Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

upsizing files for big prints
Larry Vaughn, Photographer
Gainesville | FL | usa | Posted: 7:30 PM on 03.10.04
->> I want to make some 24x36 inch posters from prints made from 35mm negatives.

I could scan the prints and get a 24x36 inch file at 300 dpi, or I could scan the negative.

If I scan the negative, I will have to upsize the resolution. What software should I use for this or should I just deal with scanning the print?

If I use the negative, that will eliminate one generation. Might be hard to get that resolution at that size without a drum scan.

But, I have heard that some people get great results scanning prints made from small negatives.

Comments?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jim Metzendorf, Photographer, Assistant
San Bruno | CA | USA | Posted: 8:29 PM on 03.10.04
->> Hi Larry,

Scanning a smaller print would probably look a little nasty. Why not have a good ole' fashioned print made directly from the negative instead of scanning it? Do you have an inkjet or dye-sub printer you need to make the poster from?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Darrell Ward, Photographer
Rochester Hills | MI | USA | Posted: 10:01 PM on 03.10.04
->> A little trick you can trying photoshop. I read this somewhere and it actually works. Start with a normal sized photo typically 10x6 @ 300dpi. Go into Image size and scale to 110%. Make sure "Resample Image" is turned on. You can do this many time without much loss of quality. I have done this as many as 10-12 time to get the desired size. Not sure why it works this way but it does.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mike Braca, Photographer
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 10:10 PM on 03.10.04
->> Ummm, check out this month's newsletter:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1137
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Larry Vaughn, Photographer
Gainesville | FL | usa | Posted: 10:27 PM on 03.10.04
->> Thanks, Y'all. Jim, I going to have some posters offset printed, printer wants 300 dpi...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Hassel Weems, Photographer
Locust Grove (Atanta) | GA | USA | Posted: 10:27 PM on 03.10.04
->> You will get a better scan from the negative. If you scan it at 4000 dpi, you will have 12.8 X 18.8 at 300 dpi with no interpolation. Make it 100% larger, and you have enough for 24x36 at 300dpi.

A print is already an upsized version of the negative, which means you are second generation from the get-go. The image has been put through another lens, onto paper, which can not hold as much detail or as much color and contrast as the original film.

You can get very nice enlargements from desktop film scanners if you are starting with a properly exposed and focused negative. A drum scan would be better, but I would give it a shot with a desktop model first.

BTW: 300 dpi is actually overkill for many printers. My lab, Miller's, says that 250 dpi is optimal for their Frontier and Lambda machines. I have read that 266 is best for Epson inkjets.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Colin Corneau, Photographer
Brandon | MB | Canada | Posted: 10:31 PM on 03.10.04
->> I've used Photoshop's 110% upsizing many times over to take a 25MG scan from a slide to about 170MB, and a print about 2'x3'. But Hassel is quite right, the bigger the original scan (preferably from the neg) the better.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Larry Vaughn, Photographer
Gainesville | FL | usa | Posted: 10:59 PM on 03.10.04
->> I have some negs, some prints but no negs and some files from my eos 10D. I plan to make lots of prints, which even at 24x36 are cheap per print (offset printing) if you get enough of them.

Somewhere I read people were getting good results scanning prints. I know it doesn't make sense...anyways, in some cases I might not have a choice.

300 dpi is what one printer said they needed, I have heard a lower resolution works just as well.

Right now I am working with some black and white shots...

Anyways, I sent an email off to see what the special price is for the new s-spline version...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

richard valeo, Photographer, Photo Editor
Huntington | NY | usa | Posted: 11:24 PM on 03.10.04
->> Read the book"the photodhop cs book" for digital photographer"
by Scott Kelby, a must for any seriuos digital shooter. He covers that and many other helpful hints in a vry simple fashion.Cost $39.99 at Barnes and Noble.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brian Schapper, Photographer
Coburg | OR | USA | Posted: 12:37 AM on 03.11.04
->> I would scan neg as large as the scanner will allow (4000dpi). Then use Fractals to build up the file to the size you need. I would not use image size in PS with resample on.
http://www.lizardtech.com/solutions/gf/
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mike Burley, Student/Intern
Ventura | CA | USA | Posted: 2:53 AM on 03.11.04
->> If you use the 110% Photoshop way, you have to do it in incremits of 4. They math works bets this way. Not sure why, but I swear by it. Only 4x........you can do this unlimited times. Give it a try and compare results. You'll see a difference.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (3) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Larry Vaughn, Photographer
Gainesville | FL | usa | Posted: 2:39 PM on 03.11.04
->> Did need to update ps book, got one for 26.20 after shipping from Amazon.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Stevens, Photographer
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 6:29 PM on 03.11.04
->> Mike: do you mean by "increments of 4" that you should upsize it 104% each time?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Liane Gersich, Photographer, Assistant
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 7:05 PM on 03.11.04
->> Imagine this. Taking a 35mm B&W neg and trying to hand print it at 24x36. It won't be pretty. Now, take a 4x5 and print it again. Voila! A great print. It's the same sort of situation.
I think you should scan the neg/slide at 4000 ppi and then size the image to how big you want to print it. Then save for archive, duplicate it, and go back and change just the ppi to 300dpi for the printer. The dimesions should stay the same. If you scan @300 it might not be big enough and you'll have to re-scan anyways.
*BTW* ppi=pixels per inch>>>>>>>>>>>dpi=dots per inch
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Erik Seo, Photographer
Park City | UT | USA | Posted: 4:44 AM on 03.12.04
->> How about taking the film into a shop and having them do it!!!!!!!!!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Craig Peterson, Photographer
St. Petersburg | FL | US | Posted: 8:58 AM on 03.12.04
->> Depending on the ISO of your neg, you should be able to get a decent optical print of the size you want, assuming the image is sharp. I had a 30x40 optically printed off a 35mm 400ISO neg and the image came out perfect....Like Larry said, nothin' wrong with the good ole' fashioned way!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Craig Peterson, Photographer
St. Petersburg | FL | US | Posted: 9:01 AM on 03.12.04
->> OOPS.....That was JIM not Larry....
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jamie Hickey, Student/Intern, Photographer
Calgary | AB | Canada | Posted: 10:12 AM on 03.12.04
->> SSpline2! We have it at SAIT now and that program kicks the pants off photoshop. The link to the newsletter Interpolation article was posted above which says more about it.

