| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/15/2010 04:14:10 PM · #1 |
Question For Upsizing.
I have many older images shot at 6 MP and I would like to get those up to 16x20 at 300 DPI. How would you recommend doing this? I read the threads I could find on DPC and it seems like there is a couple schools of thought.
1) Convert your image from Raw into a 16 bit tiff and edit, making no sharpening maneuvers. Then Upsize in photoshop using Bicubic Smoother to you final output. Do your sharpening at the end.
2) Use the Raw converter (ACR for me in CS4) and upsize at conversion.
3) Convert the image to 16 bit tiff from Raw, upsize, then edit when the image is at it's largest size.
4) Buy Genuine Fractals.
5) I also thought I remembered  Brad using a system where he upsized 10% using bicubic smoother, then downsized 5% using bicubic sharper. Making this an action he slowly upsized. Does anyone remember this?
Question for NoiseReduction.
Ummm, what do you guys use, how do you like it? lol. My old computer ran a demo version if NI and since I was mostly working on images for the web I would just size to 1024 on the longest edge and then run Meat image and size for DPC. Now I would like to get images clean at the large siz, so just wanted to see what DPC likes these days. Is the common answers, NeatImage and NoiseNinja still?
Thanks for any tips and advice.
Joe
|
|
|
|
01/15/2010 04:47:46 PM · #2 |
I can say one thing for certain... no need to buy Genuine Fractals. I know some folks swear by it, however there will be virtually no difference in the output vs. Ps "bicubic smoother" and you do risk introducing artifacts.
You're never going to create detail, so the idea is to get the smoothest possible transitions. I have had very good luck with up-sampling during conversion. You are going from about 3000px in the long direction to 6000px in the long direction, so you are very close to 2:1 linear up-sampling, that's a good thing, it makes interpolation cleaner.
You definitely want to do any re-sampling in 16-bit mode, and convert to 8-bit mode after all editing is done.
With regard to sharpening, if you do it after up-sampling, remember to use a larger radius than you otherwise would, and a lower amount. Be *very* careful not to introduce artifacts. Your final output should still be somewhat soft. If done prior to up-sampling, you want to use a very small radius (assuming the original files are quite sharp) and a high amount, but watch *very* carefully for halos. |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 04:57:53 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I can say one thing for certain... no need to buy Genuine Fractals. I know some folks swear by it, however there will be virtually no difference in the output vs. Ps "bicubic smoother" and you do risk introducing artifacts.
You're never going to create detail, so the idea is to get the smoothest possible transitions. I have had very good luck with up-sampling during conversion. You are going from about 3000px in the long direction to 6000px in the long direction, so you are very close to 2:1 linear up-sampling, that's a good thing, it makes interpolation cleaner.
You definitely want to do any re-sampling in 16-bit mode, and convert to 8-bit mode after all editing is done.
With regard to sharpening, if you do it after up-sampling, remember to use a larger radius than you otherwise would, and a lower amount. Be *very* careful not to introduce artifacts. Your final output should still be somewhat soft. If done prior to up-sampling, you want to use a very small radius (assuming the original files are quite sharp) and a high amount, but watch *very* carefully for halos. |
Thanks Fritz, I was just looking at an image I upsampled straight from Raw vs. converting and upsampled using bicubic smoother and can really tell the difference, but it seems having the Raw converter do it is best as a general rule?
Originally posted by kirbic:
With regard to sharpening, if you do it after up-sampling, remember to use a larger radius than you otherwise would, and a lower amount. Be *very* careful not to introduce artifacts. Your final output should still be somewhat soft. |
When you say your final output should be soft, do you mean for print? I thought I should look at the image at 50-100% and then sharpen to what I think looks correct. Is this not the best way about it? Thanks for your help, going from web size to 16x20 prints is totally new ground for me. :)
|
|
|
|
01/15/2010 05:38:26 PM · #4 |
I'll echo Fritz. I did a lot of research about this because most prints I sell are 16x24 or 24x30. If we are talking about CS2 or CS4, upscaling with Bicubic Smoother is every bit as good as genuine fractals.
