PDA

View Full Version : 'Upsizing' and image... how...?


theMusicMan
7th January 2008, 06:55 AM
Hey All

Apologies if this is a simple question, but I've never actually done this myself, and was reading a book in bed last night that made reference to upsizing an image to a 50MB TIFF image and it occurred to me that I had no idea how to actually do this.

Also, in so doing, wouldn't one lose quality somewhere...? As you can see I am almost clueless here and don't fully understand the process - would someone be able to explain how to do this for me please...? If I had an ORF image and a publication needed it to be a 50MB (or greater) TIFF image, how would I do this using either LightRoom or PhotoShop.

Thanks

Barr1e
7th January 2008, 08:48 AM
Hey All

Apologies if this is a simple question, but I've never actually done this myself, and was reading a book in bed last night that made reference to upsizing an image to a 50MB TIFF image and it occurred to me that I had no idea how to actually do this.

Also, in so doing, wouldn't one lose quality somewhere...? As you can see I am almost clueless here and don't fully understand the process - would someone be able to explain how to do this for me please...? If I had an ORF image and a publication needed it to be a 50MB (or greater) TIFF image, how would I do this using either LightRoom or PhotoShop.

Thanks

I use qimage (not for upsizing though) and the first link link re the program may be helpful as the others -

http://www.fourthirdsphoto.com/vbb/archive/index.php/t-16629.html

http://www.thepluginsite.com/resources/freeps.htm

http://www.sharewareconnection.com/titles/bulk-image-resize5.htm

Kindest regards. Barr1e

andym
7th January 2008, 09:09 AM
Hey All

Apologies if this is a simple question, but I've never actually done this myself, and was reading a book in bed last night that made reference to upsizing an image to a 50MB TIFF image and it occurred to me that I had no idea how to actually do this.

Also, in so doing, wouldn't one lose quality somewhere...? As you can see I am almost clueless here and don't fully understand the process - would someone be able to explain how to do this for me please...? If I had an ORF image and a publication needed it to be a 50MB (or greater) TIFF image, how would I do this using either LightRoom or PhotoShop.

Thanks

John

I have Photoshop 7 but assume later version would be similar.Also I've not done this.
Go to image/image size and type the image size required.This should change your image size.
Then go to File/save as.In the pull down you should have the option to change to TIFF.
This should save a Tiff image in the same file as you orginal.

Ps not sure if this works for ORF,s,you may need to convert to Jpeg first.

art frames
7th January 2008, 09:18 AM
Hey All

Apologies if this is a simple question, but I've never actually done this myself, and was reading a book in bed last night that made reference to upsizing an image to a 50MB TIFF image and it occurred to me that I had no idea how to actually do this.

Also, in so doing, wouldn't one lose quality somewhere...? As you can see I am almost clueless here and don't fully understand the process - would someone be able to explain how to do this for me please...? If I had an ORF image and a publication needed it to be a 50MB (or greater) TIFF image, how would I do this using either LightRoom or PhotoShop.

Thanks

One of the options in a RAW programme is the output file type and size.

Using photoshop raw on a standard E1 orf you are offered the option at the bottom of the screen to change size and resolution. Chosing the maximum size converts to an effective 19.7MP and at 300 pixels per inch and saves as a Tiff at 53 Mb.

With an E3 you have more pixels to start with and so would require less upscaling.

Because a Tiff is not a lossy format like jpeg it is larger anyway and although 50MB sounds big it isn't really. But do not be tempted to email or upload it as you will be on line for some time!

Peter

Nick Temple-Fry
7th January 2008, 09:59 AM
But why?

I've never been able to get my head around this requirement, you are not going to add anything to the image. Rather you are like a mean housewife scraping the last of the margarine across too many rounds of toast.

Is it just because they are used to scans of large non-digital images, and this is the size they get, or are there good technical reasons.

Nick

art frames
7th January 2008, 10:16 AM
Printers quite rightly don't like lossy formats. They have always worked from the best source they can. They get blamed for poor colour work.

They would prefer to work from an original which they will match to their own colour system. As an artist I know they will always prefer to drum scan an original painting - they get better scans than me.

Without that they have to work to accurate copies within known colour spaces.

Every time you open a jpeg the viewing programme makes small changes and again when it is closed. Over time a jpeg changes time and time again. A Tiff file doesn't do that.

hope this helps.

peter

Nick Temple-Fry
7th January 2008, 10:47 AM
Printers quite rightly don't like lossy formats. They have always worked from the best source they can. They get blamed for poor colour work.

They would prefer to work from an original which they will match to their own colour system. As an artist I know they will always prefer to drum scan an original painting - they get better scans than me.

Without that they have to work to accurate copies within known colour spaces.

Every time you open a jpeg the viewing programme makes small changes and again when it is closed. Over time a jpeg changes time and time again. A Tiff file doesn't do that.

hope this helps.

peter

Well not totally, I'm quite happy about lossless formats etc, and understand the sense of using them. But that's not upsizing. If I save something as a Tiff and the size is x, but the minimum requirement is y which is say twice that size. Then I can make my image 'y' with a program that will interpolate the extra pixels, but why, all I'm doing is sticking guesses in between my good pixels. (but perhaps It's because if I do it then these guess pixels are my responsibility).

