Picture re-sizing
Discussion
I feel a bit of an idot asking this, but I am a bit stumped.
I have taken some pictures of my in-laws hotel for their website, all good, pictures look good. However, they now want to print some pictures, but up to A2 or A3. I have given them the largest files I have (in Jpeg), nearly 6mb each. However, the printer (Staples or such) is saying that when the blow upto A2, the picture pixelates and doesn't look too good at any distance closer than a few meters.
The printers are asking for me to provide images that at A4, and they reckon it should blow up to A2 ok. They are claiming that when they open the image it looks really small. I have just open the said images in PS v7 and in the bottom right, it says the image is 40.98 x 27.43 cm (240 ppi). Which is more than A4.
Now are the printers talking out of their arses? Should my image file blow up to A2 ok, or do they not know what they are talking about?
Before you suggest I go to a more professional printer, the prints are required by Sat morning!
TIA.
I have taken some pictures of my in-laws hotel for their website, all good, pictures look good. However, they now want to print some pictures, but up to A2 or A3. I have given them the largest files I have (in Jpeg), nearly 6mb each. However, the printer (Staples or such) is saying that when the blow upto A2, the picture pixelates and doesn't look too good at any distance closer than a few meters.
The printers are asking for me to provide images that at A4, and they reckon it should blow up to A2 ok. They are claiming that when they open the image it looks really small. I have just open the said images in PS v7 and in the bottom right, it says the image is 40.98 x 27.43 cm (240 ppi). Which is more than A4.
Now are the printers talking out of their arses? Should my image file blow up to A2 ok, or do they not know what they are talking about?
Before you suggest I go to a more professional printer, the prints are required by Sat morning!
TIA.
It's possible that the photo itself is noisy to the point of being unusable...but at that sort of resolution a decent printer should be able to sort it out
So I guess next step is work out whether the photo is OK, and if so, time to find a better printers
So I guess next step is work out whether the photo is OK, and if so, time to find a better printers
Edited by andy-xr on Thursday 11th November 19:58
Whilst A3 should be OK A2 is probably a big ask from the original file.
That means that one would need to process the image to a bigger size in a way that retains as much quality as possible. One software option to do that is a product call Genuine Fractals - but though it's good it can't deliver miracles.
Of course, viewed from a comparable distance the print, at any size, should look quite similar to most folk. The problem comes if there is an expectation to see minute details in the output when viewing and A2 print from about 6 inches.
To do A2 without some serious editing and re-sizing work you would need to start with an incredibly good initial image if the requirement is to view from quite close up.
The lonmgest side of an A2 print is about 840mm - some 25 inches. Your base file has, iirc, about 3600 pixels on the longest side so that would leave about 3600/25 pixels per inch - about 140 say. That's a bit border-line depending on the image and how it will be displayed. Of course I am assuming you are using almost entire frame for the print output. If you the requirement is edge to edge it is likely to be a little more challenging still.
That means that one would need to process the image to a bigger size in a way that retains as much quality as possible. One software option to do that is a product call Genuine Fractals - but though it's good it can't deliver miracles.
Of course, viewed from a comparable distance the print, at any size, should look quite similar to most folk. The problem comes if there is an expectation to see minute details in the output when viewing and A2 print from about 6 inches.
To do A2 without some serious editing and re-sizing work you would need to start with an incredibly good initial image if the requirement is to view from quite close up.
The lonmgest side of an A2 print is about 840mm - some 25 inches. Your base file has, iirc, about 3600 pixels on the longest side so that would leave about 3600/25 pixels per inch - about 140 say. That's a bit border-line depending on the image and how it will be displayed. Of course I am assuming you are using almost entire frame for the print output. If you the requirement is edge to edge it is likely to be a little more challenging still.
The printers are right in that 6Mp isn't really ideal for A2. In-laws should have told you of this requirement before you took the photos. And given you more time. But anyway, short of reshooting with a higher-res camera, I reckon you have two options:
1) Tell the printers to crack on with it and you understand that the res isn't quite up to it (they're only protecting their own backs in case you're disappointed)
2) Try Genuine Fractals or quicker, upscale in Photoshop - several options for this; have a play.
