Digital BW, The Print

Hi all,

I'm appealing to all you master printers here on this forum, specifically those of you who are lucky enough to own or have access to a printer capable of printing larger than 13x19, which is the largest output possible on my dastardly r1800.

I have read conflicting things about how many megapixels are needed to produce a "photo quality" print at a certain size, and I'm also a bit confused as to how interpolation works in this arena.

My Canon 1Ds (the flagship dinosaur) is an 11 megapixel camera that gives me 62 mb files. Pretty small at this juncture in the technology tornado. Everything i have read so far tells me 13x19 is optimal size, but I have an image I'd like to print larger.

How large can I print and still have decent detail? 

thanks!
Sarah

If you don't already have it, try downloading Qimage for printing.� It has some really good upsizing options.� You can try it free.� And, if you like it the max amount to pay is about $75.� 
�
In the end you are the only one that can determine what an adequate print would be.� So, try it and decide for yourself.
�
Tom Baker


--- On Mon, 3/9/09, Sarah Renkes <sagaface@...> wrote:

From: Sarah Renkes <sagaface@...>
Subject: [Digital BW] how large can I print? (interpolation?)
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 9, 2009, 7:52 PM






Hi all,

I'm appealing to all you master printers here on this forum, specifically those of you who are lucky enough to own or have access to a printer capable of printing larger than 13x19, which is the largest output possible on my dastardly r1800.

I have read conflicting things about how many megapixels are needed to produce a "photo quality" print at a certain size, and I'm also a bit confused as to how interpolation works in this arena.

My Canon 1Ds (the flagship dinosaur) is an 11 megapixel camera that gives me 62 mb files. Pretty small at this juncture in the technology tornado. Everything i have read so far tells me 13x19 is optimal size, but I have an image I'd like to print larger.

How large can I print and still have decent detail? 

thanks!
Sarah
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Sarah:

The 1Ds is a great camera with an excellent sensor. I think that a  
lot will depend upon how sharp the images are to begin with, how much  
detail they contain that is important to retain (such as tiny type on  
a stamp), as well as the paper you choose. A photo of fluffy clouds  
can probably be enlarged to 3x4 feet and hold up OK without any  
special interpolation, to give a pretty extreme example.

In general, for inkjet printing, you should be able to get good  
results up to about 16x20 without interpolating. You might want to  
turn off resample in your image editor and plug in 180 or 160 in the  
resolution box. Then crop and print out a section of the print on  
your R1800. Then take a look from about a foot away as if it was a  
larger print.

I like the program BlowUp from Alien Skin Software for images that  
need to be enlarged to about 2-3x their original file size. However,  
like most software, it is not great for enlargement of fine details  
like small text.

I discuss interpolation a bit in this chapter of my book. You can  
download it here:

http://www.inkjettips.com/chapter2.pdf

Tips 28-31 cover interpolation.

Hope that helps,

Andrew
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Darlow
Editor, The Imaging Buffet
http://www.imagingbuffet.com
Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http:// 
www.inkjettips.com



On Mar 9, 2009, at 10:52 PM, Sarah Renkes wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm appealing to all you master printers here on this forum,  
> specifically those of you who are lucky enough to own or have  
> access to a printer capable of printing larger than 13x19, which is  
> the largest output possible on my dastardly r1800.
>
> I have read conflicting things about how many megapixels are needed  
> to produce a "photo quality" print at a certain size, and I'm also  
> a bit confused as to how interpolation works in this arena.
>
> My Canon 1Ds (the flagship dinosaur) is an 11 megapixel camera that  
> gives me 62 mb files. Pretty small at this juncture in the  
> technology tornado. Everything i have read so far tells me 13x19 is  
> optimal size, but I have an image I'd like to print larger.
>
> How large can I print and still have decent detail?
>
> thanks!
> Sarah
>
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Mar 9, 2009, at 10:52 PM, Sarah Renkes wrote:

> My Canon 1Ds (the flagship dinosaur) is an 11 megapixel camera that  
> gives me 62 mb files. Pretty small at this juncture in the  
> technology tornado. Everything i have read so far tells me 13x19 is  
> optimal size, but I have an image I'd like to print larger.
>
> How large can I print and still have decent detail?

