Genuine Fractals


hobbs Plus
16 1.3k Japan
15 Nov 2006 1:19PM
Just a quick question, my company are looking at having a photograph blown up to fill a wall 15' by 8'. Now I've spoken with the printers and they are telling me that we need to give them a 100Meg file. What I'm trying to find out from anyone with experience of doing something similair is can Genuine Fractals produce good quality files of this size from a 8Meg pic or as I'm suspecting am I wasteing my time.
Mayfly 15 485 2 United Kingdom
15 Nov 2006 1:28PM
Could always try the Rastorbator if you dont have fractals its a free download Here It's supposed to be good.

As for Enlarging to this size, I would think you would be limited to a size of 40 inches ? with an original file size of 8mb? but I've never used GF or an upscaling prog before.

Cheers,

Andy.
Mayfly 15 485 2 United Kingdom
15 Nov 2006 1:32PM
Found a link to large images created using it too Gallery
AnthonyM 15 428 2 United States
15 Nov 2006 2:48PM
They say they need a 100Meg file, you say you have an 8M photo. Are you both speaking the same language?
Just have to ask, because often when someone requests a (x)Meg image, they are referring to the uncompressed data size. Usually when the end user is speaking in terms of Megs, they mean the file size on disk or the number of pixels in the camera.
This multiple use of identical terms usually results in the initial reaction of how can a 2M JPG from a 6 or 8 Mpixel camera can be exploded to a filesize of 100M? When everyone is using on the same page, it doesn't seem that far of a reach.

For example, a 8Mpixel camera produces, what, roughly a 24M image? Double its resolution (in each direction) and you end up with a 96M image. Not much more will get you to 100M.
GF and similar products boast 400% enlargements with good quality. I think for an 8Mpixel photo, this should get you pretty close to the 100M file size you are looking to get. For standard printing, this should give pretty decent results.

Of course, you want something a magnitude larger. To get 15'x8' the company printing this poster is likely going to have to use "huge" pixels, so in short, no you are not going to get "good quality"...

Now define "quality". You'll find LOTS of posts on the subject, but mainly, how far from the wall are people going to be standing, etc...? There is more than mere pixel counts per inch that go into the subjective world of "good quality".

I've seen posters you can buy with vacation type scenes on them to fill a wall in your house. They look good from a bit of a distance, but horrible from a foot away.
Can you get an example of what the company can do with a original photo of similar size?
You might be OK if you're not setting your sights too high.
hobbs Plus
16 1.3k Japan
15 Nov 2006 4:22PM
Thanks Anthony, thats really helpful.
csurry 18 9.2k 92
15 Nov 2006 4:33PM
Sent you a PM Nick
loweskid 19 2.0k 1 United Kingdom
15 Nov 2006 4:34PM
If you are working from a raw file the general concensus, according to various photo sites I've been on, is that you will get as good results, if not better, by upsizing with Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop. Select the 'bicubic smoother' option.
onewildworld 18 696 4 United Kingdom
15 Nov 2006 5:18PM
Personally, for really large enlargements, I'd recommend Photozoom Pro 2 by Benvista.

Benvista Software

It's Euro 149, but better in my tests than GF, Bicubic or SizeFixer.

That said, enlarging during the RAW conversion using C1 or RSP is very good, but I wouldn't go to 15' x8' with it.

Dave
culturedcanvas 14 4.7k 59 United Kingdom
15 Nov 2006 5:26PM
2nd'd !
stevekhart 14 4.5k 3 United Kingdom
15 Nov 2006 5:40PM
Just out of interest do you know what ppi your printer's are suggesting for this size? I've got a job coming up soon where I'm going to need to blow an image up to several feet and I'm guessing that between 150 and 200 will be sufficient. It's not exactly fine art, after all! Daft question that I think I know the answer to this; the last two steps in getting the image print ready are: upsize and then sharpen?
culturedcanvas 14 4.7k 59 United Kingdom
15 Nov 2006 5:59PM
The dpi you can use is dependent on how far away you are going tobe viewing the image from and also how much 'quality' you want to retain.

Photozoom will give you the best results, followed by GF and then PS ... tho theres not a huge amount in it. Photozoom holds edge detail better and thus creates a sharper looking photo.

Im assuming the print is as wallpaper for a room, where a lower quality will be useable.

D
Boyd 16 11.2k 11 Wales
15 Nov 2006 6:03PM

Quote:The dpi you can use is dependent on how far away you are going tobe viewing the image from and also how much 'quality' you want to retain.


For someone who is contemplating offering digital workflow workshops, I'm sure, and I hope, that you mean ppi.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.