Steve52
addict
Reged: 08/04/2007
Posts: 673
Loc: Dawlish, Devon, UK
|
|
I'm thinking of printing one of my pictures to hang on the wall at home. I'm looking at something like 36" x 30" (approx).
I'm assuming I will need the services of a printers to do this (my printer only goes to A3) Will it need to be the original (i.e. no cropping, post processing, etc) or can I get away with the post processed (approx 100k)?
The picture was taken using Sony Alpha A100 10.2MP on Fine setting.
--------------------
FRIPN. Nostalgia just isn't what it used to be.
|
john_g
Pooh-bah Hoo-ha
Reged: 09/05/2007
Posts: 2204
Loc: Surrey
|
|
Only 100K after processing? That doesn't sound right to me and I can't imagine there being enough information in a file that small to print that big.
--------------------
John
The best things in life are not things.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_gass
|
PhilW
Blue Peter Badge Winner
Reged: 14/03/2007
Posts: 893
Loc: Near Wakefield, Yorkshire
|
|
Why is the processed image so smal? Did you resize it?
If so re-process the original and save at best quality and full size.
--------------------
Phil Winterbourne
http://www.pbase.com/calis
|
Steve52
addict
Reged: 08/04/2007
Posts: 673
Loc: Dawlish, Devon, UK
|
|
Re-sized so as to post on here for either appraisal or exhibition (can't remember which).
--------------------
FRIPN. Nostalgia just isn't what it used to be.
|
Donkey
enthusiast
Reged: 31/05/2007
Posts: 201
Loc: Northants
|
|
You need to find the original image as i doubt you'll get anyone to attempt to print from a 100k to a 36" x 30" print and if they did you wouldn't be best pleased with the result !!
|
Overread
addict
Reged: 17/01/2008
Posts: 578
Loc: UK; Suffolk
|
|
agreed - fine the original photo and then edit that with any editing you feel you need to and save it (to a different name under save as - so you keep a copy of the original - copy and paste the original into a different folder if you worry about hitting save instead of save as) then take that.
I think some places might offer or do their own post processing so if you can take a copy of both along with you - the one you edited would at least give them a guide as to how you intend the photo to look if they are going to use their own processing
--------------------
My photography blog
http://overread.wordpress.com
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 979
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
As others say 100k (presumably a file size of 100kb) is very small and is the sort of thing that might result from something like "save to web".
Assuming you can go back to source I suggest scaling up the picture to 300dpi for the finished size. The 10.2MP file will give about 75dpi straight from camera and while upscaling won't provide any more detail it will avoid jaggies. You could also print off a small piece at the desired enlargement to see whether it is going to be satisfactory.
Note others are going to descend on me like a ton (tonne  ) of bricks saying they have never seen jaggies or 75dpi is fine because of the distance you will view from but is it worth the chance when you are spending £20-£30?
|
donny
journeyman
Reged: 09/06/2005
Posts: 75
|
|
Peak Imaging quote a file size of 159.5Mb at 254ppi for a print size of 36in x 24in.They do not as far as I know do any file processing, you have to give them the file as a TIF or a JPEG at the given size.I use Genuine Fractals to enlarge the file from my D80 and am delighted with the sizes above for £32.
Don
|
Steve52
addict
Reged: 08/04/2007
Posts: 673
Loc: Dawlish, Devon, UK
|
|
Quote:
scaling up the picture to 300dpi
Can I upsize to that amount using CS, Irfanview, Picasa2 or should I invest, as Donny said, in a programe like Genuine Fractals?
The original file size is 3872 x 2592 pixels and 72dpi (X & Y resolution).
--------------------
FRIPN. Nostalgia just isn't what it used to be.
|
donny
journeyman
Reged: 09/06/2005
Posts: 75
|
|
I believe that the recommended method in CS is to expand the file in Image Size- Bicubic Interpolation - and to increase the file size gradually by 5% or so at a time.
I don't know how good a result you would get but there are people on the forum who will be able to tell you.
Don
|
Norman
Reged: 23/09/2004
Posts: 1547
Loc: West London, UK
|
|
Your image of 3872 x 2592 pixels printed to 36" wide would give you about 107 pixels per inch. As you won't be viewing this as close as a 6X4 or 10X8 you probably don't need 300dpi. I would suggest that you send them a full size image (don't worry about the dpi that's reported) and let them do the up-sizing. The 72dpi that is shown is only a flag to tell the printer how large to print the image it has no bearing on the size of the image.
You can check this yourself by saving copies of the same image at 300dpi and 72dpi and you will find they are the same size in disk space and they display on screen the same size. It's only when you 'print with preview' in Photoshop or equivalent you will see how large the printer will make the image. You can override the default size and tell PS to print-to-fit or to any physical size you like.
--------------------
Regards,
Norman
www.photobox.org.uk
A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the start of a new argument.
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 979
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
This doesn't work on my computer unless you click on maintain picture size. Otherwise, if you increase the dpi the linear dimensions in pixels will increase in the same proportion.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