Assuming L-series lenses, and good conditions, there is no reason why  
you can't print acceptable images significantly larger than 13 x 19  
from this source. Viewing distance increases with image size. I have  
printed 24 x 26 images, and a few canvasses larger than that, from  
files this size or smaller. There are those who want to blow a wallet  
photo up to billboard size, and have a wallet photo section of the  
billboard still be as sharp as the wallet photo, but for those with  
less literal expectations, a bit of sharpening should be all thats  
needed to print larger images from your 1 Ds...

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Mar 9, 2009, at 10:52 PM, Sarah Renkes wrote:
> 
> > My Canon 1Ds (the flagship dinosaur) is an 11 megapixel camera that  
> > gives me 62 mb files. Pretty small at this juncture in the  
> > technology tornado. Everything i have read so far tells me 13x19 is  
> > optimal size, but I have an image I'd like to print larger.
> >
> > How large can I print and still have decent detail?
> 
> Assuming L-series lenses, and good conditions, there is no reason why  
> you can't print acceptable images significantly larger than 13 x 19  
> from this source. Viewing distance increases with image size. I have  
> printed 24 x 26 images, and a few canvasses larger than that, from  
> files this size or smaller. There are those who want to blow a wallet  
> photo up to billboard size, and have a wallet photo section of the  
> billboard still be as sharp as the wallet photo, but for those with  
> less literal expectations, a bit of sharpening should be all thats  
> needed to print larger images from your 1 Ds...
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> CDTobie@...
> 
> 
>   ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Datacolor
> www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Agreed....it depends on many factors, including viewing distance.  I have a 48x72 inch print of a Redtail Hawk taken with a Canon 40D that looks great from "normal" viewing distance.  Up close, it is a little soft, but from 6 or 8 feet away, (normal viewing distance for such a large print), it looks fantastic.  I have done many, large trade show posters that look excellent from their intended viewing distance.  

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker <tbaker1328@...> wrote:
>
> If you don't already have it, try downloading Qimage for printing.  It has some really good upsizing options.  You can try it free.  And, if you like it the max amount to pay is about $75.  
>  

Does it, wrt to upsizing, a similar job than Genuine Fractals? I did some tests with it some time ago and was pretty impressed with the results. In the end, I didn't purchase as I am hardly doing any large format printing yet.

It has a free trial option as well.

Joost

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Sarah Renkes" <sagaface@...> wrote:

> 
> How large can I print and still have decent detail? 

A lot has to do with the quality of the RAW file.  I shoot with a Nikon D200 and D300 (10 and 12 MP respectively), and I routinely print 16x20 prints where I have done significant cropping to the original file.  So 11MP is more than sufficient to make large prints.  You just need a workflow that will allow you to make prints at the desired sharpness level.

One thing to consider is the intended viewing distance from which people will view your prints.  The larger the image, the less tack-sharpness you will need (except if you intend to show your work to a lot of pixel peepers.  Personally, I like having the option of printing large, but I like the "intimacy" of an 8x10 print, where the viewer gets much closer to the print.  Michael Kenna rarely prints larger than that size for precisely that reason.  To me, it's a way of making the experience more personal.  But in the end, it's all a matter of preference.

I use Genuine Fractals for major upsizing, in fact did some 10x upsizining yesterday with it.  That said, none of these programs is magic.  At best, what they and the workflows that use the PS routines allow, in my experience, is upsizing and sharpening that preserves sharp edges without "jaggies" -- which is significant.  But, they cannot manufacture realistic image details.  At the risk of stating the obvious, if the information is not in the original, it's not going to be in the upsized file either.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I haven't seen anybody mention PhotoZoom Pro 2 from www.benvista.com. I  
have found this program produces very good results on par with Genuine  
Fractals. It used to be a little less expensive than GF but now I think it  
is a little bit higher. It does have a free trial. When I was comparing  
the two programs, I thought that PhotoZoom Pro produced a little bit  
cleaner results and the UI was easier for me to use.
Steve



on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:09:08 -0700, pr_roark <pr_roark@...> wrote:

> I use Genuine Fractals for major upsizing, in fact did some 10x  
> upsizining yesterday with it.  That said, none of these programs is  
> magic.  At best, what they and the workflows that use the PS routines  
> allow, in my experience, is upsizing and sharpening that preserves sharp  
> edges without "jaggies" -- which is significant.  But, they cannot  
> manufacture realistic image details.  At the risk of stating the  
> obvious, if the information is not in the original, it's not going to be  
> in the upsized file either.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker <tbaker1328@> wrote:
> >
> > If you don't already have it, try downloading Qimage for printing.  It has some really good upsizing options.  You can try it free.  And, if you like it the max amount to pay is about $75.  
> >  
> 
> Does it, wrt to upsizing, a similar job than Genuine Fractals? I did some tests with it some time ago and was pretty impressed with the results. In the end, I didn't purchase as I am hardly doing any large format printing yet.
> 
> It has a free trial option as well.
> 
> Joost
>

Since I did a lot of large (36x48", 48x60", etc) trade show posters at one time, I bought Genuine fractals and did do quite a few posters using it.  It seems to do a decent job on some images, but it tends to give an artificial, overly smooth, processed look.  It did help smooth out jaggies, but I found created new artifacts that were equally (or more) distasteful, as least to me.  I ended up abandoning it.  In fact, for trade show posters and other large images viewed from a distance, I no longer bother upsampling at all.  I ran some comparison tests on a LightJet using Genuine Fractals, Upsampled images, and the original (without resampling).  I found that below about 100 ppi, the image started to fall apart, but above 100 to 125 ppi, they looked great, even without resampling.  Again, this assumes a fairly large image viewed from a number of feet away.  Viewed close up, you will see softness.  

Like Paul mentioned, if it isn't in the original file to begin with, it will be difficult or impossible to manufacture it and still retain quality.  

Lou

I too have a 1Ds and have printed 24x36 prints on my Epson 9500 from its files.  The prints look fine at normal viewing distances, but I believe that is the limit for this camera.  With close viewing of this size print, one can see the pixels making the image.  I never wanted to print anything bigger the 24x36 because I don't think the files would print well.

I did print a 32x48 from a 5D file once.  The image suffered from the unsharpness of the lens.  I don't think very highly of Canon's lenses.  I have printed 44x44 inch prints from my Hasselblad with PhaseOne H20 back, and the 48mb file looked great.  I don't think the size of the file matters as much as the quality of it.

Ben




      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>... I no longer bother upsampling at all. ...

That's generally where I'm at too.  There just is no magic out there. 


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> I too have a 1Ds and have printed 24x36 prints on my Epson 9500 from 
> its files.  The prints look fine at normal viewing distances, but I 
> believe that is the limit for this camera.  With close viewing of this 
> size print, one can see the pixels making the image.  I never wanted 
> to print anything bigger the 24x36 because I don't think the files 
> would print well.
>
> I did print a 32x48 from a 5D file once.  The image suffered from the 
> unsharpness of the lens.  I don't think very highly of Canon's 
> lenses.  I have printed 44x44 inch prints from my Hasselblad with 
> PhaseOne H20 back, and the 48mb file looked great.  I don't think the 
> size of the file matters as much as the quality of it.
>
> Ben

We have lot's of big prints in our studio's entrance from 1ds cameras, 
including some 4 feet wide, or more.  The key is to have  images that 
still looks good without a lot of detail, which applies to a surprising 
number of images.  This means no west coast style bw images that depend 
heavily on detail and crisp tonality. Ours are all color. I doubt bw 
would enlarge as well. As others have said, sins of omission, e.g. loss 
of detail, are less egregious than sins of commission, e.g. adding 
artifacts. Our post-production guys use Photoshop to resize, and they do 
so in 10% increments.  Whatever you do, though, make sure to make some 
test prints.  They can be small sections of a file to save paper and 
ink, and definitely compare any technique to simply resizing the image 
without interpolation, and hence sending quite a low res file to the 
printer.