All I can say is I managed to figure out how to use it without instructions, it's totally user friendly and the results kick some serious rear end. I got stuck shooting up a ski hill with a 200mm, brought the stuff back, cropped the hell out of it and blew it up in SSpline - looks great.

The article links to
http://www.interpolateTHIS.com it's more then you ever wanted to know about making picture really big.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Tom Braid, Photographer, Photo Editor
Edmonton | AB | Canada | Posted: 7:00 PM on 03.14.04
->> Larry;

Sorry I missed this post when it was first posted!!  Hope I am not to late to get my two cents in.

Now the best way you to get the best possible print would be straight off of the negative and onto photographic paper. A 24x36 inch print is pretty standard for a finishing lab of any size to handle.  Now you have mentioned that you are going to a more mass run by using an offset press.

The printing company you are dealing with should know the name of a place that can do a large file drum other high quality neg scan of your negatives directly up to the full size you need. And if they do in fact need a 300dpi scan at 24 x 36 you will be looking at a 222.5 megabyte file (give or take a meg).  But double check to make sure they are using something that in fact does large high-end scans and not just using a smaller scanner and then interpolating the file up using the many different methods and or programs that are now available.   You just never know these days. :-)   If they are doing the latter you might want to save some money and do that yourself for final quality control.

If you do get a smaller scan than you need for final output like Hassel suggests and the file is in fact 12.8 X 18.8 at 300 dpi the file will only be 62 megabyte in size and to go up to 24 x 36 inch at 300 dpi the new finished enlarged (or interpolated) image size will be just under 190% bigger and in file size it will be just around 3.7 times bigger or 222.5 meg. This is because the dimensions get bigger in both directions so the file has to gets really big as it has to have the resolution to cover all the new square inches the bigger sized picture covers!!

I have part 2 of the story I wrote for the this months newsletter (
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1137 ) coming out at the end of the month and it has the complete list of all the current programs available. But we do have a FREE download available for the Photoshop action that makes it easy to use the 110% Step method. Here is the link: www.interpolatethis.com/actions.html Some companies do offer 30 day free use of their interpolation software so you can use that time to check the methods out. Some have watermarks and others do not so it is fully functional.

When scanning a negative into a digital picture (which it now is once it is inside your computer) you will now have the original grain structure the picture was built on and the pixels of the digital image to deal with. Grain of a negative is one shape and size and pixels are of course there own shape and size and as you go up to very large sizes there is a chance that you may not get the end quality you were hoping for. If you are scanning the prints than you are really into a second generation scan and you have to now put up with the added quality loss you will get and check for any any scratches and or other print defects that might be there.

One thing to remember to maintain the best quality possible when interpolating is DO NOT jpeg the image anywhere along the line. Save off the scans and any finished images off as Tiff's, PSD or some other lossless format you like to use.

You can get away with jpegin' an image once without any or much noticeable quality loss but most photographers do not count the jpeg the camera makes as that once!! Now I am getting off topic but I wanted to get that in. If you know you are going to be interpolating an image later on staying away from any jpegin' is the best advice, not always possible but the best thing to do if you can.

Hope the info helps

Tom Braid
Co-Founder
http://www.interpolateTHIS.com
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Larry Vaughn, Photographer
Gainesville | FL | usa | Posted: 8:46 PM on 03.14.04
->> Yes, tend to reaffirm much of what I have been reading....I do have one shot I did years ago that exists as two prints, one of the top 90% of a negative and another showing the bottom 90%, meaning that they overlap.

I scanned it with a Canon 3200x4000 dpi flatbed scanner, but not at the top resolution. Amazing what garbage shows up in the scan that you don't notice in the print-fingerprint, dust spots. One older flatbed scanners I have disassembled the scanner and cleaned both sides of the glass to make sure that wasn't contributing to the mess.

Even though it is relatively new, I still see junk on the glass, so will clean it off.

