Upscaling for pros. Opinions? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

01/13/2006 01:35:20 PM · #1

Previously I haven't been too worried about my processing of pictures. I shoot in JPG, I use the free NI, I upscale in PS. The pictures were basically for my wall and nobody else and I was happy with the results.

I may be exploring options to sell my pics "for real". With that, I suddenly feel like my workflow is slipshod and reckless. As soon as I think others are going to get ahold of my art, I can get VERY anal and a real perfectionist.

So with all that, my current photos from the 300D are roughly 3000x2000. I think 16x24 is as large as I'll need, but at 300 DPI that represents 4800x7200 or a 60% enlargement. Is PS 7.0 up to this task for real? Do others recommend a third party program which is reasonably priced? I've heard that if you upscale in 10% increments you get a better result. Opinions?

Basically, I'm looking for guidance from the pros, being an amateur myself.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

01/13/2006 01:52:44 PM · #2

I've use the 10% increment method in PS 7 with bicubic. As long as the original image is of good quality you can safely increase the size by 1.5 and maybe double without losing quality. Remember, the larger the image, the further away it is intended to be viewed.

There are third party programs like Genuine Fractals that do a very good job but they have a price point similar to photoshop.

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

01/13/2006 01:55:30 PM · #3

Try use the native file and see what the professional RIP software that major printers use will do to it. A pro RIP for a $100,000 printer will beat photoshops interpolation everytime.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/13/2006 02:26:10 PM · #4

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Try use the native file and see what the professional RIP software that major printers use will do to it. A pro RIP for a $100,000 printer will beat photoshops interpolation everytime.

So Brent, if I'm hearing you, you are saying give them the 3000x2000 image and let them upscale themselves at the printshop?

Tom_Robbrecht

01/13/2006 02:30:05 PM · #5

Have you tried Genuine Fractals ?
Works for me.

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

01/13/2006 02:43:09 PM · #6

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Try use the native file and see what the professional RIP software that major printers use will do to it. A pro RIP for a $100,000 printer will beat photoshops interpolation everytime.

So Brent, if I'm hearing you, you are saying give them the 3000x2000 image and let them upscale themselves at the printshop?

DO that & upsample one in photoshop and see if there is a difference. I bet the native file looks better. I ran a test with the 1Ds, I upsampled in photoshop to a 30x30, then just plugged the native file into the RIP. The RIP blew it away at a much larger size.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/13/2006 02:48:40 PM · #7

Fred Miranda's Resize Pro works better than Genuine Fractals, according to many, at a fraction of the cost. I use it. Brent's correct about the potential of RIP, but as far as I know that's something only the professional printers use. I make my own prints up to 13x19 size and resize Pro makes a difference in my print quality.

R.

Message edited by author 2006-01-13 14:48:59.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

01/13/2006 02:54:56 PM · #8

i have recently discovered the camera raw in photoshop cs2 allows you to interpolate a RAW file (NEF in my case) at a higher megapixel resolution than its native size.

i can open my 6.1 megapixel files as 12.0 megapixel files, for instance.

i have only recently purchased CS2 (and only recently purchased enough RAM for me to use it...lol), so i haven't had time to compare this method to anything else, but theoretically it should be better than trying to upsize an already-rendered file.

i don't know much about RAW theory or anything, but i have a feeling that working with the native data would be better. i might try a couple of 100% crops this weekend to see the difference.

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

01/13/2006 05:48:56 PM · #9

Does RIP work in similar way to GF (which is what I use) but just better or a completely different way?
Just wondering.

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

01/13/2006 06:00:20 PM · #10

Originally posted by Kavey:

Does RIP work in similar way to GF (which is what I use) but just better or a completely different way?
Just wondering.

THe HIgh dollar RIP's are engineered for the printers that they are outputting too. SO they only interpolate the info the printer needs, or somehting like that. They are like GF on steroids.

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

01/13/2006 06:10:06 PM · #11

In a nutshell: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_Image_Processor

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

01/13/2006 06:13:17 PM · #12

Originally posted by orussell:

In a nutshell: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_Image_Processor

Wooshing sound above my head! ;o) But thanks for the link... perhaps this time of night is not best time for me to try and assimilate that!

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

01/13/2006 06:49:44 PM · #13

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I share your concerns and feel exactly the same way you do and agree with you that your workflow is slipshod for creating sellable prints. :)

Having just made 23 framed and signed prints for a gallery showing where I'm the "featured artist" and actually sold two so far and did most of printing from PS 7 I feel qualified to comment:

Here are my recommendations:

1-You can find or make your own PS7 action to incrementally upscale your images for large prints but I do not recommend it. And NEVER upscale with just a single pass. I recommend you buy one of the plug-ins that work with PS. They are faster, easier to use, do a better job and are not expensive. I use Fred Miranda's Scale Interpolator but there are probably other better ones.