In a recent post, I talked about an Inca printer, which makes 5 x 10 
foot prints in 20 seconds.  To print without interpolation on this 
printer, the file should be at 100 dpi at output size.  That's a much 
lower resolution than normal. (My normal file resolution for inkjet 
printing is 360 dpi to 720 dpi at output size.) Certainly, these prints 
look a bit soft close up, but if you stand back a few feet, they look 
quite good.

Regarding Canon lenses, many L lenses are very good, such as the 100 
macro, 70-200 F4...but the wide zooms tend to be rather poor, with the 
edges of the pictures being much softer than the center to a degree 
noticeable even in small prints.

-Peter

Let your eyes be your guide. A test print or two will likely give you immediate feedback on of the images are appropriate at a larger size.

In my experience, it depends largely on your lens and your methods, tripods
vs. hand-held (though personally I rarely use a tripod).  I use a 1Ds Mark
III and get my best shots with the 70-200/2.8 IS L. When interpolation is
needed (and I rarely do this) I use PS bicubic smoother or, ever better (and
for some reason people seldom mention this) Lightroom, which has the best
upsizing algorithm. But I shy away from large prints as a matter of course.
I think the large print mania will die out sooner or later. I print on the
Epson 3800, which is also a 13" printer, and 13" is good enough for me. Just
made a series of 12" X 18 full-frame prints this afternoon. That's as far as
I care to go, unless there's a compelling reason. Haven't found one yet !

-----------------------------------------------------

Brian Corll

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sarah
Renkes
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:52 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] how large can I print? (interpolation?)

 

Hi all,

I'm appealing to all you master printers here on this forum, specifically
those of you who are lucky enough to own or have access to a printer capable
of printing larger than 13x19, which is the largest output possible on my
dastardly r1800.

I have read conflicting things about how many megapixels are needed to
produce a "photo quality" print at a certain size, and I'm also a bit
confused as to how interpolation works in this arena.

My Canon 1Ds (the flagship dinosaur) is an 11 megapixel camera that gives me
62 mb files. Pretty small at this juncture in the technology tornado.
Everything i have read so far tells me 13x19 is optimal size, but I have an
image I'd like to print larger.

How large can I print and still have decent detail? 

thanks!
Sarah



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Epson 3800, which is also a 13" printer"

Ummmm, the 3800 is a 17" printer.... :)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Hoge" <hogepodge@...> wrote:
>
> Let your eyes be your guide. A test print or two will likely give you immediate feedback on of the images are appropriate at a larger size.
>

And to do this a lower cost, crop a few small areas which you think will be the most demanding when enlarged.  Then enlarge these cropped areas  the amount you are considering and print them on the same type paper you plan to use.  A few of these smaller prints of these small test areas should be less expensive than the great big size sheet you are considering.

Sarah, I would go with Brian on this but for slightly different reasons.
While equipment will always be limiting factor, it not only includes the
stuff in front of the camera and the camera itself, but also the processing
software and how it's used. It was strange that this morning a got an ad
from Amazon telling me that that had a whole slew of PS books for sale; ALL
for CS2 based time frame. However one of the books was by Bruce Fraser and
the promo for was talking about the "sad reality of digital is .
sharpening". To me that includes not only the file but also what you are
using to push those pixels out to the paper, canvas, etc. 

 

It seems like we all have slightly different workflows and I don't know of
any source that really has proven too much of anything with regard to "the
best". PS CS4 has perhaps gotten better at sharpening than older versions,
DPP may give you better sharpening with your files than LR. I put another
recommendation in for Qimage as an aide in getting sharper results. I
haven't run exhaustive tests yet against LR newest version 2.3, but they
have always seemed a bit softer than QImage in the past. 

 

In my case, I use Imagenomic Noiseware which has sharpening, Portraiture
which has sharpening, PS CS4 ext & CS3 ext, LR has sharpening, Qimage, QTR
and Image Print. Add that all up and then include my source files from
several different in house scanners, the odd one that comes from this drum
scanner and that, and all the original digital captures from P&S (point and
shoot) to the latest Canon and Nikon cameras and figuring out what workflow
gives you the sharpest image is now easy thing. Nor is it just a simple, Do
this and life is good solution as you may not have  X, Y, and Z to do it and
may not be able to or willing to spend the money to have them. 

