| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/23/2006 12:09:09 AM · #1 |
ok, so if say someone doesnt have the original image but has a 640 pixel version... is it possible to print an 8x10 with resonable quality from that?
what software would i use?
thanks,
-Dan |
|
|
|
09/23/2006 12:11:08 AM · #2 |
From 640 pix, is it possible? Yes.
Reasonable quality? Not a chance. |
|
|
|
09/23/2006 12:53:44 AM · #3 |
At 72 dpi that would be a hair under 9 inches, and would be adequate for "keepsake" quality but nowhere near photographic quality. That's without any upsizing, that's sticking to 640 pixels. You need an absolute minimum of 150 dpi printing to get semi-decent photographic reproduction. This would require upsizing the 640 to around 1500 pixels, more than doubling the linear number of pixels. That's quite a stretch.
In any case, try it yourself in PS by upsizing in 10% increments with "bicubic sharper" and possibly using neat image after to minimize the bad effects. You can do this with Photoshop's image/resize by just bumping it from 640 to 700, then 700 to 770, and so forth, 'til you get to 1500 pixels. You'll need to readjust the image (contrast, primarily, maybe saturation too) when you're done.
It won't be pretty but if you work hard you can get some semi-adequate results if the image is not going to be viewed critically by others; that is to say, it has "emotional" rather than "photographic" value to you or its intended recipient.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2006 02:42:53 AM · #4 |
| In upsizing try bicubic smoother as well. That's the algorithm usually recommended. Bicubic sharper is usually for downsizing images. |
|
|
|
09/23/2006 07:09:30 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
In upsizing try bicubic smoother as well. That's the algorithm usually recommended. Bicubic sharper is usually for downsizing images. |
Agreed that 'bicubic smoother' is the choice for upscaling images, but it is only available if you have Photoshop CS or CS2. No matter what, upscaling 640 pixel images will have disappointing results. The good news, though, is if you have CS2 you don't have to upscale at 10% increments. It does just as well in only one iteration as Photoshop PS7 and products like Fred Miranda's step interpolator do in increments. I'm anal and tested this very, very thoroughly. It is one of the better features incorporated into CS2 if you do your own printing.
Message edited by author 2006-09-23 07:09:57.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2006 10:23:48 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
In upsizing try bicubic smoother as well. That's the algorithm usually recommended. Bicubic sharper is usually for downsizing images. |
I could never remember which was which until someone told me that when you are choosing between bicubic smoother and bicubic sharper in Photoshop, pick the UPPER one if you are UP sizing and the LOWER one if you are DOWN sizing.
I am very glad to have Steve's confirmation that these options in Photoshop make it unnecessary to change the size in 10 percent steps. I had heard that but I didn't quite trust it.
The success in making an 8x10 print from a 640 pixel image depends a lot on the image itself. The result will be a "soft" image without sharp detail. If the photo is a portrait, this soft look might even enhance the image. But as our two landscape photographers have said, images that depend on sharp detail (like most landscapes) are going to look horrible.
--DanW |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/08/2026 02:19:11 AM EST.