I have wondered about upscaling in RAW, but have not done it. One downside is now every layer you work on is the large size and that is going to quickly bog even the best computer down when every layer is 350MB.
I generally work a picture over and save it as PSD before I resize. Then I can use that file to resize to any dimensions I want, apply sharpening after, and sell. I don't have to have 5 versions saved all in different dimensions. |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 05:47:33 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll echo Fritz. I did a lot of research about this because most prints I sell are 16x24 or 24x30. If we are talking about CS2 or CS4, upscaling with Bicubic Smoother is every bit as good as genuine fractals.
I have wondered about upscaling in RAW, but have not done it. One downside is now every layer you work on is the large size and that is going to quickly bog even the best computer down when every layer is 350MB.
I generally work a picture over and save it as PSD before I resize. Then I can use that file to resize to any dimensions I want, apply sharpening after, and sell. I don't have to have 5 versions saved all in different dimensions. |
Do you run any noise reduction? If so at what point? Sounds like bicubic smoother is what I will go with. But when I pixel peeped a raw converted image and upsized using bicubic smoother and using the ACR software to upsize the raw file, they look the same to me. Are you using custom icc profiles for prints from the get go? Right now I using Profoto, and once I decide on a printer will go back and tweak the image as necessary.
Message edited by author 2010-01-15 17:54:01.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2010 05:53:56 PM · #6 |
As I was reading your recommendations to use "Bicubic Smoother", I remembered another thread that quoted Scott Kelby:
Originally posted by JeffryZ:
From this thread
I haven't tried printing anything this way, but in Scott Kelby's Photoshop book (this one is on PS2 but should be the same on other photoshop versions) his suggestion for going a lot bigger (poster sized prints) he recommends:
1) Open photo- go to Image Size
2) enter the dimensions you want. If the ratio is not what you want, size it so that you will end up trimming off a bit on one side (say you wanted 24" x 36"- an uncropped image is not in this ratio)
3) He then sets the Resolution to 360 pixels per inch- more than the recommended 300 or even 270.
4) Then he does one more thing a bit different and uses a different "resample" option. Usually when you go larger you want "Bicubic Smoother" according to Adobe. Kelby says instead to use Bicubic Sharper.
He says it works as good as if not better than other plugins like Genuine Fractals. He credits this method to a friend of his named Vincent Versace who was doing 24x 36 prints from a six megapixel camera.
Again- I have not used this for printing anything large (since I have not printed anything larger so far) but worth a try. |
So now who do I believe? Has anybody actually tried both ways on the same image? |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 06:04:02 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll echo Fritz. I did a lot of research about this because most prints I sell are 16x24 or 24x30. If we are talking about CS2 or CS4, upscaling with Bicubic Smoother is every bit as good as genuine fractals.
I have wondered about upscaling in RAW, but have not done it. One downside is now every layer you work on is the large size and that is going to quickly bog even the best computer down when every layer is 350MB.
I generally work a picture over and save it as PSD before I resize. Then I can use that file to resize to any dimensions I want, apply sharpening after, and sell. I don't have to have 5 versions saved all in different dimensions. |
Do you run any noise reduction? If so at what point? Sounds like bicubic smoother is what I will go with. But when I pixel peeped a raw converted image and upsized using bicubic smoother and using the ACR software to upsize the raw file, they look the same to me. Are you using custom icc profiles for prints from the get go? Right now I using Profoto, and once I decide on a printer will go back and tweak the image as necessary. |
I do NI at the end of the process before I save the PSD. I do it this way primarily because I don't have a 16-bit version of NI.
I do not currently use a special color profile because the results I get with my printer guy are currently what I expect and so don't have color issues. |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 06:05:07 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
As I was reading your recommendations to use "Bicubic Smoother", I remembered another thread that quoted Scott Kelby:
Originally posted by JeffryZ:
From this thread
I haven't tried printing anything this way, but in Scott Kelby's Photoshop book (this one is on PS2 but should be the same on other photoshop versions) his suggestion for going a lot bigger (poster sized prints) he recommends:
1) Open photo- go to Image Size
2) enter the dimensions you want. If the ratio is not what you want, size it so that you will end up trimming off a bit on one side (say you wanted 24" x 36"- an uncropped image is not in this ratio)
3) He then sets the Resolution to 360 pixels per inch- more than the recommended 300 or even 270.