 

Choice of substrate will impact the perceived sharpness, so if you what to
make them look sharper, maybe a very smooth paper is best, and if you want
to try and hide the flaws, a canvas may be in order. I think that the
composition of the image and the presentation of contrast levels within are
far more valuable way to decide if a print can "go bigger" than a definite
sharpness goal. 

 

Eric  

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

 

SKYPE   ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Corll
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:22 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] how large can I print? (interpolation?)

 

In my experience, it depends largely on your lens and your methods, tripods
vs. hand-held (though personally I rarely use a tripod). I use a 1Ds Mark
III and get my best shots with the 70-200/2.8 IS L. When interpolation is
needed (and I rarely do this) I use PS bicubic smoother or, ever better (and
for some reason people seldom mention this) Lightroom, which has the best
upsizing algorithm. But I shy away from large prints as a matter of course.
I think the large print mania will die out sooner or later. I print on the
Epson 3800, which is also a 13" printer, and 13" is good enough for me. Just
made a series of 12" X 18 full-frame prints this afternoon. That's as far as
I care to go, unless there's a compelling reason. Haven't found one yet !

-----------------------------------------------------

Brian Corll






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Oops ! Yep, of course it is. J I haven't used anything larger than 13" X 19"
yet so I still think of it as a 13" printer. Someday I may invest in some
17" x 22" paper, but I'm not sure why as I don't like the aspect ratio. I'd
end up printing 12 X 18 anyway.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

Brian Corll

1002 East Simpson Street

Mechanicsburg, PA 17055

Tel.: (717) 691-0286

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Jones
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:55 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] how large can I print? (interpolation?)

 

"Epson 3800, which is also a 13" printer"

Ummmm, the 3800 is a 17" printer.... :)





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks to ALL of you for some great food for thought. That's why I bring my questions here. 

I'm going to experiment a little, most definitely print some cropped test images and go from there.

thanks very much!
Sarah





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

>
> Sarah, I would go with Brian on this but for slightly different reasons.
> While equipment will always be limiting factor, it not only includes the
> stuff in front of the camera and the camera itself, but also the processing
> software and how it's used. It was strange that this morning a got an ad
> from Amazon telling me that that had a whole slew of PS books for sale; ALL
> for CS2 based time frame. However one of the books was by Bruce Fraser and
> the promo for was talking about the "sad reality of digital is .
> sharpening". To me that includes not only the file but also what you are
> using to push those pixels out to the paper, canvas, etc. 
> 
>  
> 
> It seems like we all have slightly different workflows and I don't know of
> any source that really has proven too much of anything with regard to "the
> best". PS CS4 has perhaps gotten better at sharpening than older versions,
> DPP may give you better sharpening with your files than LR. I put another
> recommendation in for Qimage as an aide in getting sharper results. I
> haven't run exhaustive tests yet against LR newest version 2.3, but they
> have always seemed a bit softer than QImage in the past. 
> 
>  
> 
> In my case, I use Imagenomic Noiseware which has sharpening, Portraiture
> which has sharpening, PS CS4 ext & CS3 ext, LR has sharpening, Qimage, QTR
> and Image Print. Add that all up and then include my source files from
> several different in house scanners, the odd one that comes from this drum
> scanner and that, and all the original digital captures from P&S (point and
> shoot) to the latest Canon and Nikon cameras and figuring out what workflow
> gives you the sharpest image is now easy thing. Nor is it just a simple, Do
> this and life is good solution as you may not have  X, Y, and Z to do it and
> may not be able to or willing to spend the money to have them. 
> 
>  
> 
> Choice of substrate will impact the perceived sharpness, so if you what to
> make them look sharper, maybe a very smooth paper is best, and if you want
> to try and hide the flaws, a canvas may be in order. I think that the
> composition of the image and the presentation of contrast levels within are
> far more valuable way to decide if a print can "go bigger" than a definite
> sharpness goal. 
> 
>  
> 
> Eric  
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> 214-827-8301
> 
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
>  
> 
> SKYPE   ejprinter
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m] On Behalf Of Brian
> Corll
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:22 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] how large can I print? (interpolation?)
> 
>  
> 
> In my experience, it depends largely on your lens and your methods, tripods
> vs. hand-held (though personally I rarely use a tripod). I use a 1Ds Mark
> III and get my best shots with the 70-200/2.8 IS L. When interpolation is
> needed (and I rarely do this) I use PS bicubic smoother or, ever better (and
> for some reason people seldom mention this) Lightroom, which has the best
> upsizing algorithm. But I shy away from large prints as a matter of course.
> I think the large print mania will die out sooner or later. I print on the
> Epson 3800, which is also a 13" printer, and 13" is good enough for me. Just
> made a series of 12" X 18 full-frame prints this afternoon. That's as far as
> I care to go, unless there's a compelling reason. Haven't found one yet !
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 
> Brian Corll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Shoot an array of frames(XbyY) with ~20% overlap in both X&Y, use Hugin,PTgui or any good stitching prgm to generate your final image--PP as needed and print as wide and long  your largest printer can.  Since your frame array is not shot all at once, motion in the scene should be minimal.  Great for landscape prints.

