Betsy Hern
(K=12872) - Comment Date 4/29/2003
|
Here's a website with some good info on print sizes with a digital camera:
http://craiggoldwyn.com/links/resolution.html
|
|
|
|
Mark Beltran
(K=32612) - Comment Date 4/29/2003
|
Marcos, what I do know is that 3.2 megapixels will make acceptable 8x10" prints according to popular knowledge.
And there is that "200 Rule." For example, if you know your image is 1600 x 2000 pixels, divide each number by 200 to get the dimensions in inches= 8x10" So, your image that has
2560x1760 pixels would print well in a size 13x9"
|
|
|
|
Uncle Frank
(K=1642) - Comment Date 4/29/2003
|
Yes, resizing can allow you to make larger prints. In fact, the "200 Rule" that M. Beltran described changes to a lower number as you make larger prints, because they aren't viewed from as close a distance. The key, though, is what method you use to upsize your files. If you use Photoshop's bicubic interpolation, try resizing in small steps of no more than 10% increase. It takes longer, but you'll get better results.
|
|
|
|
Marcos Santos
(K=1) - Comment Date 4/30/2003
|
thnaks for all the answers..
And Uncle Frank, wich would be the best method to use in photoshop to resize an image.
bicubic bilinear or nearest...
At least at the monitor,I didn?t noticed any loss in quality, I resized a 8X6 image to a 30X20,and it looked good to me at the monitor. I?ll send it to the lab to see how it fits on paper...
|
|
|
|
Uncle Frank
(K=1642) - Comment Date 4/30/2003
|
I use bicubic interpolation, and have heard it described as the best of Photoshop's methods.
Note that what you see on the monitor is not representative of what you'll get in a print, unless you're looking at "actual pixel" size. Make a few prints, and let us know how it turns out.
Regards, Frank
|
|
|
|
Melissa Milligan
(K=549) - Comment Date 4/30/2003
|
Actually, I've read and heard that 'stair' interpolation is actually better than bicubic, but probably only noticeable on large prints.
in PS, click on edit>image, and then type in 112% in resize. Click ok. Do it again, and again, until you get the size you want. I wish I could remember the why's and wherefore's of doing it one 112% at a time. Any digital Mr. Wizards out there who know?
If memory serves, Fred Miranda has an action for stair interpolation for both Canon and Nikon D-series digital cameras. www.fredmiranda.com
|
|
|
|
Melissa Milligan
(K=549) - Comment Date 4/30/2003
|
Also, you can try LizardTech's Genuine Fractals software (~$130 I think, pricey but good.) Pretty sure they can make a 8x10 out of a 72dpi image. Never tried it, but that's their selling point.
Come to think of it, I AM gonna try that...I have a 72dpi image I'd love to blow up. I'll let you know how it works through GF!
|
|
|
|
Melissa Milligan
(K=549) - Comment Date 4/30/2003
|
Ok, I just took a 1600x1200 72dpi image and resized it to 3000x2250, 300dpi (8x10) - through Genuine Fractals.
I then took the same file and resized it the same dimensions, etc., using Photoshop's bicubic.
I compared the two, and I have to tell you, on close (100%) inspection of the photo - at least on the monitor - there is no discernable difference!
I plan on investigating this further...if I find anything that changes my opinion (that bicubic is as good!) I'll let you know.
For now - I'm glad I usually just use bicubic for my small enlargements. I was beginning to think I should go back and run them all through GF.
I'd better stop smoking LizardTech's marketing dope.
|
|
|
|
Melissa Milligan
(K=549) - Comment Date 4/30/2003
|
MARCOS - can't you save as a RAW or TIFF file? 72dpi is usually too small for anything you'd want to print. It's generally just used for the web. If you can save a TIFF in 8 or 16 bit you'd be better off. You may get less on the card, but you'll be able to print and frame the ones you love.
Don't feel too bad - my nephew just went to Costa Rica and took a bunch of shots. All gorgeous, all 72dpi, none printable. I tried to explain how to save them before he left, but he's 23 and was too excited about the trip to listen. Maybe next time he'll save in a better resolution. :-(
|
|
|
|
Marcos Santos
(K=1) - Comment Date 5/1/2003
|
Thanks for the help Melissa...
In FAct I Use Sony F717,and it Uses Memory Stick, I only Have a stick of 128MB,and It fits only 7 pictures in TIFF format,and it's not the worst, the camera takes a LONG time to record a TIFF file. And I intend to use it at studio Photo sections,and I have to take 70 pictures(it's possible with the best quality in Jpeg,maximum resolution),I know I have to buy more memory,but here in Brasil, the price of these imported gadgets rocks...
So,I have already sent to the lab some photos taken by this camera to be printed in 8X6,I think It will be good(It seems great when I printed in Glossy paper on my HP printer).
But My doubt is for something really big. I told that I couldn't see any loss in quality on the monitor,after enlargin the file(actual pixels of course). I'll have to make this kind of job, And I don't know if someone could see the diference from Digital to film(same picture), I'll make such test and will let you know...
Thanks...
|
|
|
|
Marcos Santos
(K=1) - Comment Date 5/1/2003
|
PS: take a look at my portfolio
All pictures were taken with my new Sony at my studio...
|
|
|
|
Theresa Long
(K=30) - Comment Date 5/12/2003
|
All formulas aside, I can tell you that a 4 Megapixal camera will print a beautiful 12 x 16 print with no decernable loss of quality. I use the highest quality setting of 2288 x1712 and use Jpg format. My equipment consists of a Canon S9000 printer and an Olympus C4000 camera (4MP).
|
|
|
|
Frank Hettick
(K=119) - Comment Date 5/12/2003
|
Hi all - for those of you that have seen some of my pics in my usefilm.com portfolio - I shoot at the compressed jpeg function on my Olympus E10. This results in a jpeg file of 2240 x 1680 (about 2.37 mega-pixels in the camera).
Then I download the shot to my computer and sve it on my HD as a tif file (about 11-12 MB in my computer memory). Since it is the first conversion there is no loss going from the (first) jpeg format to tiff for storage on the hard drive.
Then just before I am ready to print I resample (in Corel PhotoPaint 9) the tif file UP (not down) to 5320 x 3640 pixels (resulting in a 50-60 MB file size and an image size of monitor size of around 50 x 80 inches at 100% on the screen), put a bit more contrast in, and a touch of "unsharp mask" to give the appearance of more detail.
I print it 13 x 19 inches at 1440 ppi on an Epson 2200 and it has so much detail that you can look at it all day with a loupe and still not see it all.
Epson recommends setting the print resolution at a max of 280 dpi and that is what I have done.
Right or wrong - this is not theory but everyday printing and I use this exact approach for my limited edition prints which sell for $45 apiece and some customers have bought up to as many as nine of my pics - so I guess the customer (who really is the final expert) is satisfied with the colors, detail, shadow-content, etc.
And I defy anyone to find any less detail in one of these than you would find in a National Geographic picture (and my pics are printed about 4 times as large).
|
|
|
|