4) Then he does one more thing a bit different and uses a different "resample" option. Usually when you go larger you want "Bicubic Smoother" according to Adobe. Kelby says instead to use Bicubic Sharper.
He says it works as good as if not better than other plugins like Genuine Fractals. He credits this method to a friend of his named Vincent Versace who was doing 24x 36 prints from a six megapixel camera.
Again- I have not used this for printing anything large (since I have not printed anything larger so far) but worth a try. |
So now who do I believe? Has anybody actually tried both ways on the same image? |
I have seen a comparison of smoother and sharper and the conclusion was smoother for enlargements and sharper for shrinking. |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 08:00:36 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have seen a comparison of smoother and sharper and the conclusion was smoother for enlargements and sharper for shrinking. |
Aha.... I see... thanks :-) |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 08:41:00 PM · #10 |
| An all-in-one approach would be to try PhotoAcute software. It's gotten great reviews by actual users on other non-DPC forums. Quoting from their web site: "PhotoAcute software processes sets of photographs taken in continuous mode. It utilizes superresolution algorithms to convert a sequence of images into a single high-resolution and low-noise picture, that could only be taken with much better camera." Great for static subjects, the only hitch seems to be their requirement for a sequence of images taken in continuous mode. However, if your past shots are RAW images you could try feeding the software with different exposures of the same image. The software does require them to build camera/lens profiles for the software to work but I took a quick peek and all of your bodies and lenses are supported, except for the Tamron. Another big advantage to this software is RAW in, RAW out, so you'll still have the flexibility of editing RAW images after uprezzing with PhotoAcute. |
|
|
|
01/16/2010 04:39:14 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I generally work a picture over and save it as PSD before I resize. Then I can use that file to resize to any dimensions I want, apply sharpening after, and sell. I don't have to have 5 versions saved all in different dimensions. |
Please forgive my ignorance here, but, does this then mean that you are able to output say a 6 x 4, 5 x 7 and a 10 x 8 without having to recrop each time and loosing detail with each crop? |
|
|
|
01/16/2010 08:14:15 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Hifi:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I generally work a picture over and save it as PSD before I resize. Then I can use that file to resize to any dimensions I want, apply sharpening after, and sell. I don't have to have 5 versions saved all in different dimensions. |
Please forgive my ignorance here, but, does this then mean that you are able to output say a 6 x 4, 5 x 7 and a 10 x 8 without having to recrop each time and loosing detail with each crop? |
No. You'll still have to recrop for different print sizes. He has one file that he resizes, thus recropping, for printing. The sizes you noted are all different aspect ratios so you 'll need to recrop for them if you have one original file.
Informative thread, thanks for the tips everyone.
Message edited by author 2010-01-16 08:17:01. |
|
|
|
01/16/2010 08:24:33 AM · #13 |
| Thanks for the clarification |
|
|
|
01/16/2010 10:24:56 AM · #14 |
I had been a neat image guy for a long time, for noise reduction, but now I swear by Topaz DeNoise. You can try it for 30 days free and make up your own mind. It's REALLY good. My own experience with upsizing is that since CS3 (at least, I never used CS2) Bicubic Smoother works just fine. In the PS7 days, I used the step interpolation upsizing method sold by Fred Miranda, and it worked great, but Bicubic Smoother on the CS programs caught up to it. As of a few years ago, I didn't see any improvement over Fred Miranda's SI when I tried Genuine Fractals, so I'm sure bicubic smoother is still as good as GF.
R. |
|
|
|
01/16/2010 10:32:43 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I had been a neat image guy for a long time, for noise reduction, but now I swear by Topaz DeNoise. You can try it for 30 days free and make up your own mind. It's REALLY good. My own experience with upsizing is that since CS3 (at least, I never used CS2) Bicubic Smoother works just fine. In the PS7 days, I used the step interpolation upsizing method sold by Fred Miranda, and it worked great, but Bicubic Smoother on the CS programs caught up to it. As of a few years ago, I didn't see any improvement over Fred Miranda's SI when I tried Genuine Fractals, so I'm sure bicubic smoother is still as good as GF.
R. |
Robert I currently use NN, does topaz De-Noise allow the user to erase the effect selectively? |
|
|
|
01/16/2010 12:33:17 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Hifi:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I generally work a picture over and save it as PSD before I resize. Then I can use that file to resize to any dimensions I want, apply sharpening after, and sell. I don't have to have 5 versions saved all in different dimensions. |
Please forgive my ignorance here, but, does this then mean that you are able to output say a 6 x 4, 5 x 7 and a 10 x 8 without having to recrop each time and loosing detail with each crop? |
Jac said it right. I have a master file which is all done (except for sharpening) and I can crop to different sizes and aspect ratios. Sharpening is best done at the very end so I can resize to a 10x15 at 300 DPI and then sharpen. Then I can go back to the master file and resize to 16x24 at 300 DPI and sharpen. |
|
|
|
01/16/2010 08:07:36 PM · #17 |
I own Neat Image, but other than high ISO (say 800 and up) pics, I'm wondering if there's really a need to do noise reduction anymore?
I rarely do it. Especially printing.
What do you folks think?
|
|
|
|
01/17/2010 12:44:06 AM · #18 |
| I do way less noise reduction than I used to. These days I prefer a little noise for texture than a plastic smooth image. |
|
|
|
01/17/2010 01:16:50 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I had been a neat image guy for a long time, for noise reduction, but now I swear by Topaz DeNoise. You can try it for 30 days free and make up your own mind. It's REALLY good. My own experience with upsizing is that since CS3 (at least, I never used CS2) Bicubic Smoother works just fine. In the PS7 days, I used the step interpolation upsizing method sold by Fred Miranda, and it worked great, but Bicubic Smoother on the CS programs caught up to it. As of a few years ago, I didn't see any improvement over Fred Miranda's SI when I tried Genuine Fractals, so I'm sure bicubic smoother is still as good as GF.
R. |
Robert I currently use NN, does topaz De-Noise allow the user to erase the effect selectively? |
I just tried that out and you can. Just paint it away on a layer mask like you would with a filter, adjustment, etc. Download the 30 day trial and try it out for yourself. |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 06:05:56 PM · #20 |
I just use Photoshop to upsize my images. Never had a problem.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2010 06:31:28 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I own Neat Image, but other than high ISO (say 800 and up) pics, I'm wondering if there's really a need to do noise reduction anymore?
I rarely do it. Especially printing.
What do you folks think? |
Not really, no. Not with current-generation dSLR cams. The exception being, if you're working out on the limits of tone mapping, topaz, and the like, where the filters tend to treat what little noise there is as details and try to enhance it. So sometimes it's good tp DeNoise an image that's perfectly acceptable on its own before doing any extreme tweaking.
R. |
|
|
|
01/25/2010 06:32:33 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by alans_world:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I had been a neat image guy for a long time, for noise reduction, but now I swear by Topaz DeNoise. You can try it for 30 days free and make up your own mind. It's REALLY good. My own experience with upsizing is that since CS3 (at least, I never used CS2) Bicubic Smoother works just fine. In the PS7 days, I used the step interpolation upsizing method sold by Fred Miranda, and it worked great, but Bicubic Smoother on the CS programs caught up to it. As of a few years ago, I didn't see any improvement over Fred Miranda's SI when I tried Genuine Fractals, so I'm sure bicubic smoother is still as good as GF.
R. |
Robert I currently use NN, does topaz De-Noise allow the user to erase the effect selectively? |
I just tried that out and you can. Just paint it away on a layer mask like you would with a filter, adjustment, etc. Download the 30 day trial and try it out for yourself. |
Sorry I missed this Alan. O,lyuzi's got it right, works like a charm. Or you can make selections and just do the reduction on those areas.
R. |
|
