printing an 8 foot poster from a 6MP image - Help!

[httpwww.photo.netphoto1664881561]

Hello,

 

I recently got hired for a photoshoot and the final output will be print sizes of 22"x28" and 36"x48". I was

also told that there is a possibility of requesting to print an 8 foot poster. The problem is, I only have a

D70s (6mp) and there are no camera rental places where I live.

 

Is there a way to still use my D70s and resize the image in photoshop? I know about the "staircase step"

where the image is enlarged by 5-10% in steps, but can a RAW 6MP image be scaled up to 8 feet at a rez

that is commercially acceptable?

 

Unfortunately I do not have access to a medium or large format cameras, nor can I buy one as I am just

starting out my adventures in commercial photography. I know that the D70s is not a professional camera

and I would love to upgrade, but I need the jobs first to save some money so that I can move up to a pro

cam.

 

I definitely need some help and advice.

 

Thank you very much. Paolo

[elliot1]

You should be able to find a lab that can convert your files for you so they retain the maximum resolution. There is also a program called Genuine Fractals that you can use to scale your images, although I recommend you let a good lab do it.

 

Many pros use D70's - it is a great camera!

[mark soares]

Paolo,

 

The only way to do this would be to resample the file in 10% intervals using the bicubic smoother option. For example, a 1000x800 pixel file size would be upsized to 1100x880 and so on and so on until teh desired size is achieved. This will reduce artifacts but it is not fool proof. It is the only way i know of to upsize an image file in PS. This will help but not substitute a higher megapixel count straight from the camera. Do'n be intimidated by large size prints because the viewing distance is larger on those which means any artifacts from rescaling/upsizing will be less evident... i mean, have you ever looked upclose to a billboard? it looks terrible... but that is because it is not supposed to be looked at that closely.

 

thanks

Mark

[httpwww.photo.netphoto1664881561]

Good day to you Elliot and Mark,

 

Thank you for the quick replies and thank you for the advice. Your responses has definitely

taken some edge off large size printing intimidation. I will work on using the 10% interval

bicubic smoother option in PS and at the same time search for a lab that can convert my files.

 

Thank you so much again.

Paolo

[wj_lee]

This forum is very anti-noise. However when ever I up size images I add noise and overall effect is much more pleasing. Knowing how much is difficult but if you do it just right it masks most of the bad effects of the upsizing and noise itself not becoming distracting.

[ellis_vener_photography]

find a lab that uses a durst Lamda for printing. I t has an extremely good interal interpolation algoritm but you can make sure that the file you give them is impeccale to begin with so don't shoot JPEGS, do shoot NEFs and process well and keep everything in 16 bit per channel mode in a large Adobe RGB(1998) or ProPhoto color space for as long as possible .

[ShunCheung]

With such a huge print, it isn't like 12, 16 or 20MP will be sufficient either. The thing is that by far the majority of the people are not going to view your 8-foot poster from close distance such that you can get away with a lot.

[nealcurrie]

I saw a sample comparing multi-step upsizing to single step upsizing, and the single step upsizing was clearly the better image.

[httpwww.photo.netphoto1664881561]

Hello All,

 

-WJ Lee: Thanks for the advice about adding noise, yes, I do add noise myself to mask

artifacts and what not and give it a more artsy feel, however, this is for a commercial store

front window so it needs to be quite crisp. Although, like what you said, proper application

of the noise should not become distracting - thanks again.

 

-Ellis Vener: Thank you for the advice on that printer, I will give a call around.

 

-Shun Cheung: You are right about the viewing distance - do you think that the D70s' 6MP

can still achieve a commercially viable print at that size poster? Thanks.

 

-Neal Currie: "Single step upsizing", do you mean just simply setting the document size to

the final print output? I have always heard (read, really) that multi-step produces better

results (Like Mark Soares' reply - 10% upsize intervals using bicubic smoother). Would you

mind sending me a link to the upsizing samples that you looked at? Thank you so much.

 

Thank you all.

Paolo

[aaron l]

I've enlarged my D70 shots to 52" and been very happy with them. And shot at ISO1600 even! If you look at it from 2" away, there you go. But you won't. Have fun!

[Peter_in_PA]

I've done a fair bit of large printing from DSLRs.

 

I recently took a 7MP image from an Olympus camera and used it as the background

image in a banner that was 16 FEET long.

 

From 5 feet, it looked a little fuzzy.

 

From 10 - 20 feet, the actual viewing distance that was employed, it looked STUNNING.

 

I do NOT recommend up-res-ing the photo. After you're done editing (I'd use a teeny bit

of unsharp mask at the end btw) just size it the way you want it without changing pixels

(leave "resample image" un-checked). My own experience is that scaling the photo and

adding pixel information doesn't really buy you anything, but YMMV. I also have not liked

what I've seen of genuine fractals, but I gave up on it pretty quick. Again, ymmv...

[kelly_flanigan1]

From a printers standpoint this would be a dream input. <BR><BR>Here I have Monday to print 18 posters that are 24x30"; from jpegs that are 37k to 180k in size as files; and from sub VGA to abit more when opened. Upsizing a coarse jagged image with hamburger helper may make it look smoother; like a miss focused image.<BR><BR> What matters really is the intent of the image; what its viewing distance is.<BR><BR> If its for a billboard then your 6MP camera is a vast overkill; if its for a giant detailed city wallmap; it a royal dud. <BR><BR>Here we print wallmaps often with 300ppi images; that have dinky 1/32 inch type with fonts from hell. <BR><BR>In advertising the FONTS used and TYPE size are often what box in what is required; and the cute girl is just a draw to get you to read the type. Thus often a lowly VGA image with impact might be combined with added text; and the image is printed at a higher PPI just to suppor the text.<BR><BR> The general public seems to be royally confused about image requirements for prints. GET SOME SAMPLES PRINTED; see if your images work for your application(s). This is what matters. EXPERIMENT!<BR><BR> In advertising one typically has certain goals for the signage; the viewing distances are known. <BR><BR><b>The image requirements for a glossy magazine are often radically HIGHER than a billboard by an order of magnatude or more. </b><BR><BR>In Hockey dasher boards; often the advertsing iamges we get are only 3 to 6 ppi at 3 by 12 feet; they are upsized abit to make the images smoother. <BR><BR>A the other end of the spectrum our 36" wide color scanner can scan at 200 to 600 dpi/ppi; an old historical colored map might be scanned at 400 dpi in RGB and create this huge file. If its an old 36x36" plat with color markups; thats a 14,400 pixel square image; ie 207 million pixels. One might try say 200 dpi at first for a scan; and see if all the needed details are captured. If not one might then try say 250; then 300; and only scan "good enough" to grab all the detail; and no extra fluff.<BR><BR> Thus for a 8 foot detailed image like a wall map; or super sharp panoramic image where one is going to place ones nose close; several hundred megapixels are often required. If its a 8 foot section of a 12x48 foot billboard; my cellphone is vast overkill as an input.