Yes of course I shoot RAW, and yes if I save as a 16 bit Tiff I know I'll get a whopping great file anyway. But if I double the size (whopping + whopping) all I'm doing is spreading the information over a larger area.

Perhaps I've misunderstood too many 'popular' magazine aricles.

Nick

art frames
7th January 2008, 11:27 AM
Nick,

I think you should think from the other side.

What the printer wants is to print at a certain quality.

If you take on their responsibility for conversion as you do with a digital device (replacing their scanner) then they will tell you what they require for a full page colour with the magazines required lines per inch. But unless they are using digital print they then produce the separated colors for each plate with the appropriate screen for the paper - glossy art quality print takes far more than newsprint etc. They know what they need for a page.

So working backwards they want 50MB. They need it in print format CMYK not monitor format RGB and in a colour space that suits a printing press. So you need to meet it.

If you don't produce sufficient colour information because of the analogue to digital conversion method you have chosen (a digital camera in this case - it is not their fault you chose a digital camera!) then either you or they will have to make some up. Who would you suggest is responsible?

And these are only huge files at a consumer level with limited computer systems not when you are printing books with their RIP systems. And they usually have to cope with huge interfacing issues with MAC and windows variants and the huge numbers of pdf variants. (that is how I send files to print)

If you supply a transparency they do all of the worrying.

Hope this helps.

Peter

Nick Temple-Fry
7th January 2008, 11:51 AM
Nick,

I think you should think from the other side.

What the printer wants is to print at a certain quality.

If you take on their responsibility for conversion as you do with a digital device (replacing their scanner) then they will tell you what they require for a full page colour with the magazines required lines per inch. But unless they are using digital print they then produce the separated colors for each plate with the appropriate screen for the paper - glossy art quality print takes far more than newsprint etc. They know what they need for a page.

So working backwards they want 50MB. They need it in print format CMYK not monitor format RGB and in a colour space that suits a printing press. So you need to meet it.

If you don't produce sufficient colour information because of the analogue to digital conversion method you have chosen (a digital camera in this case - it is not their fault you chose a digital camera!) then either you or they will have to make some up. Who would you suggest is responsible?

And these are only huge files at a consumer level with limited computer systems not when you are printing books with their RIP systems. And they usually have to cope with huge interfacing issues with MAC and windows variants and the huge numbers of pdf variants. (that is how I send files to print)

If you supply a transparency they do all of the worrying.

Hope this helps.

Peter

Ok - I accept the logic from the printers point of view, although I contend it is counter to logic as far as the quality of the image is concerned.

Thanks

Nick

DTD
7th January 2008, 12:46 PM
It's about size…

Upscaling an image in the way described will (as Nick says) have an effect on quality.
If you get PhotoShop to 'add' pixels in this way, it does it rather crudely by looking at two adjacent pixels and 'guessing' what should be added in between to make them bigger. There are applications/plug-ins such as Genuine Fractals which do the same thing in a slightly more sophisticated way.

Picture libraries for example, will usually ask for certain file sizes – this is so clients can use an image at various sizes. Printed at 300 pixels per inch, which is the standard resolution for print use, the images from my 5mp E-1 are only 21x16cm 10mp images from an E400 are 30x23cm so a client couldn't fill an A3 double page spread without lowering resolution or upscaling the image. This can be done very successfully.

Even the current crop of 12mp cameras don't produce images physically as big as a decent resolution scan of a negative.

Most magazines will prefer to convert RGB images to CMYK themselves, most printers will tell you how to set up your pdfs if you're supplying finished layouts. Magazines will often want AdobeRGB, a lot of picture libraries will ask for sRGB images as the images are displayed on-line.

Barr1e
7th January 2008, 01:59 PM
DTD -

Thanks - now I know too. So much to learn in a small time frame.


Regards. Barr1e.

Garrie
7th January 2008, 04:47 PM
fantastic thread with some great replies, thanks for sharing..

Now, my head hurts :eek:

Barr1e
9th January 2008, 08:53 PM
Is this helpful John?

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-print-image-very-large.html

Regards. Barr1e

sapper
10th January 2008, 07:32 AM
Is this helpful John?

http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-print-image-very-large.html

Regards. Barr1e
Now my head hurts after reading this:(
I have such a lot to learn about this digital lark:rolleyes:
Dave.

Solar
11th January 2008, 05:34 AM
I didn't bother to read everything written prior to my post here but for what it's worth, there is a nice plugin/program that will upsize images without loss of resolution.

It's made by OnOne and its called Genuine Fractals 5 ...

PeterD
11th January 2008, 06:21 AM
I didn't bother to read everything written prior to my post here but for what it's worth, there is a nice plugin/program that will upsize images without loss of resolution.

It's made by OnOne and its called Genuine Fractals 5 ...

Thanks Solar, I shall have a look.

PeterD