I've had A3 prints from 6Mp images (Nikon D70) and they were good enough to exhibit, so I don't think A2 is going to look TOO bad. But it does depend on the quality of the starting image.
1) Tell the printers to crack on with it and you understand that the res isn't quite up to it (they're only protecting their own backs in case you're disappointed)
2) Try Genuine Fractals or quicker, upscale in Photoshop - several options for this; have a play.
I've had A3 prints from 6Mp images (Nikon D70) and they were good enough to exhibit, so I don't think A2 is going to look TOO bad. But it does depend on the quality of the starting image.
Thanks for the replies guys.
I have upscaled the picture to A3 size (234PPI), and I will give that a try. I have not actually seen the print, that they tried today. I wonder whether the A3 version I send them tomorrow might prove to be ok for the purpose - going to temporarily be on an advertising board outside the hotel. Its not like it will be permenantly on display on the wall or anything.
I have upscaled the picture to A3 size (234PPI), and I will give that a try. I have not actually seen the print, that they tried today. I wonder whether the A3 version I send them tomorrow might prove to be ok for the purpose - going to temporarily be on an advertising board outside the hotel. Its not like it will be permenantly on display on the wall or anything.
LongQ - Yes late last night that was eating at me too. Discovered the problem. My sister-in-law at the Hotel was sending the files to the printers, however she was sending the 7kb thumbnail pictures rather than the full size 5mb file!! If a job's worth doing, worth doing yourself.
Edited by LaserTam on Friday 12th November 07:53
Edited by LaserTam on Friday 12th November 07:59
LaserTam said:
LongQ - Yes late last night that was eating at me too. Discovered the problem. My sister-in-law at the Hotel was sending the files to the printers, however she was sending the 7kb thumbnail pictures rather than the full size 5mb file!! If a job's worth doing, worth doing yourself.
Suggest she takes her own damn photos next time!I was asked to quote for 'some framed prints' last week - but as to the size or quantity required, or the kind of frame, that never entered their heads
Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 12th November 09:55
LaserTam said:
LongQ - Yes late last night that was eating at me too. Discovered the problem. My sister-in-law at the Hotel was sending the files to the printers, however she was sending the 7kb thumbnail pictures rather than the full size 5mb file!! If a job's worth doing, worth doing yourself.
Doh!Edited by LaserTam on Friday 12th November 07:53
Edited by LaserTam on Friday 12th November 07:59
Mind you - kudos to the printers for turning a 7k file into an A3 print.
Or at least I think it would be kudos for them but I can't imagine what it would look like.
Would it be reasonable to assume that your communication with the printers has been through an intermediary? If not it would be disappointing that they had not mentioned the size of the file received at some point early in the process and so avoided a lot of wasted time(and ink and paper) all round.
LongQ said:
LaserTam said:
LongQ - Yes late last night that was eating at me too. Discovered the problem. My sister-in-law at the Hotel was sending the files to the printers, however she was sending the 7kb thumbnail pictures rather than the full size 5mb file!! If a job's worth doing, worth doing yourself.
Doh!Edited by LaserTam on Friday 12th November 07:53
Edited by LaserTam on Friday 12th November 07:59
Mind you - kudos to the printers for turning a 7k file into an A3 print.
Or at least I think it would be kudos for them but I can't imagine what it would look like.
Would it be reasonable to assume that your communication with the printers has been through an intermediary? If not it would be disappointing that they had not mentioned the size of the file received at some point early in the process and so avoided a lot of wasted time(and ink and paper) all round.
Thanks.
LongQ said:
The lonmgest side of an A2 print is about 840mm - some 25 inches Your base file has, iirc, about 3600 pixels on the longest side so that would leave about 3600/25 pixels per inch - about 140 say. That's a bit border-line depending on the image and how it will be displayed. Of course I am assuming you are using almost entire frame for the print output. If you the requirement is edge to edge it is likely to be a little more challenging still.
