Pic and Large Print Question

wolf911

Soft Light by Photos by KJS, on Flickr

Pic of my youngest daughter using a DIY softbox and beauty dish for fill.

How do you guys process and order large prints? I want to do this in a 16x20. Is it best that I crop it in photoshop 16x20 by 300 or just edit the original raw size and upload the jpg and crop it the basket? Normally I crop everything myself than upload, but haven't worked with anything over 11x14. Cropping it out in PS to 16x20 by 300 makes the file dimensions larger than the original raw dimensions. The 350D is 8 MP btw.

zoomer

16x20 to 300, with the jpeg.
That is how I do it. Works fine.
Nice photo of a very cute young lady.

wolf911

Thanks for the reply and info. I will give it a shot.

Hackbone

Try cropping it to 16x20 but leave the pixel box blank.

briandelion

I agree with Hackbone's solution. To understand it from "under the hood" at least how I learned it in PS, if you open the Image Size dialogue box uncheck the "Resample Image" box at the bottom. With that box unchecked you won't have access to Pixel Dimensions so you won't be interpolating (forcing it bigger than its original pixel dimensions). Whatever changes you make to height and width will change your pixels per inch. The bigger the image, the smaller the ppi. Ideally if it doesn't go below 240 you're golden, but with bigger sizes you can go lower and still get away with it. Remember, with a bigger image people normally view it from further away. I have a picture I took 10 yrs ago with a 2 megapixel camera and printed it 8X10 and it looked fine. The pic you took of your daughter is beautiful by the way.

wolf911

Hackbone wrote: »

Try cropping it to 16x20 but leave the pixel box blank.

hmmmmmmm

briandelion wrote: »

I agree with Hackbone's solution. To understand it from "under the hood" at least how I learned it in PS, if you open the Image Size dialogue box uncheck the "Resample Image" box at the bottom. With that box unchecked you won't have access to Pixel Dimensions so you won't be interpolating (forcing it bigger than its original pixel dimensions). Whatever changes you make to height and width will change your pixels per inch. The bigger the image, the smaller the ppi. Ideally if it doesn't go below 240 you're golden, but with bigger sizes you can go lower and still get away with it. Remember, with a bigger image people normally view it from further away. I have a picture I took 10 yrs ago with a 2 megapixel camera and printed it 8X10 and it looked fine. The pic you took of your daughter is beautiful by the way.

Thanks for comment, I will have to investigate that Resample Image when I get home. I noticed if I don't put in pixel box 300 and leave it blank, it crops and dpi ends up like 160. So I put in the 300 and dimension increases and brings the noise in at 100%, but I can clean that up. I will for sure look into that Resample tho.

thanks everyone

briandelion

OK, get this. I just came across a Scott Kelby solution which he says contradicts everything he's always followed when it comes to resizing (which is what I've just explained). This is for a 24x36" enlargement he's using as an example.

Here's the trick: Go to Image>Image Size. Make sure all 3 boxes are checked which include "resample." Type in one of the documents size dimensions (the other will change automatically since you also have constrain proportions checked). Now change your resolution to 360 ppi (weird but that's what he says) Lastly and most important, instead of using the default sampling method of bicubic smoother choose "bicubic sharper."

I have never attempted this but Scott Kelby is one of the gurus of PS so it's worth a try.

Let me know how it works if you try it.

wolf911

Original file dimensions are 3456x2304 when it comes into PS, doing the Kelby method makes it 7200x5760 for a 16x20. At 100% it don't look the greatest, some grain. Some noiseware takes it away tho. I assume it will print fine tho, the looks at 100% thing gets me a bit worried all the time.

jdorseydesign

Is it wrong that I just do a different crop/aspect ratio in Lightroom, upload it to smugmug and then print it? I don't do any of this complicated stuff. I've gotten good results at 16x20.

zoomer

I use bicubic sharper at 300. Does the trick. I got this from the Scott Kelby info a few years ago.

wolf911

jdorseydesign wrote: »

Is it wrong that I just do a different crop/aspect ratio in Lightroom, upload it to smugmug and then print it? I don't do any of this complicated stuff. I've gotten good results at 16x20.

Not wrong, I'm not a 100% sure how to do it best. I like to have the finished product on my monitor and expect that to arrive in the mail and not have to worry about is it cropped right or other issues from the crop.

zoomer wrote: »

I use bicubic sharper at 300. Does the trick. I got this from the Scott Kelby info a few years ago.