2-Purchase the full version of NeatImage with the Photoshop plugin. It is about $70 but well worth it. The free version only allows you to work on .jpeg files which is a SERIOUS limitation if you ever want to sell prints and the plugin works seemlessly within PS and allows you to apply it to selected areas of the image. That is an invaluable aide.

3-My camera is only 5 megapixels and I can and do upscale to the size you want. You can do it with yours.

4-Develope a workflow process where you store your post-processed image as a .tif or .psd file and make prints or print files from that. They are lossless formats.

5-Just TODAY I put up a post about noise reduction for printing and how to deal with it.

It is here: Noise reduction and printing

mycelium

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/13/2006 06:51:04 PM · #14

this is just a math check, and pardon me if my figures are wrong-

I'm thinking about going from 3000x2000 to 4800x7200 -

3000x2000 = 6,000,000 pixels
4800x7200 = 34,560,000 pixels

-- this is a 576% enlargement, not a 160% enlargement, is it not?

[edit to spell 'me' correctly - heh]

Message edited by author 2006-01-13 18:51:31.

01/13/2006 07:14:56 PM · #15

Hmm, I was incorrect. However, I would consider it along an axis. 4800/2000 (I had done 4800/3000) is 240%. I'm not sure area (what you are using) is the right way to go about it.

01/17/2006 05:21:31 PM · #16

Got another question. Have people had good success with upscaling from the 300D to 30x24? How much of a difference would the XT provide? I know it's 25% more pixels, but perhaps that 25% makes all the difference in the world.

A gallery I'm working with want to make sure 30x24 can be done. More opinions from the pros would be great.

01/17/2006 06:09:50 PM · #17

Originally posted by muckpond:

This is the same thing I use. Tried it both ways, before editing in RAW and after edit in Photoshop and I seem to get cleaner images doing it before. This is what I use with all my Alamy submissions. All accepted so far... :)

01/17/2006 06:15:08 PM · #18

Originally posted by dahkota:

So dahkota, what resolution are your alamy pictures submitted in? width x height in pixels...

01/17/2006 06:28:50 PM · #19

typically 5100X3400 but could go up to 5300X3600. Starting from a 6MP camera.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

01/17/2006 06:36:36 PM · #20

Originally posted by dahkota:

typically 5100X3400 but could go up to 5300X3600. Starting from a 6MP camera.

And Alamy is willing to print 30x24 off of 5300x3600? That's roughly 150 dpi before they do any further upscaling. And did I catch you that you upscale the RAW when you open in CS2 and that's all?

hokie

Nikon D2X

01/17/2006 06:40:24 PM · #21

Brent is right.

Our RIP software for our lightjet (A $150,000 printer) is over $5,000.

We used to be a colorlab in the old days of film. We processed film files (still do) for advertisers and photographers going in every major magazine.

I guarantee..if you need a RIP and print for gallery or display, the guys I work with will make it perfect or you don't pay.

We can take a file like yours and make take it 4 foot x 5 foot and you will not tell it from a normal photo at 1 foot away!

My point. Keep your files clean and if you need a big print (meaning larger than say a 16 x 20) or the print is absolutely needed to blow the socks off somebody..send it to a company like us...don't blow the money on a RIP when you can get somebody like us to do it. We don't screw around.

I am just a sloppy sales guy...look how anal I am! Imagine me x 10 and that is our lab guys.

For your own use coming off an Epson 2400 or the like, just use photoshop as you have been told and you will get great prints.

Message edited by author 2006-01-17 18:42:03.

goc

Apple iPhone 4

01/17/2006 06:46:31 PM · #22

genuine fractals is a great tool for this ... i'm using it

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

01/17/2006 06:49:03 PM · #23

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:
typically 5100X3400 but could go up to 5300X3600. Starting from a 6MP camera.

And Alamy is willing to print 30x24 off of 5300x3600? That's roughly 150 dpi before they do any further upscaling. And did I catch you that you upscale the RAW when you open in CS2 and that's all?

I have no idea what alamy is willing to print it off of. I was simply responding and echoing Muckpond. To upsize my images, which I do for Alamy, I do it in RAW before processing rather than after. The images are cleaner. Simply another option for those wanting to upsize their image.

Here is a reduced to 640 original image:

And here is a major crop and edit of the same image:

Simply another method to upsize. I haven't had anything printed that largely for myself though someone ordered a 30X24 of one of my prints and I have heard no complaints.

hokie

Nikon D2X

01/17/2006 06:53:56 PM · #24

Originally posted by gooc:

genuine fractals is a great tool for this ... i'm using it

Question....Why are people upsizing before sending to a printer if you don't print bigger than 16 x 20 yourself?

Is it for these stock agencies?

If its because you don't trust the printer to rez-up you are using the wrong printer/lab.

We always tell the people (agencies, photogs etc) that they should leave the upsizing to us. Just give us the highest rez file from the original you have.

Just curious....

Message edited by author 2006-01-17 18:54:36.