A&P Big Digi prints?!

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Normie, Jun 15, 2004.

  1. Normie

    Normie The TBW weight loss plan worked for me! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    95,858
    Likes Received:
    308
    Location:
    Back in PA!
    Guys I have some photos that I want to print out BIG (20 x 30) but the jpg's aren't quite that good of a resolution. :hs: So I am thinking I have one of a few options. Printing the photo as large as I can then having that photo enlarged, Printing the photo, scanning it in and sending that to be printed, or other..

    Currently 8 x 10 printing is not a problem and the photos come out very nice. So I would like to continue that quality up to a larger size.. Any help would be appreciated..

    What I am thinking of doing is printing a few of my photos in a limited series, signing them, framing them, and giving them to friends/selling them, no idea if it will be of any success but I will give it a shot :big grin:
     
  2. ProgWRX

    ProgWRX Citizen Dildo

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    3,389
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Juan, Puerto Rico
    i would think that even if you get say, a 8x10, then scan that and enlarge it, it will still lose quality ?
     
  3. redna

    redna New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    agreed, if you enlarge it, or even if you dont, there is only so many pixels there anyway. All you're doing by scanning it at a higher dpi is enlarging the pixel anyway and effectively losing quality.

    You should look into some interpolating software, or some free PS actions. Either work great and if you took the picture with atleast a 4mp camera you should be able to get 20X30 fairly easy.
     
  4. redna

    redna New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW> I did a 36X28 pic out of a 5mp camera. and it looks awesome.
     
  5. veonake

    veonake OnT poster, OT lurker

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,235
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NYC
    You plan on framing and possibly selling them? Mind posting some pics up so we can see your work?
     
  6. Normie

    Normie The TBW weight loss plan worked for me! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    95,858
    Likes Received:
    308
    Location:
    Back in PA!
    Some of the ones I took can be viewed here.. www.normiesplace.com/trip/web

    Taken with a digital rebel. Best quality JPG settings.. shoulda went tiff..
     
  7. dmora

    dmora Guest

    Any link to this software that does the resizing with PS?
     
  8. bosox

    bosox *

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Messages:
    838
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. Merli

    Merli gplus.to/merli OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    18,215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooting RAW is for amatures.

    The difference in quality between a 34Mb RAW/TIFF file and a 2.5Mb JPEG is extremely negligible and you won't pick it unless you hold a JPG print and TIFF print side-by-side.

    The extra time needed in processing RAW files is NOT time-feasible, and not worth it.
     
  10. Merli

    Merli gplus.to/merli OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    18,215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I've printed 20x30 for clients from a 1.5Mb JPEG (purposely heavily compressed) and a 34MB TIFF file from RAW, and if I put each print on other sides of the room, I'd challenge ANYONE here to pick which was which, at a distance of 50cm (which is a LOT closer than you'll be looking at 20x30 prints anyway).

    You'll only notice the difference when they're side-by-side and you've been told that one's a JPG and one's a TIFF.
     
  11. SL1200MK4

    SL1200MK4 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, many pros shoot in JPEG for various reasons.

    Some of them do it to show off their skills, some of them are still using DSLR like a film camera. All of which are respectable. However I disagree with the comment that RAW is for amatures.

    First of all... the RAW file is likely about 1/3 the size of the losslessly compressed TIFF file, and the amount of post-processing required to convert from RAW to JPEG is not as much as you might think. You can batch process them with in camera setting.

    What RAW gives you is more option, not only in terms of post processing, but potentially a better picture in the future. With JPEG, no matter what the quality setting is, you loss some infomation. Not the case with RAW!!! Now, it is possible that 10 years later, some algorithms comes out that can perhaps increase the resolution while keeping the sharpness and still blah blah blah...

    Anyways, I like to shoot in RAW just to know that I have the options later on.

    p.s. just for the record, I did a 40X60 print from a 6MP file, the setting was JEPG fine on my D70, and at 50 dpi, it looks relatively good from a distance. From then on, I always shoot in RAW. Havn't done a 40X60 using RAW yet, but I doubt the quality is clearly visible
     
  12. Merli

    Merli gplus.to/merli OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    18,215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Fixed.

