One last question about the guarantee

marlinspike

If I have a photo that has the resolution to make a 20x30 but I think that there is enough motion blur that it really shouldn't be printed larger than 8x12, can I simply recommend that it not be printed larger than 8x12 knowing that if a print larger than 8x12 is purchased and it ends up unsatisfactory the guarantee will cover it, or should I disable all sizes larger than that? I ask because what may be too much blur to me may not be too much to the purchaser, so I'd like to give them the option knowing that they'd be covered if it didn't come out good.

Andy

marlinspike wrote:

If I have a photo that has the resolution to make a 20x30 but I think that there is enough motion blur that it really shouldn't be printed larger than 8x12, can I simply recommend that it not be printed larger than 8x12 knowing that if a print larger than 8x12 is purchased and it ends up unsatisfactory the guarantee will cover it, or should I disable all sizes larger than that? I ask because what may be too much blur to me may not be too much to the purchaser, so I'd like to give them the option knowing that they'd be covered if it didn't come out good.

I think in this case you should disable the larger sizes. We don't want to have to tell your customer that it won't (re) print well at the size they ordered. Of course, we'll never really know because when we say satisfaction guaranteed, we really mean it. I just processed reprint number three for one pro. Not kidding. EDIT: This was an unusual photo that had several of us stumped.

marlinspike

Yeah, I think you're right too. It's just that the picture in question is that dunk that was in my screenshot for my xmas theme question, and I really really want to see it poster size.

Mike Lane

marlinspike wrote:

Yeah, I think you're right too. It's just that the picture in question is that dunk that was in my screenshot for my xmas theme question, and I really really want to see it poster size.

You know, I think that'll turn out much better than you think at poster size. Really, EZprints does some amazing work. Give it a try...

Andy

marlinspike wrote:

Yeah, I think you're right too. It's just that the picture in question is that dunk that was in my screenshot for my xmas theme question, and I really really want to see it poster size.

Okay so I went and looked - I actually think that it will make a good, but not great, 20x30. It's 10D @ ISO 1600, you may want to work on the noise a bit. If you have the RAW file I'd be happy to help you with it. Even if it's just JPG no problem we can work with it.

Holler for me at help@smugmug.com. I'd actually like to print a 20x30 out of this shot, so let's find out together, eh?

marlinspike

Mike Lane wrote:

You know, I think that'll turn out much better than you think at poster size. Really, EZprints does some amazing work. Give it a try...

Exactly why I'm tempted to try it (well...to allow a customer to try it, I don't have the money, plus it's not a photo of me hehe). I once saw a photo I had cropped down to 4MP printed at 24x36 and it looked great, and I've seen an iso 800 photo (but bumped 2/3 stop in raw conversion so it was more like iso 1600 noise) printed at 20x30 and it too looked great. Plus, I think I'm pickier than the average person, and when you print big you stand back so it might not be an issue at all (I saw some posters at cameron indoor's media room that when I got close I realized were slightly OOF but it didn't seem to matter because nobody actualyl stands 2 inches from a poster).

marlinspike

BTW, the link I screenshoted from isn't the photo, that was downsized to 1600x1200 or something like that for the paper. The real photo is uncropped so I have all 6MP to work with. I'll fire off the RAW to you Andy, but the one in my real gallery (http://davidson.smugmug.com/gallery/1009351/2/46714014) did have some noise ninja applied to it.
Password on the real gallery is "davidson" (no quotation marks)

Andy

marlinspike wrote:

BTW, the link I screenshoted from isn't the photo, that was downsized to 1600x1200 or something like that for the paper. The real photo is uncropped so I have all 6MP to work with. I'll fire off the RAW to you Andy, but the one in my real gallery (http://davidson.smugmug.com/gallery/1009351/2/46714014) did have some noise ninja applied to it.
Password on the real gallery is "davidson" (no quotation marks)

I've already got the orig and looked at it in Photoshop before I answered

send the raw to me. This is fun!

marlinspike

Should be sent.

Andy

marlinspike wrote:

Should be sent.

Got it. I'll work on it tomorrow, ok? I'm gonna quit for a while

marlinspike

NO NOT OK I'M CLOSING MY ACCOUNT NOW rofl

Of course it's ok...I should be doing a classical political theory paper anyways, of course it's not due until....um...tomorrow :uhoh

Andy

marlinspike wrote:

NO NOT OK I'M CLOSING MY ACCOUNT NOW rofl

Of course it's ok...I should be doing a classical political theory paper anyways, of course it's not due until....um...tomorrow :uhoh

I just took a break to watch The Secrets of Bryce & Zion....

It's done - ordered. (I'm not one who really can leave stuff for the next day...)

marlinspike

Well, it arrived today. My analysis is that it looks real good. Looks real good. If anything is the issue, it's not the noise, but the motion blur. The noise stops being an issue once I move more than 6 inches away from it, except for a patch of green in the back where there was some banding, and that noise stops being an issue once I got it out at arms length. The motion blur in the face and the resolution both stopped being an issue once it was out at arms length (actually, the resolution wasn't really an issue at all, but I mean obviously it's not as sharp as it would be if it were a 4x6).

I don't think this image could have done a 24x36 and looked really good, it would probably look OK, but not good. I do think that if the image had been tack sharp it could have made a fine 24x36 (i.e. noise is really not an issue in the image).

The lady at the Post Office (small school in a small NC town, so I can do things like walk up to the counter and say hey let's check this out and spend a few minutes talking about the photo and the school's basketball team) thought it looked great, and the player did too (I had told him before that I wasn't sure how it would turn out so he should be the judge and the second I unrolled it he said "Oh, I'm definitley buying that").

Thanks to Andy for doing this, thanks to smugmug for choosing EZPrints, and thanks to EZPrints for having a very good upsampling/printing technique.
I also think what helped things was that it was lustre and not glossy.
Richard

marlinspike

BTW, I don't know if anybody reads the Charlotte Observer, but the back cover of Friday's sports section had a special on the player (Thomas Sander) and the photo they used was exactly the same as the one I have, only that photog as off to my right so it was less of a head on shot and his was more cropped (I like mine more). I'm almost as proud as I would have been had The Charlotte Observer used my photo (I don't think they take freelance submissions though, so they don't even know my photos exist).

Andy

marlinspike wrote:

BTW, I don't know if anybody reads the Charlotte Observer, but the back cover of Friday's sports section had a special on the player (Thomas Sander) and the photo they used was exactly the same as the one I have, only that photog as off to my right so it was less of a head on shot and his was more cropped (I like mine more). I'm almost as proud as I would have been had The Charlotte Observer used my photo (I don't think they take freelance submissions though, so they don't even know my photos exist).

This is so cool - thanks for posting the results and your impressions!