Uprezzing? "Photo too small to print"

drcarl · June 28, 2012

Greetings,

I am shooting original art with a 6MP Canon D10, and want to make 24x30 prints through Bay.

Thing is, once I do a very slight bit of cropping, the pixel dimensions are below the minimum size for a 24x30 print and I get the "your photo too small to print" message

I just read the post here on the reasons to turn "resample image" off, then tried changing the print size 30." The dpi went down to 61.7 which sure seems too low.

I ordered a test 30" print, one that I had forced the pixel dimensions to meet the minimum requirement and found that the print was a bit soft. At that time I'm sure the "resample image" was on and I probably used bicubic smoother (best for enlargements), but I am not sure.

I'm sure someone has been down this road before. I want to be able to put one image into my gallery that works for the largest size possible (30x40) with the hope that everything smaller will print well from that same image.

Here are my clues:

6 MP camera
ISO 100 or 200
Camera's image quality at the highest setting
Native resolution 180 dpi
Color space: sRGB
after a very small amount of cropping, image size is 2.33 MB
Dimensions after a very slight crop: 1447x1851
Dimensions (for 24x30) needs to be: 1536x1920
Using Photoshop CS5 (Are there any settings here I should check?)

How do I best get to where I need to be while retaining quality for the client's prints?

Should I mess with the 180 dpi? set the crop to be 1536x1920? Both? Neither?

If I uprezz it so that 24x30 is supported, will all sizes smaller be OK?

I just read about increasing the size by 110% 5-7 times, and also saw that just dialing-in the needed pixel size with bicubic sharper enabled yielded the same results...

It sure seems to me that 6MP camera and CS5 buddied up with SM and Bay should be able to do what's needed.

I invite and eagerly await any and all wisdom, reflections and counsel here.

TIA

drcarl

Art Scott · June 28, 2012

my work flow that I have used since the beginning...6MP Konica Minolta 7D and 8mp Konica Minolta A2 .... bring image into Photoshop and go to image and image size...uncheck re-sample image and ONLY have the Constrain Proportions checked....change dpi to 300 ..... this should bring the image size to darn near 8x10......I have been using Genuine Fractals (now called Perfect Resize by OnOne software) since V3 and it was still owned by Lizard Tech (the developers of it) ....do all my processing except for sharpening ....open in Genuine Fractals and uprez to 20x30 or 40x60 ... ... return to Photoshop for sharpening using unsharp mask and send off to printer to be printed..........I prefer this method as I like a no viewing distance to view my images...if you allow the printer to uprez then things get grainy (or noisy) and you need to be a few feet to view the image and not see the grain.....I like to be able to scrutinize my images and be as close as possible if I want to.....others on here like letting Bay or their preferred printed do the uprezing....I don't...I want control of that .

Good Luck

arodney · June 29, 2012

Unless you are upsizing more than 300%, you don’t need anything exotic other than Photoshop. Start here:
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/software-technique/the-art-of-the-up-res.html?start=1

Depending on the output device, size and viewing distance, sending no less than 180ppi to the printer will be just fine.

drcarl · June 29, 2012

I sure do
Man, I sure love the internet. Thanks for the info.

Arodney, I'm thinking that 24x30 is considerably more than a 300% increase from native 6 MP, still, thanks for the link.

Art...that program looks very cool and addresses other issues like more easily conforming to standard photo sizes and creating an edge for canvas prints.

Thanks again

arodney · June 29, 2012

drcarl wrote: »

Arodney, I'm thinking that 24x30 is considerably more than a 300% increase from native 6 MP, still, thanks for the link

What are the pixel dimensions of the capture? You need 5400x3600 pixels to make a 20x30 at 180ppi. And if you have a raw, up sizing as you render from the raw converter will be helpful if possible (ACR and Lightroom can do this).

Art Scott · June 29, 2012

drcarl wrote: »

Man, I sure love the internet. Thanks for the info.

Arodney, I'm thinking that 24x30 is considerably more than a 300% increase from native 6 MP, still, thanks for the link.

Art...that program looks very cool and addresses other issues like more easily conforming to standard photo sizes and creating an edge for canvas prints.

Thanks again

Absolutely, my Pleasure.

drcarl · July 1, 2012

Here is some more data. I am posting this with a hope for more suggestions and for verification that I am on the right track. I have many more images to re-'handle' since I didn't do it right the first time.

