 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / May 2008need advice on getting photos printed large/canvas
My brother has taken a photo (timer and tripod) while on his honeymoon recently. He really likes it and is intending to get it enlarged and printed on canvas or something. I really like it too, it's pretty bloody good. I've had a bit of an edit of it. It's 3504x2336px full size, the crops are smaller obviously. I understand that photo quality prints are around 300ppi, or you can increase the size of prints a little and may not lose too much quality. But I think he really wants this thing blown up, like 1 metre wide or something. I'm concerned it may come out pixelated or something. Will it? If so, can I scale the image up and do something so that it doesn't print pixelated? Maybe blur it slightly to take out pixelation? What max size would you recommend? I think he just intends hanging it on his wall, not an art gallery :) Any other recommendations?  SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. Did you have a link? :-) > My brother has taken a photo (timer and tripod) while on his > honeymoon recently. He really likes it and is intending to get [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Any other recommendations? >> My brother has taken a photo (timer and tripod) while on his >> honeymoon recently. He really likes it and is intending to get [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Did you have a link? > :-) To the photo? Thought about that after I sent the other one. I won't post the full sized ones, but here's some reduced for web ones. Here's the original he sent me: http://piggo.com/~troy/images/ausphoto/IMG_9434.JPG My edit: http://piggo.com/~troy/images/ausphoto/IMG_9434-full.jpg Some crops I tried: http://piggo.com/~troy/images/ausphoto/IMG_9434-pano.jpg http://piggo.com/~troy/images/ausphoto/IMG_9434-crop1.jpg http://piggo.com/~troy/images/ausphoto/IMG_9434-crop2.jpg What do you think of the edit? Ok? Change anything? SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. > Here's the original he sent me: > http://piggo.com/~troy/images/ausphoto/IMG_9434.JPG [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What do you think of the edit? Ok? Change anything? crop2 has an enhanced feeling of intimacy for me. The horizon is level but the back of the seat isn't quite - worth a touch of perspective correction? I'd love to see a shot from a foot higher POV. That would stop the huts shooting out of their heads, and would show what the disembodied glass is standing on. Better with the glass cloned out? The way his hand fits behind that cushion makes it look at a glance like he has his hand down her top. Sorry, I didn't mean to turn this into a nit-pick of the raw material. :-) >> Here's the original he sent me: >> http://piggo.com/~troy/images/ausphoto/IMG_9434.JPG [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > crop2 has an enhanced feeling of intimacy for me. Yeah, I thought so too. That's why I did that crop. But maybe it will make enlarging even more of an issue... > The horizon is level but the back of the seat isn't quite - worth a touch of > perspective correction? Good point. Will look at that. > I'd love to see a shot from a foot higher POV. That would stop the huts > shooting out of their heads, and would show what the disembodied glass is > standing on. Better with the glass cloned out? I'll ask him if he likes it or wants it gone. I kind of liked it - adds to the relaxed island feel maybe? > The way his hand fits behind that cushion makes it look at a glance like he > has his hand down her top. Sorry, I didn't mean to turn this into a nit-pick > of the raw material. :-) :) Well they /were/ on their honeymoon! :D Thanks for the comments Wilba! SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. >>> Here's the original he sent me: >>> http://piggo.com/~troy/images/ausphoto/IMG_9434.JPG [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I'll ask him if he likes it or wants it gone. I kind of liked it > - adds to the relaxed island feel maybe? Sure. I'm a minimalist - can't help it. :-) >> The way his hand fits behind that cushion makes it look at a glance like >> he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > :) Well they /were/ on their honeymoon! :D Ah, OK, in that case, make the cushion and her top the same colour. :-D > Thanks for the comments Wilba! No worries. |>> Here's the original he sent me: |>> http://piggo.com/~troy/images/ausphoto/IMG_9434.JPG Hate to be the one to pour cold water on this but no one bothered to point it out before... Mounting canvas 1 meter wide requires you to sacrifice up 70 mm of image on each side if it's going to be displayed like most canvas prints are, wrapped around the edge, 3D style. You'll need to lift the shadows too, unless you like painted on hair. Enlarge the image at your own peril. Professional print centers have much better software for interpolation than Photoshop. Put your faith in the printer. Try Office Works or Rabbit to see how bad it can look then go to a pro who specializes in art reproduction. Send the original image with instructions lest you damage it during editing and get less than satisfactory results... If you are going to shell out $350 you might as well maximize the chance of getting ultimate quality back. Or... Do what you want with it and pay $200 at Rabbit or Kmart. They last a couple of years before the moths get them. - -- from Douglas, If my PGP key is missing, the post is a forgery. Ignore it. > >> My brother has taken a photo (timer and tripod) while on his > >> honeymoon recently. He really likes it and is intending to get [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Sorry Troy, I can't give