This technique allows your moderate 24-70 to function as an unlimited ultra wide angle yielding hi res prints.

Regards Irv




 there is no reason why  

> you can't print acceptable images significantly larger than 13 x 19  
> from this source. Viewing distance increases with image size. I have  
> printed 24 x 26 images, and a few canvasses larger than that, from  
> files this size or smaller. There are those who want to blow a wallet  
> photo up to billboard size, and have a wallet photo section of the  
> billboard still be as sharp as the wallet photo, but for those with  
> less literal expectations, a bit of sharpening should be all thats  
> needed to print larger images from your 1 Ds...
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> CDTobie@...
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Louis Dina" <lou@...> wrote:

> Like Paul mentioned, if it isn't in the original file to begin with, it will be difficult or impossible to manufacture it and still retain quality.  

Of course that's true in general, although there is a bit of a gray area. With the use of mathematics (deconvolution) it's possible to retrieve details that are (just) not visible in the original data. For these techniques however it's necessary to know exactly the optical camera & lens behaviour. From what I understand of it, this is what DxO is doing. 

But this is different from print sharpening that we'e discussion here.

Joost

Hello Sarah,

>I'm going to experiment a little, most definitely print some 
>cropped test images and go from there.

A couple of years ago I did some up-res experiments, trying several
techniques and using demos of several commercial products, and posted
the results in a discussion in this forum.  I saved it and have 
pasted it below.  I was able to up-res some 1.2 mg pocket digicam 
files about 8x to about 8mg and make very good 8x10-ish prints at 
around 300 dpi.  I hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm


---------------------- From January, 2006 --------------------------
 >Peter said: You might find it worth downloading the trial version
  >of Photozoom Pro in that case as it seems almost as good. But if
  >you already have QImage its probably not worth bothering.
  
  I just downloaded and tried the Photozoom demo. Results are below in
  the list. Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so far.
  
  The Challenge: upsize some 1.2 mp JPGs that were shot with a Casio
  Z-50, a pocket sized 5mp digicam. Upsize to 8mp.
  
  What I've tried:
  
  1) PS-CS/bicubic - surprisingly good results, way beyond my
  expectations. Everything else is compared to this.
  
  2) PS-CS/bicubic Smooth - not bad but compared to 1) is too soft to
  recover with more USM.
  
  3) PS-CS/bicubic Sharper - increased contrast too much & compressed
  shadows, plus halos.
  
  4) Qimage/Pyramid Print-To-file, at various sharpen settings - lots
  of patterned atrifacts and halos. Not even close to 1).
  
  5) Qimage/most other algorithms - various degrees of artifacts and
  halos. Nothing anywhere near 1) above.
  
  6) SizeFixer (someone did it for me) at normal setting (because it
  can't read the Casio exif for advanced mode)- very much like 1), but
  with worse jaggies on diagonals.
  
  7) Photozoom Pro - Ran demo with S-Spline (supposedly the best) at
  default settings. Result: Terrible. Looks horribly overprocessed and
  cartoonish. I didn't try any of the other algorithms.
  