Currently, my capture stats and workflow look like this:

6MP Canon 10D
3072x2048 pixels
17.067x11.378 inches document size
180 ppi resolution
2,872 KB (2.9 MB) original file size

Next, in PS/CS5 I change ppi to 300 with "resample image" UN-checked
I do cropping and color and other tweaks (not sharpening)
I open the image in Perfect Resize 7 (formerly Genuine Fractals)
I select document size>preset>photographic>24x30 (sharpening off) and "Apply"

Then I spend all day (OK, just one day once) reading the sharpening tutorial, and
perform USM tweaks for Threshold, Radius and Amount
save file - new stats:

7200x9000 pixels
24x30 inches document size
300 dpi resolution
35,496 KB (35 MB)

I read that the preferred dpi hinges on the output device. I suppose that means printer (or monitor). Epsom printers like one value and HPs like another. I wonder if they use one of these two brands at Bay Photo? (j/k) What I really DO wonder is what dpi they prefer. 240? 280? 300? I read that 300 dpi/ppi is an industry standard. True?

Some are concerned about upload times. I'm not. I don't care if it takes an hour an image. I have a pretty fast connection and just now tested my connection at 3.56 Mbps upload (and 21 Mbps d/l) speeds. Main thing for me is to get the correct image into the Smugmug gallery so that all products, including the 24x30, can be ordered from the same file. Of course I don't want to over-do it, for example, if 240 dpi/ppi is sufficient for the best possible output....that would make the 300 dpi/ppi unnecessary...

This particular collection is for an artist who will be ordering several sized prints (large, medium and small) and perhaps some merchandise as well. He'll sell his original works, a series of signed and numbered prints, and then regular prints and other gift store products. This is why I want to do it right in the first place. He may want a a few 16x20s one day, and then a 24x30 the next.

I am assuming (yet to be triple-verified) that if a file is 'good enough' to make a 24x30 print, it can be used for all smaller sizes.

What I do not know is if there is a flaw in my workflow. I also don't know what's the best dpi for Bay - not just acceptable, but best.

Although there are 80 images that I must "re-do", I am somewhat glad to do it (even though it will take me a few days), because after seeing some printed on the metallic paper (which OMG, rocks!) I do want to lighten my work up a bit (it's 100% acceptable "as-is", yet a bit dark when printed so I'll make 'em lighter this time).

I am also glad that when I open the SM gallery with the 175 works of his dad's similar original art collection, it appears that I am "good to go" to print up to a 24x30 or 24x36 - even though I used the native capture data (180 dpi, etc.), did not yet understand proper sharpening, and did not have Perfect Resize 7.

Comments? Criticisms? Suggestions? Verifications, please?

TIA

drcarl

Art Scott · July 2, 2012

it all looks good to me...but that is because that is my workflow pretty much......I do not worry about printers wanting a certain dpi as i know that at 300dpi my image should be what I want and that is a large image with no certain viewing distance needed.....it will look great at a couple of inches scrutiny or at 10 feet viewing distance...during my film shooting days i never shot film above 160 asa.....I tried 400 once and hated it ...my preferred film was 50 asa.....my fave B/W was the 32asa ... as i wanted as close to grainless images up to 16x20 or even 24x20 from 35mm ....

I will also do my uprez and sharpen then take a critical part of the image crop out and 8x10 of it and process at Walmart or whoever in town is the cheapes for an 8x10.....if this looks good then I am done and it can be sent for printing for the client.

drcarl · July 2, 2012

Art Scott wrote: »

it all looks good to me...take a critical part of the image crop out and 8x10 of it and process at Walmart or whoever

Nice - Thanks!!!

PS - give me the specific steps on getting the 8x10? (open the humongous file and....?)

arodney · July 2, 2012

drcarl wrote: »

Next, in PS/CS5 I change ppi to 300 with "resample image" UN-checked

Not really necessary. For one, all this does is allow Photoshop’s Image Size dialog to be an output size calculator based on those settings. But why 300? It is the pixels that make sense as digital images have no size (other than what they take up on disk). IF you are sure you are going to output to a device that requires 300ppi of data, then the setting you’ve applied is somewhat useful just so you can see how you can divide up the current number of pixels, 300 per inch, to this output device.

Problem is, you’re going to resample later. And if you only need 24x30 at 200, you’ve started out with the wrong assumption (300) and added, out of thin air, another 100 ppi you don’t need.

I select document size>preset>photographic>24x30 (sharpening off) and "Apply"

24x30 at what PPI? That’s key.

7200x9000 pixels
24x30 inches document size
300 dpi resolution

Again, you’ve created out of thin air, probably more pixels than you need. You end up with a bigger file with no benefit. IF you had 300ppi of real data, that be one thing. Do you think adding 100 extra ppi of made up data is helpful? It might but I doubt it.

Epsom printers like one value and HPs like another.

Actually not so (at least with Epson’s of which I know). You could just as easily tell the driver you want a 24x30, examine the output resolution of the original data and if it falls anywhere between 180 and 480, you would just send that data to the Epson driver. You let it resample to that size. Makes no difference if the output falls at 180, 181, 187, 203ppi or anything between that range of 180-480. Over 480 and you can actually degrade the quality a bit going to an Epson.

I wonder if they use one of these two brands at Bay Photo?

I’d ask! Because not only does this affect what I’ve described above, you need to properly output sharpen* the data and if they are using an Epson, you’ll sharpen differently than if they are using a Lambda, Lightjet or similar Contone printer.

I read that 300 dpi/ppi is an industry standard. True?

Absolutely not true. There is no such standard, certainly not until you define the output device.

*see http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html

drcarl · July 2, 2012

arodney wrote: »

Not really necessary. For one, all this does is allow Photoshop’s Image Size dialog to be an output size calculator based on those settings. But why 300? It is the pixels that make sense as digital images have no size (other than what they take up on disk). IF you are sure you are going to output to a device that requires 300ppi of data, then the setting you’ve applied is somewhat useful just so you can see how you can divide up the current number of pixels, 300 per inch, to this output device.

Just verified with Bay: they like 300 PPI

arodney wrote: »

Problem is, you’re going to resample later. And if you only need 24x30 at 200, you’ve started out with the wrong assumption (300) and added, out of thin air, another 100 ppi you don’t need.

Like money, I hate printing out of thin air - lol. I appreciate (and even asked about) not adding pixels unnecessarily, yet in reading (and now verified with Bay Photo), 300 dpi ~is~ what they prefer. Only a couple of days ago I had this crazy, uneducated idea that I could tweak a photo and be done with it -- regardless of whether printing would be at Bay or Costco or anywhere else!

If they want 300, and I give them 300, where does the "resample later" part happen?

arodney wrote: »

24x30 at what PPI? That’s key.

Well, the camera provided 180 PPI and one of my first steps was to make it 300 PI in Photoshop. When I opened the image in Perfect Resize, it was now already at 300 PPI (I wonder if I should have eliminated a step and gone from 180 to 300 from within Perfect Resize?), that's where I left it at 300 and made the document size change up to 24x30.

arodney wrote: »

Again, you’ve created out of thin air, probably more pixels than you need. You end up with a bigger file with no benefit. IF you had 300ppi of real data, that be one thing. Do you think adding 100 extra ppi of made up data is helpful? It might but I doubt it.

I have no clue if it's helpful to add 100 PPI; that's why I'm here. I think I understand what you are saying...kinda...no sense adding empty pixels (or even pixels that just share their naighbor's qualities? with no new or real additional data - especially if the image will be resampled later) Right or wrong, it sure seems like many others are doing that - adding the 100 or so. I just want to make it right.

arodney wrote: »

Actually not so (at least with Epson’s of which I know). You could just as easily tell the driver you want a 24x30, examine the output resolution of the original data and if it falls anywhere between 180 and 480, you would just send that data to the Epson driver. You let it resample to that size. Makes no difference if the output falls at 180, 181, 187, 203ppi or anything between that range of 180-480. Over 480 and you can actually degrade the quality a bit going to an Epson.

Interesting. Just for fun, I took the image I have been experimenting with and simply set new document size settings to 24x30 (resample off). The resolution dropped to 61 PPI. Remember that with this crop, from my little 6MP camera the document size is initially a mere 8"x10"...Smugmug (and Bay) would not accept it for printing (I don't think). More PPI would have to be generated somehow. This is what got me here in the first place; assuming that pixels don't just happen.

arodney wrote: »

I’d ask! Because not only does this affect what I’ve described above, you need to properly output sharpen* the data and if they are using an Epson, you’ll sharpen differently than if they are using a Lambda, Lightjet or similar Contone printer.

Agreed. It was Sunday and I was perhaps overly anxious in asking the experienced and knowledgeable folks here about that 300 number instead of waiting for Bay to open. A rep confirmed today that they like 300 PPI.

And, thank you very much for the link* about sharpening.
*see http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html

arodney wrote: »

Absolutely not true. There is no such standard, certainly not until you define the output device.

Some science/math, some art, some theory, some workflow practicality...It's amazing to me after reading a few articles how definite and authoritative some can be while expressing theories and sometimes debatable opinions. Lots to consider.

Thank you again for reflecting and commenting on this.