Jump to content

Enlargement from a 6MP D100 file


Recommended Posts

Enlargement as follows:

 

Open file>image>image size

 

Enter the size you want in inches in the document size at 360ppi> select Bicubic sharper (some say smoother but you will have to see which you like best in print) and hit ok.

 

Next you can either send for print to your own printer at the inch size you want, or reduce to the PPI required by your lab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My lab does it for me on sizes over 11x14. I can tell you from experiance that the D100 is capable of producing a 22x32 in print. I have one on my wall.

 

There is the steps by 10% increases. Some say PS already has this built in so just plug in your size.

 

The other way is to make the image size bigger and use sharpen in the pull down. Then size down to the correct size with smooth in the pull down.

 

Honestly, I don't think it matters. People have done tests on these and magnified them some crazy amount to show the differances that our human eye can't see. Really its a matter of doing it which ever way makes you feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Enter the size you want in inches in the document size at 360ppi> select Bicubic sharper (some say smoother but you will have to see which you like best in print) and hit ok."

 

it should be stated that 360 dpi and bi-cubic sharper is an inkjet method.

 

find out what machine you are printing on and what the native resoultion is. it's probably 300 dpi but going this size of an enlargement you might want to print at 240 dpi to save interpolating up so greatly. best thing to do is to make a few copies and zoom in to 300% and see which looks best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, if you've already taken this picture that you're blowing up to 16x20, then you've received good advice. However, I do not feel that 6MP is enough resolution for a "quality" 16x20 in. print. 35mm is arguably about 12MP, and I am not comfortable blowing it up beyond 11x14 size. If you can, I'd start with at least 10MP for such an enlargement. It also depends on what distance the print is being viewed from as well. I view 16x20s just as critically as I do 4x5 proofs, but if it is going to be displayed on a wall that people are going to look at from 8 feet away, then obviously you can get away with a lot more.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karl Borowski wrote:

 

"However, I do not feel that 6MP is enough resolution for a "quality" 16x20 in. print. 35mm is arguably about 12MP, and I am not comfortable blowing it up beyond 11x14 size."

 

I have done so many times and with fine results. It must depend on the eye of the beholder a lot. I find that an 8mp file can produce a 20x30 with relative ease too. I would not sell these thinking you would view them at 12" much less with a loupe (heehee). If you use the rule that viewing distance is twice that of the diagonal of the pictures dimensions, then you can make stunning prints with the 6mp at 16x 20/24 (imho).

 

Best, D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karl, where or where do you get your info that at 35mm is equivalent to 35mm? All I know is I can get better bigger prints from a D100 then I can from 35mm.

 

You can scan at any dpi you want and get outragious size files from a 35mm scan. Doesn't make it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JC: Telling me that a 6MP file is better than 35mm is a crock of sh-t. Not to start a flame war, but Kodak Gold 400, arguably one of the WORST 400-speed color films on the market, resolved 11.8 or 11.9 MP of resolution. SUre they have grain, but you can easily remove that with GEM on a scanner. Also, I never said 35mm is better than 35mm, because that doesn't make sense. . . I'm saying that, personally, 6MP would probably not be enough for anthing larger than 8x10 because 35mm is around 12 MP and barely holds up on 11x14, with the grain removed or remaining. There's a line in "The Great Gatsby" where the narrator talks about "an overenlarged photograph" hanging on someone's wall. If I saw a 16x20 hanging on a wall from a 6MP file, that's how I'd describe it if I were writing a book. Hell, 6x7CM gets a bit flat at 16x20 size.

 

Hope this clarifies my thoughts.

~Karl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You can scan at any dpi you want and get outragious size files from a 35mm scan.

Doesn't make it better."

 

Yes it does ... if it's a good scanner ... like the Imacon 848 I've been using lately.

 

I've used 6 meg digital cameras, including one with Leica ASPH glass hanging off of the

front of it, and one with a full frame 6 meg sensor and Zeiss glass out front. 6 meg is 6

meg. It's limited, especially with a cropped frame sensor. Tonal gradation is less than a

larger sensor camera and resolution is limited. Not that you can't get some really nice

shots with one and make decent 8X10s.

 

But if 6 meg is what you have to work with, and the client wants a 16X20, then you do the

best you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric, if your intention was to piss me off, then you've succeeded. HTF can an opinion be either correct or incorrect? 6MP sticks out like a sore thumb in a pile of 5x7s even 4x5-6s derived from Portra 160NC, but you seem to think it looks good at a size that that film cannot handle? Or maybe you're eager to defend equipment you impulse-bought that is now dwarfed by the current run of DSLRS, and is still worse than miniature film. . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look folks, you can take any image and make it any size, film or digital. Wether it's "good

enough" is exactly as stated above ... in the eye of the beholder.

 

David Thomas asked how a 6 meg file could be enlarged to a QUALITY 16" X 20" for

professional printing and framing.

 

There are so many factors that can effect that perception of QUALITY it isn't even funny. A

6 meg D100 mounted on a tripod using a cable release, camera set on ISO 100, using a

pro level Nikon prime optic, shooting RAW in excellent lighting ... will most likely make a

better 16X20 than a 12 meg Canon 5D, hand held @ ISO 800, shooting jpg using a

consumer level zoom kit lens in less than ideal light. An exaggeration to be sure, but one

cited to make the point.

 

At a recent wedding the Bride specifically requested a shot of all 200+ people attending

their wedding ... destined for a panoramic print in the album, and a 24" + wide wall print

for their den. I assure you a 6 meg capture wouldn't be my choice to accomplish this. In

fact it would be pressing the limits of my 16 meg 1DsMKII IMO. MF was the solution I

chose because I knew darn well this client would be "pixel peeping" the print to see each

person in the photo.

 

However, Eric is right, a 6 meg RAW file actually produces approx. a 34 meg 16 bit tif file

around 8" X 12" went set to 240 dpi for printing. 16" X 20" is a 2X interpolation of that file

size and should be possible IF the original file was shot in a QUALITY manner and care is

taken in each step of the processing.

 

Concerning film enlargements: Karl may have a different criteria then say JC may have

( eye of the beholder? ). Again, what film, what lens, what scanner, what skill is employed

in the shot can effect the outcome in terms of quality. I've been scanning Leica M negs

with a Imacon 848 @ an uninterpolated 6300 dpi ... but what's more important is that the

Imacon virtual drum design keeps the film flat when scanning, uses a better optical

solution than most desktop scanners, and the Flexcolor software is very sophisticated. The

net result is approx. 16" X 24" tiff files @ 300 dpi. that can stand up to those images shot

with my Canons ... BUT display the qualities of film as opposed to those of digital ...

mostly attributable to the randomness of grain as opposed to the clinical perfection of

pixels ... which is why I still shoot film along side digital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...