So which interpolate software are you recommending?

And.......what do you think of software that corrects for optical problem in lenses?
http://www.dolabs.com/Photography/DXO_Optics_PRO.html
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Tom Braid, Photographer, Photo Editor
Edmonton | AB | Canada | Posted: 9:27 PM on 03.14.04
->> At work we use S-Spline 2 $49US (now renamed PhotoZoom) the regular version not the Pro. It is so easy to use and we have had many people figure it out the first time they used it and you do not have to remember much to run it so on deadline and with 10 different people (with freelancers) in our department it is really hard to screw up, or we use in the office the 110% method. Which the link is above to get for free if anyone wants it.

On my own personal machine I have regular and PhotoZoom Pro $129US (used to be S-Spline Pro) www.trulyphotomagic.com/shortcut/customer/index.php and Fred Miranda's Stair Interpolation Pro $19.90US, pxl Smartscale $199US. I have tested and played with all of them actually.

PhotoZoom puts a watermark on the images during the testing stage until you register it. pxl Smartscale (Photoshop 6.0 and above plug-in) gives you a 30 day free fully functional program that you can load and test /www.extensis.com/pxlsmartscale/index.html?ref=local_prod.

You get the 30 day free fully functional with Qimage www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/

You get at least 20 fully functional uses from Genuine Fractals www.genuinefractals.com/purchase/pur_sales.php

So once again a dance around a straight answers!!! I really do like PhotoZoom for its price, ease and results. The fact that it is a stand-a-lone program that does not need Photoshop to plug into is a huge plus for many. The free 110% action method fits a budget and is hard to argue with.

Download pxl Smartscale if you are running Photoshop above 6.0 it is very slick to use and the results are very good, the $199US is a little high but it has been on sale in the past on its home website for 50% off!!!

On the other question, I have not got into those correction programs yet, but I have heard some positive things (untested by myself). The thing I want to get into next after part 2 comes out is the multiple stitching programs. This is really cool stuff and the ultimate interpolation method, take many full rez pictures and make one super huge image. Now for day to day newspaper Photojournalism you can not use this or obvious reasons but for many other commercial and personal applications you can.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Larry Vaughn, Photographer
Gainesville | FL | usa | Posted: 10:27 PM on 03.14.04
->> If you are shooting something that doesn't move, stitching could give your 6 megapixel camera unlimited pixels.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Tom Braid, Photographer, Photo Editor
Edmonton | AB | Canada | Posted: 11:04 PM on 03.14.04
->> Heck shooting landscapes and other stationary objects with any megapixel camera you can get unlimited pixels and file size. There has been a 1 gigabyte file made from stitching!!! Now you need a fair bit of extra time on your hands but it can be done. Very cool stuff!!

Something I am playing around with and hope to offer a column up in the next couple of months.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kevin Saitta, Photographer
Groveland | CA | USA | Posted: 1:34 PM on 03.15.04
->> I just played around with photozoom pro for the last two days. I printed many ezamples of different images using photoshop directly, photozoom and pxlSmartscale 1.0 and so far I am really impressed with photozoom with both upsizing and downsizing.

These again were from digital files from a D2H and photozomo is the best out of the three methods. When using film and scanning at high res photoshop is fine by itself.

I think I may have to pick a copy of photozoom up. Very impressive.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Tom Braid, Photographer, Photo Editor
Edmonton | AB | Canada | Posted: 2:07 PM on 03.15.04
->> Vincent Laforet's first ever photography exhibition debuts at the French Institute Alliance Francaise (22 East 60th Street, New York City on Tuesday March 16th, he will be on hand from 6:00-8:00 p.m. on Tuesday as well. The exhibition will run through March 31.

Vincent has done a ton of interpolating for this show and there will be a couple of 10 foot tall pictures from digital files there as well. Check out the links below.

I am an offset press newspaper guy and interpolation can easily be masked on news print, there is just so much latitude tehre on newsprint, or as some say recycled toliet paper. But what Vincent is unveiling in New York on Tuesday is high quality and high-end prints. The skeptics and judges of interpolating and small digital files should go and check out these prints just for that. And of course you will see some awesome pictures to boot. I would love to see those 10 foot tall prints!!!! And to find out which method he ended up using to get them that big. I know what he used for the small one.

http://www.pdnonline.com/photodistrictnews/headlines/article_display.jsp?vn...

Vincent Laforet
http://www.vincentlaforet.com
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kevin Saitta, Photographer
Groveland | CA | USA | Posted: 7:29 PM on 03.15.04
->> Tom,

I tried to read the article from the link but I get file not found. Do you have the complete link?
http://www.pdnonline.com/photodistrictnews/headlines/article_display.jsp?vn...

It got cut off at the ?vn

Thanks,

Kev
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Tom Braid, Photographer, Photo Editor
Edmonton | AB | Canada | Posted: 11:51 PM on 03.15.04
->> Whoops!!!! Sorry about that. :-0

http://www.pdnonline.com/photodistrictnews/headlines/article_display.jsp?vn...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: upsizing files for big prints
Thread Started By: Larry Vaughn
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Which photographer likes to stir things up on the message board? Find out here ::..