The longest side on an A2 is 594mmJust seen this thread and I thought there was something odd until the 7kb thumbnail was mentioned. Assuming the original image is good enough (quality of photo, rather than size of file) then the original file should do the job very well. Don't forget, the jpeg is a compressed image.if you want to see a larger version of the same image open the jpeg and save it as a TIFF. Taking a 5mb jpeg and then saving as a TIFF makes the file circa 60mb (depending on detail) That's why we always ask for images in documents to be saved as a jpeg rather than TIFF because they are more manageable, but with no noticeable loss of quality for printing.
As for having to shoot raw, that's simply not the case. I've seen some amazing work over the years taken on the cheapest cameras available, and poor work taken on cameras costing huge amounts of money. That said, to supply a print at some of the sizes we do, the file needs to be rather large (we supplied a print 3m x 11m for Mercedes in Weybridge last year) so small compacts simply won't do the job, even using images as a montage.
Glad you got it sorted and as you say, if you want something doing.........
Edited to add, we ask clients to supply any image for printing at a minimum of 72dpi at full size. This gives photographic quality printing on all substrates. 100dpi is the norm, but 72 will do the job.
Also, the optimum viewing distance for any large format print is 1.5 x diagonal distance. If you've ever seen a billboard up close you'll understand what I'm talking about.
As for having to shoot raw, that's simply not the case. I've seen some amazing work over the years taken on the cheapest cameras available, and poor work taken on cameras costing huge amounts of money. That said, to supply a print at some of the sizes we do, the file needs to be rather large (we supplied a print 3m x 11m for Mercedes in Weybridge last year) so small compacts simply won't do the job, even using images as a montage.
Glad you got it sorted and as you say, if you want something doing.........
Edited to add, we ask clients to supply any image for printing at a minimum of 72dpi at full size. This gives photographic quality printing on all substrates. 100dpi is the norm, but 72 will do the job.
Also, the optimum viewing distance for any large format print is 1.5 x diagonal distance. If you've ever seen a billboard up close you'll understand what I'm talking about.
Edited by M-J-B on Saturday 13th November 10:09
Oldred_V8S said:
LongQ said:
The lonmgest side of an A2 print is about 840mm - some 25 inches Your base file has, iirc, about 3600 pixels on the longest side so that would leave about 3600/25 pixels per inch - about 140 say. That's a bit border-line depending on the image and how it will be displayed. Of course I am assuming you are using almost entire frame for the print output. If you the requirement is edge to edge it is likely to be a little more challenging still.
The longest side on an A2 is 594mm
M-J-B said:
Don't forget, the jpeg is a compressed image.if you want to see a larger version of the same image open the jpeg and save it as a TIFF. Taking a 5mb jpeg and then saving as a TIFF makes the file circa 60mb (depending on detail)
The resulting file will be bigger, but you won't get any more detail by saving it as a tiff will you? Isn't that the point of lossy compression; you lose the detail, irretrievably?SamHH said:
M-J-B said:
Don't forget, the jpeg is a compressed image.if you want to see a larger version of the same image open the jpeg and save it as a TIFF. Taking a 5mb jpeg and then saving as a TIFF makes the file circa 60mb (depending on detail)
The resulting file will be bigger, but you won't get any more detail by saving it as a tiff will you? Isn't that the point of lossy compression; you lose the detail, irretrievably?Lossy compression is something I'm not totally familiar with (I'm an MD, not a designer). It may be used by some of our clients designers when designing, but I think it's mainly used in other applications rather then large format.
Edited by M-J-B on Saturday 13th November 12:39
M-J-B said:
Correct, there's no more detail in a TIFF, simply a bigger file. When you are dealing with exhibition stand graphics, saving as jpegs makes life a whole lot easier, but with no loss of quality.
Lossy compression is something I'm not totally familiar with (I'm an MD, not a designer). It may be used by some of our clients designers when designing, but I think it's mainly used in other applications rather then large format.
Sorry, to clarify, jpeg is a lossy compression format. It throws away some information in order to get a smaller file size. That's why I'm saying that if you save a jpeg as a tiff, I don't think you can get back the detail that was lost in the original or any subsequent saves to jpeg.Lossy compression is something I'm not totally familiar with (I'm an MD, not a designer). It may be used by some of our clients designers when designing, but I think it's mainly used in other applications rather then large format.
That said, the quality of a jpeg with minimum compression is probably fine for most purposes.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff