| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/03/2004 02:28:57 AM · #1 |
When I look at my profile there are many photos that I would like to print, but when I upload a large file it is not as sharp as the smaller 150 bite pictures that are not allowed to be bigger than 640 pixles. Is there a way to make prints look like the smaller versions? I just want my prints to have that crisp feel that all my portfolio images have. If you can help, please do. I'm sure there might be a few others that would like to know this also.
Clint
|
|
|
|
09/03/2004 09:04:45 AM · #2 |
| What print sizes are you thinking of? |
|
|
|
09/03/2004 10:24:55 AM · #3 |
| just a little bump! Would like to know as well. |
|
|
|
09/03/2004 10:45:58 AM · #4 |
When you say "make the prints look like the smaller versions" I suspect what's happening is a comparison of the image in your portfolio and the preview images of the print file.
Those previews are generated automatically by the website from your uploaded print file, and as such are resized/resampled without the individual attention you give your entry photos (e.g. I don't know if they're re-sharpened, or by how much). This is to make sure the prospective buyer sees an exact representation of the print (it can be edited differently than the entry on which it's based).
The print itself will look as good as the (hi-res) file you upload.
If that's not it, perhaps you can re-phrase the question. |
|
|
|
09/03/2004 01:01:56 PM · #5 |
I have pictures in my portfolio, they are all nice and sharp. I want my prints, that will be much larger than 640 in pixles, to be as sharp. I was just wondering if such a thing was possible. Because yes I always, when I submit to my portfolio, resharpen every picture. But when I try to resharpen one of the larger images that I want to print it does not look the same. I know they are millions more pixles that it is trying to "sharpen" when I'm doing it to the larger images. Just trying to make my prints look as good as the ones in my portfolio.
Clint
|
|
|
|
09/03/2004 02:35:11 PM · #6 |
Jack -- something that most people don't realize about Un-Sharp Masking is that it's resolution dependent. As you've noticed, the settings that make a 640-wide image look good leave a 2400-wide image looking soft.
USM works by comparing pixels, identifying areas of contrast, and enhancing the contrast in a localized area. The "Amount" field is how much contrast is boosted. The "Radius" field is how big is the localized area of contrast increase. The "Threshold" is how faint a level of contrast will be ignored.
The real "core" idea here is the radius: the number of pixels used to define an "edge" within the image is much higher on a hi-rez image, but the USM filter is still applying a small area of sharpening, or more likely, not even recognizing an area as having enough conrast TO sharpen.
Raising the threshold will leave smooth areas (i.e. skin tones) un-molested while sharpening actual edges. This is an ideal way to get (for example) crisp eyelashes without enhancing every single pore on the face of your model.
I'd suggest opening a decent photo and doing a series of test/undo/test/undo experiments varying only one field at a time. You'lll be surprised how much customizing USM will improve the results.
One thing that seems to be a common "Brown Ribon Territory" misconception is that USM will fix an OOF picture. It won't.
a |
|
|
|
09/03/2004 05:03:00 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by alanbataar:
Jack -- something that most people don't realize about Un-Sharp Masking is that it's resolution dependent. |
It's not exactly "resolution" dependent so much as it is dependent on the total number of pixels available (kinda the same thing if you keep the physical dimensions the same). Mostly that's a very good explanation though.
As an example, the image of a rope in a 640 pixel image may be 3-4 pixels thick. In a large (hi-res) print image, that same rope maybe made up of 15-20 pixels, giving the USM filter much more material with which to work.
For DPC entry sized images, I usually use a diameter setting of 0.6 - 0.8 pixels, for print images (say 1200 x 1800 pixels) I use something more like 1.3 - 1.6 for the diameter. Sometimes I will run the USM filter twice with "lighter" settings ...
I have some sharpening examples in this pBase gallery.
Message edited by author 2004-09-03 17:04:11. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 05:08:31 PM EDT.