tips on certain Photoshop techniques, but if it's ok with you I'd like to give my opinion. This one is the best IMHO: http://piggo.com/~troy/images/ausphoto/IMG_9434-crop2.jpg As Wilba said, it has a more intimate feeling to it. Now, I've heard you can remove things from a pic in PS. If this is possible, I would remove one of the huts in the distance. The one just above her head and his eye. It's not really distracting, but if it could be removed the pic would be better. I wouldn't crop the bench out, as it adds to the story. It really is a lovely pic. Congrats to your brother and new sister-in-law! Helen > [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 40 lines snipped |=---] >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sorry Troy, I can't give tips on certain Photoshop techniques, but if > it's ok with you I'd like to give my opinion. Always appreciated :) > This one is the best IMHO: http://piggo.com/~troy/images/ausphoto/IMG_9434-crop2.jpg > As Wilba said, it has a more intimate feeling to it. Now, I've heard > you can remove things from a pic in PS. If this is possible, I would > remove one of the huts in the distance. The one just above her head > and his eye. It's not really distracting, but if it could be removed > the pic would be better. Clone out the huts? They're a feature of Maldives! :) Just kidding. I can see what you mean, and agree it'd look better without that one. > I wouldn't crop the bench out, as it adds to > the story. It really is a lovely pic. Congrats to your brother and > new sister-in-law! > Helen Thanks very much Helen. SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. > > [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 40 lines snipped |=---] > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Troy Piggins > I always appreciate critique. That's what it's called, cloning. No not all of them! That's a great feature. Just the one, but like I said, it's not distracting. I just thought it would look better without it near your brother's face. > [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 27 lines snipped |=---] >> > I wouldn't crop the bench out, as it adds to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Thanks very much Helen. If I had my way I'd plonk a hut right on my brother's face :) Jokes... I'm so funny. SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. > > [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 27 lines snipped |=---] > >> > I wouldn't crop the bench out, as it adds to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Troy Piggins > I always appreciate critique. LOL! Hey, don't feel bad! There are many times I feel like doing the same thing to my big brother! >>> My brother has taken a photo (timer and tripod) while on his >>> honeymoon recently. He really likes it and is intending to get [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > What do you think of the edit? Ok? Change anything? I suppose you could try enlarging a small cropped part of the image and printing it out yourself to see what effect it may have. I'm no expert , but I might be inclined to do something with the sky, not sure what though, maybe increase the contrast slightly and give it a slight blue cast. Great pic and should look good on a canvas :) SignatureRobert > [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 43 lines snipped |=---] >> Some crops I tried: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Great pic and should look good on a canvas :) Yeah, shame about the clouds. Thanks for the feedback. SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. > My brother has taken a photo (timer and tripod) while on his > honeymoon recently. He really likes it and is intending to get [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Any other recommendations? If the pictures are good you have more than enough pixels. I have made some really good 30"X40" prints on canvas for 4MP files from a Cannon 410 elf. (all I had available at the moment) First you need good pictures. Then clean them up using a good photo editor (Photoshop Elements or CS3 recommended). When you are happy with the print send email them to a firm like EZPrints http://ezprints.mye-pix.com/ezdirect/products.asp Remember canvas works best with large objects and bold colors. Also, don't worry too much about grain, large prints are meant to be viewed from some distance. >> My brother has taken a photo (timer and tripod) while on his >> honeymoon recently. He really likes it and is intending to get [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > First you need good pictures. Then clean them up using a good photo editor > (Photoshop Elements or CS3 recommended). By "clean them up" - do you enlarge them in CS3? Or just leave them at their original size and do your "normal" post-processing? > When you are happy with the print send email them to a firm like EZPrints > http://ezprints.mye-pix.com/ezdirect/products.asp > Remember canvas works best with large objects and bold colors. > Also, don't worry too much about grain, large prints are meant to be viewed > from some distance. Thanks mate. I'm in Australia, but I get your point. I think :) SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. > My brother has taken a photo (timer and tripod) while on his > honeymoon recently. He really likes it and is intending to get [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Any other recommendations? I like it, but I would do some adjustment, shadows/highlights and saturation http://rudybenner.com/utility/IMG_9434_copy.jpg >> My brother has taken a photo (timer and tripod) while on his >> honeymoon recently. He really likes it and is intending to get [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > http://rudybenner.com/utility/IMG_9434_copy.jpg Thanks Rudy! SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. Michael Reichmann has a video tutorial with Jeff Schewe ("From Camera to Print") that has an entire chapter devoted to resolution questions like you are asking. Here are some points made in that video: Upressing to 200% usually is not a problem. With a good capture (tripod, good lens, etc.) 400% is possible. If you upres in CS3 then use "Bicubic Smoother." However, the real key in upressing files is to properly sharpen them. The best tool for this is Photokit Sharpener (I can vouch for this one). Viewing distance determines the needed resolution. At viewing distances over 24" 180ppi is sufficient. The "normal" viewing distance is twice the diameter of the pic. For the photo you mentioned I would probably upres to 200%, preferably in Camera Raw. Then I would sharpen to taste. > Michael Reichmann has a video tutorial with Jeff Schewe ("From > Camera to Print") that has an entire chapter devoted to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > For the photo you mentioned I would probably upres to 200%, > preferably in Camera Raw. Then I would sharpen to taste. Thanks Brett. I'll search into that. Unfortunately he doesn't use RAW - only got that original JPG. I try to tell him... SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. > > For the photo you mentioned I would probably upres to 200%, > > preferably in Camera Raw. Then I would sharpen to taste. > > Thanks Brett. I'll search into that. Unfortunately he doesn't > use RAW - only got that original JPG. I try to tell him... One good thing about Camera RAW is that you can even use it to process JPG files. It's a lot easier to do it that way than in CS3 because you are doing a lot of things in just one step. Watch this clip: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/CR01_samplevid.shtml I like it. Of course you can post process it hundreds of ways to enhance it, but it is quite possible that they like it as it is, because of the memory. As for the size, it depends on how far the viewer is going to be looking at it from. The further back, the more you will get away with. > My brother has taken a photo (timer and tripod) while on his > honeymoon recently. He really likes it and is intending to get [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Any other recommendations? >> My brother has taken a photo (timer and tripod) while on his >> honeymoon recently. He really likes it and is intending to >> get it enlarged and printed on canvas or something. I really >> like it too, it's pretty bloody good. <snip /> >> Any other recommendations? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > be looking at it from. The further back, the more you will get > away with. Thanks for the comments. SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. > I've had a bit of an edit of it. It's 3504x2336px full size, the > crops are smaller obviously. > I understand that photo quality prints are around 300ppi, That's for 4x6 (where you get up close to see every detail) and other formats where you want to get *really* close up. Posters usually work out well at 150dpi --- many printers (posters are printed, not exposed (e.g. by a laser) and chemically developed) can't do more.[1] Canvas has a surface structure. That structure also limits how close you can come to the canvas and expect additional details. > But I think he really wants this thing blown up, like 1 metre > wide or something. I'm concerned it may come out pixelated or > something. > Will it? 3000 pixels at 1 metre work out to 3 pixel/mm, or ~76 dpi. A 20/20 vision resolves reliably 1 arc minute (of black-white contrast), or 3 pixel/mm from 1 metre distance. For something to look pixelated, you need to be able to: - see individual pixels as an area - see a border where a change happens between individual pixels. Neither is given at 1 metre and 20/20 vision. At 20-30cm you might see pixelation if the printer uses a nearest neighbour interpolation (which I'd consider incompetent) and you have hard contrasts between pixels; with smoother interpolations (say, bicubic) you may notice some hard contrasts looking slightly blurry, but shouldn't notice pixelation. If you get much closer, the structure of the canvas will take over, limiting resolution and giving the eye 'grip' even on otherwise featureless areas, giving a stronger impression of sharpness (you can also see that phenomenon with (artificial) film grain). So, no, I'd not be overly concerned. > If so, can I scale the image up and do something so that it > doesn't print pixelated? Maybe blur it slightly to take out > pixelation? If you need to, ask the printer for the exact pixel size he'll use, then upscale on your own and check on 100% view. I'd assume the printer knew his tools and thus did the upscaling and sharpening exactly as needed to get the best out of *his* medium, while I'd not know. -Wolfgang [1] Printers may deliver very high dpi. But even the most expensive ones only have a handful of colour shades (e.g. black, photo-black, gray, light-gray, cyan, light-cyan, magenta, light-magenta, yellow). So they have to dither to get all the shades a photo has. Thus even 16x16 (==256) dpi may give just 1x1 ppi ... >> I've had a bit of an edit of it. It's 3504x2336px full size, the >> crops are smaller obviously. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > dither to get all the shades a photo has. Thus even 16x16 > (==256) dpi may give just 1x1 ppi ... Thanks for the very detailed explanation Wolfgang. I'll file all that for future reference :) SignatureTroy Piggins I always appreciate critique. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.