Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I have been given an old JPEG image that is 1350 x 624 pixels.
It is a shot of my golf clubs clubhouse circa 1920 and I have been asked if I can reproduce a large copy for the wall,
I know that it can be "worked" in photoshop by different means, but I am not sure about the best way to do it.
Any advice please
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
One way is to keep increasing the image size by 10% in Photoshop until you get an acceptable size or quality deteriorates too much.
You really need to get hold of the original and rescan it in to PS as a Tiff as the jpeg is not ideal for enlargement scan it at the highest resolution you can handle
if this is not possible then open it in PS and just use the Image re-size dialog box
do not resave it as a jpeg as this will further degrade the image
hope this helps
Thanks all, I will give that a try
I read an article on this in a Scott Kelby book. He did his enlargments going up 10% at a time. You run a action to copy it and chose a F number, say F11. Every time you press F11, it enlarges by 10% and it does work.
What sort of digital cameras did they have back in the 1920s? Has the JPEG faded at all?
Seriously, I'd convert it into a TIFF: we always use 16 bit because it gives better tonal qualities. When She-who-must-be-obeyed needed to make a 15 foot wide canvas for our local farm shop, she experimented with many different methods and Genuine Fractals gave the best result.
If you prefer to do your enlargement in PS, use the 10% increments as suggested but go back to the original each time so that the second test will be 20% bigger. Doing repeated enlargements won't do the image any good.
The other possibility, if you have a RIP or if your lab uses one, is to keep the same pixel count and just upsize the image. The RIP will then compute the printing file at the requisite resolution and they tend to do a pretty good job.
I didn't think that enlarging images was really a serious proposition, so it's something that I've never tried.
However, just as a matter of interest, I've just tried upsizing a sepia toned, Jpeg. image of a motorbike that I have here, using CS6.
I increased the size by 100% in 10% increments using 'bicubic smoother' as CS6 suggested.
After each increase, I saved it, closed it and re-opened it, then did it again.
Is that what I was supposed to do?
I'd expected to see some degradation at some point, perhaps half way through but on screen, at least, it looks no different to its original baby brother.
The original and presumably, the bigger one were saved at 96ppi.
Is this good news?
Or will it be a completely different story if I was to print it?
I know that the original, small one prints well at A4.
The 10% resizing methodóstair interpolationówas dropped like the proverbial hot spud when Adobe came up with its fancy interpolation algorithms (circa Photoshop CS?), so I'd agree with William's advice - upsize in one fell swoop using 'bicubic smoother' in Photoshop, and/or trust to the printer's RIP to do at least as good a job. If you're keen on controlling the whole process yourself, you might also try Perfect Resize Pro, which in its former incarnation was reckoned by many to do a marginally better job than PS with 'extreme' upsizing.
Quote: upsize in one fell swoop using 'bicubic smoother' in Photoshop,
Following on from that piece of advice, I've just upsized the same image again, also by 100%, in one foul swoop and upon opening both of the larger versions using the 'side by side' tool in FastStone, I can't see any difference between them at all.
I've still to print one though.
Quote: Following on from that piece of advice, I've just upsized the same image again, also by 100%, in one foul swoop and upon opening both of the larger versions using the 'side by side' tool in FastStone, I can't see any difference between them at all.
If in doubt - take the shorter route! For a while stair interpolation seemed to give better results than any one-hit solution, as detailed in this antiquated article. I was fiddling with trying to find the best method at the time, so was relieved when Adobe made things easier. Now it's a subject on the back-burner anyway because we're all using much higher res cameras.
It's not something that I'd ever be likely to want to do to one of my own images but I do sometimes get asked to modify photographs taken at the school where I work. It could be something I'd do there.
To replicate the authentic stair interpolation method you'd probably need to stay away from 'bicubic smoother', which after all was the thing that supplanted the technique rather than use it. Originally 'bicubic' would have been used, and I think Scott Kelby might back-pedal even further using the modern 'bicubic sharper'.
For the sheer hell of it I did resize a photo in 10% increments using 'bicubic smoother' - against my own advice - and was a little surprised to find that it rendered a sharper result, which looked superficially okay but at the same time less capable of accommodating further treatment. That's almost certainly the express benefit of 'smoother' - its flexibility, even though every man and his dog will define a 'better' result differently.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar