My boss wants to hang one of my images behing the receptionist's desk at the front counter where I work. It's not my best work IMO, but he likes it and that's cool. He's envisioning a huge print, like 4 feet wide at least and of course I'm not comfortable with how it might look at that size I'm thinking 30" wide at most. Is there anything I can do to the file before I take it to the lab to improve the finished print? I've attached the image for your appraisal. I took the shot before I started shooting RAW so it's a small file, a 6.8 MB jpeg. How big can I go with this dinky file? I realize it's a question that can't be answered with complete accuracy. I think he's flexible and if I have to I'll suggest another image, but he likes this one. Any advice appreciated.
-- The file size for JPG is small, not because it's inherently worse than a RAW file. File size does not equal quality, although some people try to treat it that way. JPG's are small because they are 8-bit and compressed, not because they are bad. A good JPG should print almost every bit as well as a RAW file - you simply lose some of the flexibility and bit depth of the RAW file (or TIFF or PSD that it may be converted to).
-- The number of megapixels, sharpness of detail, and how important that detail is to the image are more important for printing big. In this case, you're actually counting on a lot of low detail areas for the main parts of the image, so you should be able to go pretty big.
-- The further the viewing distance is, the larger you can make the image and still have it look good. If everyone will be standing on the far side of a desk - several feet or more away - it will help with going bigger.
-- To get a good print, you can be very careful with sharpening and "spotting" (i.e. going through and cleaning up any little oddities like dust, or dead pixels, etc. that would become more obvious printed large). The number of possible ways to sharpen well for printing are a whole book in and of itself - but the usual recommendation is to sharpen a little more than you think you need to - so that things look a bit "crunchy" at 50% or 100%.
-- Depending on who is printing it and how, you may want to resize the image yourself to match the printer, although print drivers have gotten very good at doing this for you. If you're not printing yourself, you may want to ask for a recommendation from the printer.
-- A great way to see what you think it will look like and check your sharpening is to re-size the file yourself to the pixel dimensions the final will be printed at, and crop out a small section - say 5x7 or 8x10 - and get test prints of that made. For a few dollars, you can get a little reassurance. And you could try a few different sections of the print.
All that together, with the image posted here, I would guess - and this is a total guess without being able to examine the file or make a test print - that 4 feet wide is do-able, but the FG trees might look a little off. If people are generally going to view it from a bit of distance, though, this won't matter. If they'll be walking up close, it may not look its best. I do find that a lot of viewers in settings like offices though will take the whole scene for what it's worth - a beautiful landscape - and not worry about sharpness and detail nearly as much as photographers do.
Posted by Bryan Peters on July 16, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Bruce: Hi, I print large format pictures every day. If you have taken that picture with a DSLR, and if that is the actual width of the picture and you have not cropped it, then it is likely it will print well. The question then becomes does your print lab understand their printers and resolution well.
Also, as David alluded to, most of the times a print 4 feet wide is not meant to be looked at from 6 inches away. So you should not worry so much about the trees as the forest, pardon my pun.
If you like you can email me the JPG at brysta559 at hotmail and I will check it for you.
"-- A great way to see what you think it will look like and check your sharpening is to re-size the file yourself to the pixel dimensions the final will be printed at, and crop out a small section - say 5x7 or 8x10 - and get test prints of that made. For a few dollars, you can get a little reassurance. And you could try a few different sections of the print. "
This is a great idea; one you should definitely pursue. When you do this, be sure to include areas that are of low tonal value (deep shadows). When you get the test prints back, check these areas carefully for noise. Even at the greater viewing distance for such a large print, these areas will look muddy if they are noisy.
--P
Posted by Fred Stearns on July 17, 2010 at 12:42 AM
A friend of mine took a picture with the original digital rebel. I believe that he shoots entirely in jpeg. He enlarged it to, I believe, 4' by 6' for framing and mounting on a conference room wall. If you look at it close up, it does indeed fall apart. But, if you view it from the distance necessary to take the whole picture in, it looks OK. For normal people, this is probably acceptable. For photographers, we all look at it close and see that is is over-enlarged. If the client is happy, isn't that what really matters?
You can also try something like "Genuine Fractal" - softwares that makes good enlargement. They often produce much better results than Photoshop - I have not used them, but search the forum here - you will find a few threads
I've never really tried it, but based on what I've seen, Genuine Fractals is capable of a small improvement in some enlargements - but nothing earth shattering in my view. But that's in terms of actual detail and sharpness, and some people like it just for the "feel" of the results it gives. If you do search, you might find some extensive comparisons of GF with PhotoShop from The Online Photographer. Those are good articles.
"Genuine Fractals is capable of a small improvement in some enlargements - but nothing earth shattering in my view."
I agree with David on this. For the modest gain, it's really not worth the money. I wasn't impressed.
--P
Posted by Rodney Ninow on July 25, 2010 at 2:18 AM
I also agree that GF is a waste of money. I no longer uprez for large prints. I send the full sized file and let my printer, currently Bay Photo, uprez as needed.
Discussion
9 replies-- The file size for JPG is small, not because it's inherently worse than a RAW file. File size does not equal quality, although some people try to treat it that way. JPG's are small because they are 8-bit and compressed, not because they are bad. A good JPG should print almost every bit as well as a RAW file - you simply lose some of the flexibility and bit depth of the RAW file (or TIFF or PSD that it may be converted to).
-- The number of megapixels, sharpness of detail, and how important that detail is to the image are more important for printing big. In this case, you're actually counting on a lot of low detail areas for the main parts of the image, so you should be able to go pretty big.
-- The further the viewing distance is, the larger you can make the image and still have it look good. If everyone will be standing on the far side of a desk - several feet or more away - it will help with going bigger.
-- To get a good print, you can be very careful with sharpening and "spotting" (i.e. going through and cleaning up any little oddities like dust, or dead pixels, etc. that would become more obvious printed large). The number of possible ways to sharpen well for printing are a whole book in and of itself - but the usual recommendation is to sharpen a little more than you think you need to - so that things look a bit "crunchy" at 50% or 100%.
-- Depending on who is printing it and how, you may want to resize the image yourself to match the printer, although print drivers have gotten very good at doing this for you. If you're not printing yourself, you may want to ask for a recommendation from the printer.
-- A great way to see what you think it will look like and check your sharpening is to re-size the file yourself to the pixel dimensions the final will be printed at, and crop out a small section - say 5x7 or 8x10 - and get test prints of that made. For a few dollars, you can get a little reassurance. And you could try a few different sections of the print.
All that together, with the image posted here, I would guess - and this is a total guess without being able to examine the file or make a test print - that 4 feet wide is do-able, but the FG trees might look a little off. If people are generally going to view it from a bit of distance, though, this won't matter. If they'll be walking up close, it may not look its best. I do find that a lot of viewers in settings like offices though will take the whole scene for what it's worth - a beautiful landscape - and not worry about sharpness and detail nearly as much as photographers do.
Also, as David alluded to, most of the times a print 4 feet wide is not meant to be looked at from 6 inches away. So you should not worry so much about the trees as the forest, pardon my pun.
If you like you can email me the JPG at brysta559 at hotmail and I will check it for you.
"
This is a great idea; one you should definitely pursue. When you do this, be sure to include areas that are of low tonal value (deep shadows). When you get the test prints back, check these areas carefully for noise. Even at the greater viewing distance for such a large print, these areas will look muddy if they are noisy.
--P
I agree with David on this. For the modest gain, it's really not worth the money. I wasn't impressed.
--P