Resizing an image is not taboo... ;-)

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:11 pm

I have been thinking about doing this and I finally got around to it.

I am printing some images I recently sold and I thought I might share this with you so folks did not think I was just "making things up" when I say I print large images from 6MP files and that "resizing is not taboo".

Proof is in the output. Yes..... the final image is sharp.

This is a 20x30 print coming from a 6MP D100 image. The original photo is also included so you can see it.

Bottom line....... print them BIG!

Here is the original photo. Taken years ago with a D100. 6MP original. Oh yeah..... to make matters more interesting...... it's a JPG!

Joined: 25 Dec 2005 Posts: 1106 Location: London, Ontario

Actually I was just thinking about this......Thanks for posting :)

I was think of using the CS2 Crop tool for my resizing. I just enter in the X/Y dimension I want and the DPI and let PS do the pixel math for me.

Is there a better way?

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:01 pm

I rescale using a package called PXL SmartScale. This package was bought from Extensis (makers of Portfolio) by OnOne Software. It's excellent. It's not a big difference from simply doing a Image Resize and using BiCubic as the method in Photoshop, but it is noticable sometime in very detailed shots.

OnOne software also makes Genuine Fractals which for a long time was the best one out there. The methodology is a little different but the results are basically the same.

In short, this is what I recommend.

1) If shooting in RAW, resize to the max you can in Adobe Camera RAW. This is the best way to do it. This is how I do most of my shots.
2) Resize from there (or from a JPG if you don't shoot RAW) using BiCubic resampling setting the DPI to 300 and size it to what you need. In CS2 this method is excellent. If you have CS or version 7 I would do it in steps of 10% at a time until you get to the final size. The method in CS2 has been refined to the point that it is not required.
3) If you have the $$ then Geniune Fractals or PXL SmartScale are awesome. THe difference, however, from the simple CS2 option is small.

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:16 pm

Very nice example Luis..

All of this follows the same rules whether be it film or digital, if you start with a tack sharp image properly exposed and resize carefully very large prints are possible from either 35mm or 6mp digital. Any imperfection in the image are quickly magnified when enlarging. Of course the larger the film size or sensor size the less perfect the image needs to be but then again we all strive for the perfect image don't we.

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:43 pm

luisv wrote:

1) If shooting in RAW, resize to the max you can in Adobe Camera RAW. This is the best way to do it.

ACR is very good at putting in the extra pixels. I, too, use it as my enlarger most of the time.

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

I think Chris makes the best point. You just have to start with a pristine image a priori if you're going to have a satisfactory enlargement, and this includes whatever post-processing is done as well. Screen resolution is very poor at showing flaws in an image. Slight deficiencies in focus show up very visibly in print, esp. enlargements, and oversharpening that is subtle on screen just glares in print.

Premium Member Joined: 02 Apr 2005 Posts: 2020

Now that you mention it Luis, I've been looking at Genuine Fractals and PXL SmartScale. There's only about $40.00 difference between them and OnOneSoftware's explaination of their differences is kind of vague.

Have you tried both and were there any REAL differences between them that you saw?

(Yes, I know that I could D/L them and try them both - I have - Looking for other's input here.)

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:48 pm

PXL SmartScale came in a bundle I was offered from Extensis about a year ago. It works very well.

I tried the Genuine Fractals shortly thereafter b/c I had heard it was supposed to be the best. Frankly I see almost no difference. Most of my shots are portraits (a combination of sports, fashion, fitness, models/talent, etc) and I find the PXL Smartscale to be excellent. I even does a good job with hair which is usually a problem.

So if I had to tell you.... I tell you to go with the least expensive. You won't see a difference. This is assuming SmartScale 1.0 vs. the previous version of GF. I have not tried the most recent GF.

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 7:24 pm

I print 16 x 20 all the time from my D70, and I've usually cropped out maybe 20% of the image to start with. No magic, no extra software beyond Photoshop. Starting with an image at 300 ppi, I upsize to 24" on the larger side, using Bicubic Smoother. Then I bring it back down to 20" using Bicubic Sharper.

I can't even recall where I picked up this technique. Book, forum, wherever, it works. Mostly, I do it with portraits, and the results from my lab look excellent.

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

I just use Adobe Camera RAW to upscale from 6.3 megapixels to 11.3 megapixels during the RAW conversion. I then upscale once in Photoshop proper using bicubic smoother (though I'll use bicubic sharper if there are no sharp edges in the picture -- I just don't want to oversharpen sharp edges).

SingleMalt wrote:

Yes, I know that I could D/L them and try them both - I have - Looking for other's input here.

For what it's worth I'd work on the Photoshop options first. A while ago I read with interest a LONG discussion on this issue in the Pro Digital area of Fred Miranda. There were lots of GF advocates, lots of advocates of the Fred Miranda plug-in, and lots of advocates of doing it within Photoshop/ACR. There was no concensus whatsoever, and keep in mind that most of these people were pros. This leads me to believe that there are many ways to upscale successfully, they're all more or less comparable, and one need not buy an extra plug-in to accomplish it.

Premium Member Joined: 02 Apr 2005 Posts: 2020

Hey, I'm all for saving $160.00!

Sounds like I need to run a few experiments. (Of course, now I'll probably end up spending $160.00 making large test prints from Mpix...)

I gotta find a cheap hobby someday.

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:57 pm

I will add that I use GF.

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

SingleMalt wrote:

I gotta find a cheap hobby someday.

Heh, let us all know when you find the cheap hobby forum :)

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:22 am

drpablo74 wrote:

SingleMalt wrote:

I gotta find a cheap hobby someday.

Heh, let us all know when you find the cheap hobby forum :)

In my early 20's I was heavy into Darts. Beyond the initial purchase of a couple dart sets, its just the beer you drink while playing. Sure fancier higher quality darts come out year after year, but that takes from the beer money.

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:40 pm

luisv, thanks for sharing your results. This is an interesting discussion and a subject I have a question on...

I recently printed my fireworks photo at 30" x 20", mounted and framed it - WOW, it looks really great big and on the wall.

Anyway, I wasn't sure whether I should upsample from 3456x2304 to 5080x7620 for 254dpi @ 30"x20". In the end I didn't, I just sent the printing company the original 8MP file (after a bit of processing). The result was amazing, but should one always submit the exact number of pixels for the chosen print size for optimum quality? I assume the upsampling would have been performed automatically by the software running the printer, which I guess may not do such a good job as PS.