Sounds like that is the way to go.

NeilL

Re Kelby's method...

If you put in image dimensions greater than native you reduce resolution for the new dimensions. If you then increase resolution above what the resolution was, usually 300ppi, for the native dimensions, to 360ppi, you are instructing the resampling tool to "over-resample". Or so it seems to me. I am guessing that this results in smaller pixel size in the printed enlarged image than otherwise. Smaller pixel size in print is usually the result of downsizing, if native resolution is left unchanged. The opposite of enlarging. So in effect Kelby's enlarging method for comparatively small enlargement from native dimensions is equivalent to a relatively small downsizing, in terms of printed pixel size. Bicubic sharper is therefore the appropriate resampling choice. As Kelby found.

This is interesting, plus has a downloadable action by Jonathan Wienke 3/4 way down (disclaimer: I haven't tried it):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=24521

Neil

wolf911

NeilL wrote: »

Re Kelby's method...

If you put in image dimensions greater than native you reduce resolution for the new dimensions. If you then increase resolution above what the resolution was, usually 300ppi, for the native dimensions, to 360ppi, you are instructing the resampling tool to "over-resample". Or so it seems to me. I am guessing that this results in smaller pixel size in the printed enlarged image than otherwise. Smaller pixel size in print is usually the result of downsizing, if native resolution is left unchanged. The opposite of enlarging. So in effect Kelby's enlarging method for comparatively small enlargement from native dimensions is equivalent to a relatively small downsizing, in terms of printed pixel size. Bicubic sharper is therefore the appropriate resampling choice. As Kelby found.

This is interesting, plus has a downloadable action by Jonathan Wienke 3/4 way down (disclaimer: I haven't tried it):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=24521

Neil

hmmmmmmm, not getting that at all, adding noise? Resizing will already add noise. I can run noiseware and get rid of the noise on a 16x20. I don't get how the picture they used in that thread could print decent when it looks terrible after resizing.

NeilL

wolf911 wrote: »

hmmmmmmm, not getting that at all, adding noise? Resizing will already add noise. I can run noiseware and get rid of the noise on a 16x20. I don't get how the picture they used in that thread could print decent when it looks terrible after resizing.

My understanding is that when interpolation is operating to provide the extra pixels to meet the chosen ppi for the enlargement certain areas of the image are critical to an acceptable result, eg edges. The effects of aliasing at edges, and of haloing at edges which results from the sharpening applied in the enlarging process, need to be remedied for an acceptable result. A common way to treat these problems is by blurring edges, and added noise is one of the medicines. When preparing the image for enlargement it is recommended not to sharpen because obviously the noise native to the image is also sharpened, and it would be sharpened again in the enlargement process. It's also recommended that you sharpen again after enlarging.

Whether or not you should remove noise before sharpening, I don't know. Were there any instructions about preparing the image before running the action in that zip? My feeling is that any image you intended to enlarge would have noise within acceptable limits to start with and wouldn't need NR.

This seems to be an experimental area still. So get in for a chance of fame and fortune, and do some experiments!:D

I think the after image you are referring to is at 200%, and the enlargement would of course be viewed from a greater distance than the smaller sized original. It looks to me like an outstanding result in an image with both large featureless areas and areas with dense detail, and so lots of edges!

Neil

jeffreaux2

jdorseydesign wrote: »

Is it wrong that I just do a different crop/aspect ratio in Lightroom, upload it to smugmug and then print it? I don't do any of this complicated stuff. I've gotten good results at 16x20.

Ditto.... even larger

...and I highly recommend the water color paper as opposed to glossy, matte, or lustre.


...that is....unless you are going for canvas.


I upload my edited files in their original dimensions to smugmug. I do the cropping etc when I order. They always look great!!:D

NeilL

jeffreaux2 wrote: »

Ditto.... even larger

...and I highly recommend the water color paper as opposed to glossy, matte, or lustre.


...that is....unless you are going for canvas.


I upload my edited files in their original dimensions to smugmug. I do the cropping etc when I order. They always look great!!:D

Yes, I think the top commercial inkjets have a lot of control when dealing with resolution and enlarging of prints, so that you can leave all that to them.

Neil

wolf911

Thanks to all for the information and input. I feel more confident with my orders.