    JPEG is MORE than adequate for magazine publication and for print works. When the Canon 1D was first released, a sports photographer got one for evaluation and only got an 8Mb CF card with it, so he set it on the smallest size, and lowest quality so he could take a meaningful number of frames. One of his shots from that day was sold to Saucony (or was it Nike) and was then blown up to poster size and used in advertisement campaigns.


    First of all, I never said that you should be using TIFF. No-one should EVER be using the TIFF recording format on their cameras. If you wanted lossless data recording, you should be using RAW at about 1/4 the file size, and exactly the same information.

    And as I said, RAW is for amatures.

    Longer write times, longer post processing times, and most importantly negligible quality advantage,. It's all un-necessary. JPEG quality is absolutely fine.

    Many people (including SI photogs) shoot RAW + JPEG, but they 100% work with the JPEGs until they have already batch processed all the jpegs, picked the ones that will goto print, and THEN work with the handful of RAWs that will be used.

    It's simply too much work to process RAW files. Sorry if you don't believe me, there's nothing I can say to persuade you otherwise until you shoot 3000 frames a day, in a 5 day event. *THEN* you will realise that working with RAW is not time-feasible.

    blah blah blah is right, what was the point of writing all that? You think we don't know the benefits of RAW??? :rofl: :hsugh:

    Whatever the benefits it has, it's just not worth the extra effort in post processing. Here's a test for you. Go find your favourite shot, post process your RAW file, save it as a TIFF for printing, and then save it as a 2.5Mb JPEG (the same compression your camera uses)...

    Goto your favourite prolab or mini-lab and get them to print out both files at 10x15, 12x18, 16x24 and 20x30 and you tell me when you can start to see the difference in quality.
     
  13. SL1200MK4

    SL1200MK4 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    0
    To tell you the truth it was 100 4X6 joined together... each is 0.18 cents CDN$. So, in total it costed CDN $18 + tax, which is about US$15

    I used photoshop to enlarge the picture to 300dpi @ 40 x 60. So, the file is 12000 * 18000. (I chopped the original 2000 x 3008 file to 2000 x 3000 and enlarged it actually)

    Then I have to process the huge picture, stored them as 100 smaller pictures, put them on a CD-Rom and have the guy print 100 of them.

    Then we have to glue the picture to a huge board. Before I did that, i did some sample prints using 8X10 off my laster printer. Needless to say the color 4 X 6 looks much better.

    To print them is easy, to glue them together properly is hard... I did this just to explore the potential and limits of my digital camera. Now, I a proper 40X60 will cost me about USD $100, and $300 if I want weather proof decal sticker...

    Realistically I print mostly 20X30 and hang them around the house...
     
  14. SL1200MK4

    SL1200MK4 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,552
    Likes Received:
    0
    Like I said I repect the argument from those who shoots JEPG only. It makes sense if it's for newspaper (quality matters less in most cases), or if one does sports and would like to gain more frames in a continous brust.

    But... what about for studio? :rolleyes: What benefit do you gain for shooting in JEPG?

    Also the time it takes to simply convert RAW to JPEG doesn't take that long. If you want to select a different white balance setting, compensate the EV, then yes it can take long for you to go over every single picture.

    Anyhow, I think it is more important to enjoy our camera and photography than spending time debate the JEPG vs RAW which had been beaten to death and is really a religous belift like thing.

    I can tell you one disadvantage of shooting in RAW. I have to back up my file in all JEPG, TIFF and RAW. Which takes quite a lot DVD-Rs... Each file format got it's advnatages...
     
  15. Normie

    Normie The TBW weight loss plan worked for me! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    95,858
    Likes Received:
    308
    Location:
    Back in PA!
    Lotd of good information in here! thanks guys! :)
     

Share This Page