shipping. They promised to reprint but of course that never happened. Photo looked terrible

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

[quote=out4life2016][quote=CHG_CANON]Starting with the first image, I see nothing in the pixel-level details that would be 'pixelated' in a 36x48 print. The image is currently sized 6240x4160px, for about a 130 pixel per inch (PPI) resolution at 36x48in. If this was the print file, there is the issue that the colorspace is not sRGB, but that should impact the printed colors, not the fine details of the print. Are you saying you got a printed copy back of this exact image file and there's problems, or something else?[/quote
Yes I sent this file out to Optimal Prints to be put on metal. 36Hx42L and is came back looking pixelated and just terrible. Not to mention it was bent really bad on two corners but that was due to shipping. They promised to reprint but of course that never happened. Photo looked terrible[/quote]

Do you still have it and can take an image of the close-up details that conveys this issue to those who can't physically inspect in our own hands?

montephoto

Would you please elaborate on why you say that "LR is better than Photoshop.... because of the non-destructive nature of the program" ?

Why do you imply that Photoshop is destructive, and say that LR is not destructive ?

montephoto

Would you please elaborate on why you say that "LR is better than Photoshop.... because of the non-destructive nature of the program" ?

Why do you imply that Photoshop is destructive, and say that LR is not destructive ?

tcthome Loc: NJ

delete

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Looking at the EXIF of your images I see several problems.

At first I was going to suggest doing "panoramas"... taking several shots and combining them to make up a much larger image file. For example, instead of shooting a single, horizontal (landscape orientation) shot... turn the camera to the vertical (portrait) and take three shots, moving it a bit between each shot. This would dramatically increase the size of file you have to work with. The 6DII is full frame, but 26MP, which naturally limits enlargement to some extent. Doing a multi-shot "panorama" you could double the resolution.

HOWEVER, that's going to be somewhat difficult to do since all these are long exposures with moving water. It would be very difficult to combine the multiple images into a single, larger one, due to that movement. To get more resolution in images such as these basically calls for a higher resolution camera. (FYI: Canon 5DS and 5DS-R have come way, way down in price and nearly double the resolution of the 6DII, with 50MP images.)

The best solution may be software such as some other responses have suggested. Programs designed specifically to scale up images for larger prints that basically generate additional pixels to "fill in" among the pixels originally captured by the camera.

When I print I try to size my images to 300 pixels per inch. But this is for smaller prints that will be viewed much closer. A 36x48" print would be viewed from much farther away, so really doesn't need that high resolution. Let's say 170 pixels per inch. If you don't scale up your image to some extent, you won't have that resolution. Natively your camera captures 6240x4160 pixels. If you don't crop the image at all, that means enlarging to your desired size the image will be reduced to about 115 pixels per inch, at best. (Note: You will need to crop the long side a bit to make a 36x48" print because that's a 4:3 aspect ratio and your camera shoots in a 3:2 aspect ratio. A 32x48" print would be possible without any cropping.)

170 pixels per inch is similar to the resolution used when printing higher quality magazines. 115 per inch is more like what was used in newspapers, where the dots are easily visible.

The software can be used to generate additional pixels and "scale up" your image to the size you want.

BUT, I see some other possible "problems" affecting your images:

Lenses: For some images you used the Canon 24-105mm "STM". It's an okay lens and should be fine. There are sharper lenses, although the more expensive "USM" versions of the 24-105mm (also with a non-variable f/4 aperture) actually aren't "better" in terms of image quality. Your STM is newer and sharper than the original f/4L USM version, while the f/4L USM "II" version really didn't see a whole lot of improvement. I don't have the EF 24-105mm IS STM lens personally, so can't say where it's good and where it's not. Check out Bryan's thorough review of it and the image quality comparison tool at https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-STM-Lens.aspx. That's a good starting point, but you probably should still do some tests and confirm your lens gives similar results.

Actually your other lens used is a bigger problem. It's one of the EF 75-300mm, which is Canon's cheapest and worst series of telephoto lenses. At least yours is the IS USM version. However, that also means it's quite old.... In fact, it was Canon's very first IS lens, way back in 1995. It's so old that Bryan never tested it... his website only goes back 15 or 20 years. In the last 25 years there have been A LOT of improvements to most Canon lenses, but you wouldn't know it looking at the IQ from the current 75-300mm "III" (two versions, neither has IS and one doesn't even have USM or STM focus drive). Those are the cheapest and least expensive of all Canon tele zooms... soft at all focal lengths and particularly unimpressive from 70mm to 300mm wide open (which isn't very wide at f/5.6). Literally ANY other Canon telephoto lens would give you sharper and more usable images than any of the Canon 75-300s.

To put this extremely bluntly... it ain't the camera, it's the lens. It's a common mistake to put a budget lens on a quality camera, then wonder why images aren't as good as you'd like. For the best possible images look to zooms like the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III (not the II or orig.), 24-70mm f/4L or f/2.8L (any version). But you'd get more IQ improvement upgrading your telezoom to one of the EF 70-200mm (any version other than the current f/2.8L non-IS or older original f/2.8L IS)... Or, any of the EF 70-300mm lenses {several versions) would also a big step up from what you've got, though not quite on par with the 70-200s.

Smaller, lighter and (mostly) more affordable alternatives are some prime lenses with top image quality, especially newer ones such as the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, 35mm f/4 IS USM, 50mm f/1.8 STM, 85mm f/1.4L IS USM. Of these four, the last is by far the most expensive. Canon themselves published a list of "recommended lenses" for the demanding 50MP cameras. This is a good guide to what they consider their best at high resolutions, which will also be the best for enlargement on any camera. https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-announces-new-list-of-recommended-lenses-for-new-5ds/ (Note: The current EF 50mm f/1.8 "STM" and EF 16-35mm "III" and some other recent releases aren't on that list because the 5DS cameras preceded them in mid-2015. But those particular newer lenses are definite improvements over earlier versions. Others may be, too.) There also may be some very good 3rd party lens alternatives, both zooms and primes. Sigma has been putting out some great glass lately, though they tend to be overbuilt and heavy. Certain Tamrons are getting high praise, too. A high quality lens on the most entry level camera will produce better images than "budget" lenses on a top-of-the-line camera.

Filters? I don't know whether or not you used any filters, but be careful with them. Working around water you may want a protection filter. And doing long exposures you may need a neutral density filter. In either case, make sure you get high quality, multi-coated filters. I also would avoid variable neutral density due to uneven effects and ugly color tints they cause. Instead, for still photography one or two moderately strong single strength ND can work fine. A 6-stop may be all you need. Personally I like having a 3-stop as well, for those times when less is needed. Plus it can be combined with the stronger filter for 9 stops of light reduction, if that's needed. FYI: "Nano" coated filters are more water resistant and easier to clean than standard multi-coated. The standard usually have 8 layer coatings, while the Nano typically have 15 or more coatings.

Aperture: Checking the EXIF of your images I found one at f/13, another at f/20, another at f/29 and another at f/32. I know you're trying to get sufficient depth of field with small apertures, but f/20 and especially f/29 and f/32 are way too small and are affecting your image quality. Too small lens apertures cause "diffraction". The result is a reduction of fine detail. This may not be apparent in small prints, but it will be in big ones! I would recommend you not use smaller than f/16 aperture. f/11 would be even better. (You also need to explore your lenses' "sweet spots"... do a series of test shots to learn their sharpest apertures... with zooms this needs to be repeated at various common focal length settings, it's much easier with prime lenses.)

Focal point: A challenge with images like yours is that great depth of field is needed to get important objects sharp from near to far. As mentioned above, looking to increase depth of field with a small aperture ends up being counterproductive due to diffraction. A solution is to take multiple shots and do "focus stacking". Once again, this will be a bit tricky working with images that have a mix of moving and stationary objects. But it is one way I know of to handle such extreme depth of field requirement without using a "too small" aperture. Another thing that can help is to use a shorter focal length and get closer. Wider angle lenses naturally have greater depth of field than telephoto lenses do. This still might not fully solve the problem. But maybe you'll only need to stack a couple images, rather than a whole series of them as might be needed with a telephoto focal length. There are software programs to help with focus stacking, but it also can be done manually in an image editing software that has layers and mask tools.

Tripod and technique: A couple of your images seem to show overall camera shake blur. I'm not certain of this, the blur could be caused by other things (such as subject movement or depth of field). But hopefully you have a good, solid, stable tripod. That's mandatory for long exposures like these (2 seconds, 5 seconds). Proper technique is also important. For example, don't touch the camera just before or during exposure. Use a remote release or the camera's self timer to delay exposure. Even the slightest touch may disturb the camera enough to make images unsharp during long exposures. A wired or wireless remote release is ideal, but a 3 second or longer self timer delay allows any movement from pressing the shutter release button to settle down before the exposure starts.

Also either use mirror lockup or Live View, to prevent the mirror from causing internal camera vibrations. This is particularly important with full frame cameras (larger mirror moving around in there) and in shutter speeds in approx. 1/30 or 1/15 to 2 or 3 second range. Faster shutter speeds aren't susceptible to mirror slap... while with longer ones the momentary slap is such a very small portion of the total exposure, it doesn't show up in images. Several of your shots appear to be right in the "danger zone" though, so if you aren't already doing so, I'd recommend either using mirror lockup or Live View (in most Canon the result is the same either way, but you should confirm it's true with your camera, too).

