Processing for large prints

[TimW]

I photograph at a national wildlife refuge every week and about once every 3 months create a slide show for the folks that maintain the place.  They are redesigning their visitor center and ask if they could use my pictures in their design project.  I was flattered but then immediately shocked when told the size of  the pictures the design company they hired wanted to use; 50"x44" and 50"x108".  I told them I was sure there was no way my pictures could be blown to that size and be worth looking at.  Up until most recently I've used a 10d and have always shot with producing slide shows or and occasional 8x10 in mind.  Most of my shots are cropped 50% or more but do look pretty good for what I've used them for. Although I forsee nothing coming of it I have agreed, at their insistenance, to at least talk with their graphic designers to see if anything can be done.  Out of curiosity, would a photo destined for this size print be processed any differently?  I can't even fathom how you would judge the finished product looking at it on a computer screen.

Thanks....Tim

[paulbk]

Tim,
Try Genuine Fractals. I use it, works good. But I never go bigger than 16 inches using an 8 mp input file.
Good luck,
Link to 30 day free trial Genuine Fractals

[marc.s]

There are a number of programs that attempt careful upscaling of images, but what is much more relevant here is the distance your pictures will be viewed from obviously. Viewed from a distance a 6mp poster will look fine. Viewed up close it will be lacking in detail, but carefully processed from a good file it will still maintain a pleasing look.

However, cropping half of the image away obviously strains things further. It's all subjective though; do you intend the images to look detailed up close, or are you happy with them as posters only meant to be viewed from a distance?

I have personally found that my 8mp files print well at 48x32", fairly similar to 35mm colour film..

It's all about expectations, really. Try it out!

[TimW]

There are a number of programs that attempt careful upscaling of images, but what is much more relevant here is the distance your pictures will be viewed from obviously. Viewed from a distance a 6mp poster will look fine. Viewed up close it will be lacking in detail, but carefully processed from a good file it will still maintain a pleasing look.

However, cropping half of the image away obviously strains things further. It's all subjective though; do you intend the images to look detailed up close, or are you happy with them as posters only meant to be viewed from a distance?

I have personally found that my 8mp files print well at 48x32", fairly similar to 35mm colour film..

It's all about expectations, really. Try it out!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62490\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[TimW]

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62493\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'll be getting the details of the project on Saturday, but from what I gather, displays will be set around the paremeter and middle of the room and the large pictures will basically be a backdrop.  I'm thinking viewing distance will be around 5'.  I feel pretty confident in effectively increasing the size but very unsure how to proceed afterwards.  I now have a 4x9 foot photo on a 19" crt.  Do I step back and view the screen from what I think will be the closest viewing distance and make adjustments for sharpness ect from there?  Would test printing at 8x10 give me an idea of how the colors would look on the larger print?  

Thanks....Tim

[TimothyFarrar]

Even though I have not done enlargements beyond 16x24 inches (128 pixels per inch) for 6MP shots, I would suggest the following workflow to develop for such an enlargement,

At your camera's 3072x2048 image resolution, use a tool to remove the color noise, without reducing luminance noise (which can remove sharpness). Re-introduce some film like grain to hide any remaining digital noise (or the 10D's color splotching in the darks).

Skip any form of sharpening (including in the raw conversion) until you upsample the image to its output resolution (I go about 256 pixels per inch minimum). Pre-sharpening will add halos around edges which when blown up that big will be huge and pixelly. If you don't have the Genuine Fractals you can use the Bicubic Smoother option in CS2. Then sharpen using your favorite tool. If you don't have a tool, then using USM in Photoshop can work if you can create a layer mask so that it only sharpens edges (I can detail this if you are interested).

I would try taking a cropped part of an image and try a few processing tests to see what looks good at that enlargment printed on a 8x10. You could even trim and tape about 25 of these small prints together to visualize the full 50x44.

Ultimately I would let the customer decide, afterall, 99% of the people looking at the finished results in the visitors center are going to think about the content of the photograph, not how sharp it is.

- Timothy Farrar

[marc.s]

I would try taking a cropped part of an image and try a few processing tests to see what looks good at that enlargment printed on a 8x10. You could even trim and tape about 25 of these small prints together to visualize the full 50x44.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62502\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is by far the simplest way of checking it. Just calculate a crop for a small size print (8x12" for instance) and print that out and view it from the proper distance. If that looks good you have it down.

As for knowing how to upscale and sharpen - it depends on what programs you do and if you do all the processing yourself. You could use a program such as Qimage which will do everything for you, or you can upscale it manually and use a photoshop plugin that sharpens it relative to the print size and viewing distance. Or you can use trial and error like me and print out crops to see what it looks like at the actual size without needing to run the big papers.

The reason I do it my own way is that I'm very unhappy with the sharpening suggestions of other programs and sharpening is rather subjective in my opinion.

But if you have their graphic designers take care of your prints you should just send them unsharpened files so they can handle it properly themselves (assuming they know what they're doing).

[TimW]

Thanks everyone for your input ; you've given me a direction to go in.  Tim, That's a great idea of printing full size on the 8x10s, I'm going to do that.  I very recently started using a 1d2 and by comparison do see a marked difference in quality and detail when viewing at that size.  Maybe if time allows I can get a few shots they would like to see displayed that will fare better than what I have now.

Again, thanks.........Tim

[marc.s]

I think you will be pleased with the quality of the prints if they have been carefully processed and not cropped too heavily. Artifacts are the main issue to be aware of in my opinion, they have a way of making pictures look 'cheap' when printed large.

[TimW]

I just noticed something while sizing up different photos.  The viewable area on my crt is approx. 14x11.  When I viewed a photo scaled at 11wx14h it measured 12 " wide at 33%.  Is the 33% view what I should be at to be comparible to the full size print.  If so then I may have many prints that stand a chance to be used.  I've been looking at a 100% view after resizing; not very good at a 5' distance.

Thanks.....Tim

[tived]

Take your image to your local PRO Print lab, and let them do the enlargement on their RIP, it will most likely give you the best result. Given you don't seem to have done this in the past. Trust me! save the headaches! as much fun it is to play with this, it is a whole lot easier this way! Just my $.02

Henrik

[marc.s]

Looking at the monitor even at the right physical size can be a bit deceiving.. just try running a crop test if you don't want to spend too much money printing large tests. Otherwise giving it to a pro lab is indeed the easiest way. Big prints are great to do, and if you have clean files (from artifacts etc, nevermind luminance noise) you should be happy with them.