  8) Jack Flesher's PS-CS/bicubic workflow, as described at this link
  (thanks to Carl Schofield for the tip):
  
  http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_60/essay.html
  
  It goes like this:
  a) do all work to get the image ready to print, including 
     sharpening, at native resolution
  b) upsize with bicubic smoother to 20% past target resolution
  c) add more sharpening
  d) downsize with bicubic sharper to target resolution
  
  The result was much better than my straight bicubic workflow, in
  these ways:
  
  - sharper, with fewer sharpening artifacts
  - better shadow separation and low end contrast
  - over all look was sharper & contrastier with better shadow detail
  
  I could not match the results with my normal methods. My workflow
  has been this:
  - convert to grayscale
  - then upsize with bicubic
  - then do the work
  
  Then I did some experiments, and found that the real difference is 
  in doing the work, including sharpening, before upsizing. When I 
  changed my workflow to this:
  
  - convert to grayscale
  - do the work, including sharpening
  - then upsize with bicubic
  - add a bit more sharpening
  
  ...the result was nearly identical to the Flesher workflow. That
  print was still a tiny bit better. I did some tests with the 
  workflow and the crucial step seems to be in the sharpening added 
  between the two resizings. But it's real easy to add too much and 
  it starts looking overprocessed. Too little and it doesn't look 
  any better than the straight bicubic step. So it's playing right 
  on the edge, looking for the sweet spot.
  
  Seems like the really big difference comes from doing all the
  resizing after the work is done, rather than before it.
----------------------------

I have followed this thread with interest as I am in the photo/fine  
art repro printing business.  I have been down all the roads  
discussed, including using my 11" X 14 process camera - chromes-my  
drum scanner. INothing can remotely compare with the quality and  
versatility of my BetterLight 4X5 true 3 color scanning back and a  
razor sharp repro lens giving a + or - 135 meg file.  On the other  
hand, I just don't think it is very practical for me to do landscape  
photography with it although some do.

I have no connection at all to the company -  just a user.  J Vee   www.jveegraphics.com


On Mar 11, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Sarah Renkes wrote:

> Thanks to ALL of you for some great food for thought. That's why I  
> bring my questions here.
>
> I'm going to experiment a little, most definitely print some cropped  
> test images and go from there.
>
> thanks very much!
> Sarah
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, James W Veenstra <j_vee@...> wrote:
>
> I have followed this thread with interest as I am in the photo/fine  
> art repro printing business.  I have been down all the roads  
> discussed, including using my 11" X 14 process camera - chromes-my  
> drum scanner. INothing can remotely compare with the quality and  
> versatility of my BetterLight 4X5 true 3 color scanning back and a  
> razor sharp repro lens giving a + or - 135 meg file.  On the other  
> hand, I just don't think it is very practical for me to do landscape  
> photography with it although some do.
> 


Noting beats a tack sharp low noise image. If the image is soft, it only gets worse as the size increases.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" <dfaprinting@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, James W Veenstra <j_vee@> wrote:
> >....... INothing can remotely compare with the quality and  
> > versatility of my BetterLight 4X5 true 3 color scanning back and a  
> > razor sharp repro lens giving a + or - 135 meg file.  On the other  
.......
> Noting beats a tack sharp low noise image. If the image is soft, it only gets worse as the size increases.

When an image becomes soft with upsampling, adding grain can help hide the softness and fool the eye into thinking the image is sharper than it is. 

Genuine Factuals has this ability built-in...but you can add grain on your own.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> wrote:
> With the use of mathematics (deconvolution) it's possible to retrieve details that are (just) not visible in the original data. For these techniques however it's necessary to know exactly the optical camera & lens behaviour. From what I understand of it, this is what DxO is doing. 
> 

As a matter of fact, yesterday I did some further experiments with DxO on images from a Canon 20D / 70-200 2.8L IS combo. The workflow is a hassle, but I'm impressed by the results. The sharpening is totally based on physics and mathematics and not by arbitrary interpolation and sharpening algorithms and user judgments. In my, so far still limited, experience this is a good prevention against oversharpening.

Furthermore, my impression is that the sharper the original image, the more extra details DxO can retrieve. So DxO is not at all a magic remedy against poor lens quality, focus issues or motion blur. 

Joost