Other responses mention, but it bears repeating.... Be aware of breezes and wind, which can move your camera enough to cause problems during long exposures. Of course, breezes and wind are going to be causing problems with all those leaves, too. For example, in your second image some of the leaves in the trees appear soft, perhaps there was a little breeze and some movement during that 2.5 second long exposure? If you wait for a still moment when no leaves are moving so they'll be sharp and you won't have a problem with a breeze disturbing the camera either. The moving water will still show that movement blur effect.

You also may be able to further improve things by with some tripod tricks. Maybe you already know, try not to raise the center column at all or at least keep it as low as possible. Center columns are the downfall of many tripods! Also add some weight to the tripod (if it can handle it). Some have a hook at the bottom of the center column, where you might hang your camera bag or some other weight. If not, it may be possible to hang some weight on it another way. The added mass will help prevent movement. It also can work to put a bean bag on top of the camera, but it's a pain to carry around a full bean bag!

Oh, and one more thing. If you aren't already doing so, try turning off IS on your lenses while using them on a tripod. This is particularly important with the older EF 75-300mm because it doesn't sense when it's on a tripod and turn off IS on its own. This can actually cause the IS to go into a sort of feedback loop that causes image blur! The other lens you used for these shots, the EF 24-105 IS STM, is much newer and almost certainly automatically turns off IS. Even so, manually turning it off will insure the optical elements are "locked" in place while you're shooting. (I've been using Canon IS lenses for 20+ years and normally don't recommend turning off Canon IS even when using a lens on a tripod. But there are a few specific lenses that are the exception, including your 75-300. AND it's also not a good idea to have IS on while making longer exposures.)

Post-processing: Finally, you may be able to improve things considerably with careful post-processing techniques... some selective sharpening, for example. This might be needed in steps... some sharpening before enlarging the image, but more of it later once it's been sized for the print (usually most sharpening should be done as one of the last steps, after any changes in size... you may need to try both ways). Depending upon what software you're using, it may be possible to do some sharpening while scaling the image size up. It also may be possible to apply sharpening selectively. This is tricky... where you have to watch out for artifacts and pixelization.

I really like your second image, in particular. A small thing in it that bugs me is one out of focus leaf in the foreground. Just the one that looks like it's not attached to anything! If it were my image, I'd "clone" that out because it just looks strange floating there. The other OOF foreground leaves are fine, in my opinion.

Hope this helps! (And isn't too brutally honest. )

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Good question... and it's not. LR isn't better and Photoshop doesn't have to be "destructive".

LR has limited image editing capabilities. Photoshop is much more full-featured.

And so long as you save a copy of images edited in Photoshop, your original remains untouched.

In fact, LR and Photoshop are designed to work together... to complement each other. If you have both installed, do the "basic", quick, global tweaks in LR... the right-click on the image. A menu will pop up with one option being "Send to Photoshop". If you are working from a RAW file LR will create a 16 bit TIFF (or can be set to make a PSD or other type of file if you prefer), applying whatever tweaks you've made in LR and sending the results to PS. The original RAW remains unchanged. If you are working from an image that was shot as a JPEG, LR will ask whether to change and send the original or to makes changes to and send a copy. Simply choose the latter and you have "non-destructed" the original JPEG (you can set this up as the default method of handling, if you wish).

Even if you only use Photoshop, if you are shooting RAW and opening images directly with PS, that's also a non-destructive process.

Personally I work with both LR and PS. Have done so with PS since the mid-1990s and with LR since it was first released.

I only use LR to make very fast edits such as straightening images, setting up a crop, global exposure adjustments, slight global color correction. I rarely spend more than a few minutes working on an image in LR... often less than a minute. LR is a great organizer and makes locating images among a couple million files reasonably fast. But it's image editing capabilities are quite limited.

For further retouching, particularly the small stuff and the selective work, sharpening, sizing, etc. I always send every image to PS for finishing. I've never seen one that wouldn't benefit from a little work, though sometimes it's very little. Well, actually I send the copy of it... not the original (especially since I mostly shoot RAW).

The Capt.

This is probably well known but here I go anyway. Any good quality sharp picture should be easy to enlarge.ON1 does a good job a little better than PS but PS does well and if using PS to enlarge for resample select preserve details 2.0 for the best results. I have no difficulty enlarging by 400%. With 27" on the long side this is plenty.

Hip Coyote

That was a class full of instruction. I learned sometime that post. Thanks

montephoto

I work in much the same manner as you work, except I prefer ACR to LR. I create a PSD to work on and also create a second "working" layer. This prevents destruction all in my one image. No need for "copy" and "original" files. My RAW file is still untouched.
Photoshop is not "destructive by nature". It is only destructive if that is your work method.

You and I agree on this. The original poster has not addressed this point I questioned.

out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

Sorry I no longer have the print that was shipped back to me. I went with another lab and they were able to put the photo on metal with no problem. Grant it wasn’t cheap. Almost 200 more then the first lab which was Optimal print. This time I used ArtBeats studios. No problems at all.