Is this photo sharp enough for 20x30?

[john_gallino]

A friend asked me to enlarge one of my shots to a 20 x 30 inch poster size. I

took the shot when I first got my SLR, and due to some inexperience, it's not as

sharp as it could be. Could some experts here please take a look and give me

some advise whether I should print this or ask her to choose a different shot?

 

 

View the photo at

 

www.johngallino.com/media/delete.jpg

[emre]

It depends on her expectations. I would not print it that large. I think an 8x12 would look much nicer, at that resolution.

[john_gallino]

Yeah an 8 x 12 would be much safer, but you lose the feeling of the shot at such a small size.

[anthony_r]

Unless you printed it on canvas or something, no. There's more than lack of sharpness to

deal with there.

[sfcole]

I'm not sure why anyone would want a biggie-size enlargement of this photo. Sorry, but it

just doesn't merit it. It's not the sharpness, it's the photo itself.

[john_gallino]

Who knows.

[AaronFalkenberg]

This is what you should do regardless of the image:<br><br>

 

Find the method of resizing you like best and resize to the desired 20x30."<br>

Crop a portion of this enlarged image (e.g. 8x10).

Print that 8x10, look at it and see if you are satisfied. If so, great, if not, back to the drawing board. I never let any prints go, free or otherwise, that I'm not first satisfied with.

[john_gallino]

That's a good idea, but I dont have a printer at home. I get my prints made and mailed back through adorama or studiologic.

 

I think I'm just gonna ask her to pick another. Or print at a smaller size if she really has her heart set on that one.

[sattler123]

If she insists on having this photo enlarged, I would strongly advice you to do some more editing on it. On my calibrated monitor much of the picture is too dark - you need to get some light into those bushes/trees on the right and in the back of the picture. Also the horizon is not straight - try to crop and rotate to straighten that out.

 

I agree with the other posters, it would be difficult to enlarge it to 20x30. Do you know what it is she sees in that picture?

[roger_smith4]

It looks oversmoothened and then sharpened. Not a whole lot of detail there, but that may not matter to you or her.

 

I'd also suggest taking the time to clone out the dust specks from the sky. They will be more visible with enlargement.

[User_503771]

You know, it looks great at about 10x15 or so (on my 20" monitor -- 12x18 would probably look great too, maybe even 16x20 but that might be pushing it a bit). If you get it printed at somewhere in that neighborhood, then get it matted, the overmat size is going to translate to a larger frame dimension.

 

You mentioned you shot this with your SLR -- do I assume correctly that this was shot on film? If it's a DSLR, does the shot exist in RAW format?

 

I ask because you could do a lot with either a re-scan of the film, or with re-processing, to help out apparent sharpness at larger print size.

 

I think it's a great shot as-is. Like the poster above said, print it to a size you're satisfied with, and with a little bit of explaining to your friend, probably all will be well.

[emre]

It's from a D70.

[john_gallino]

I checked the raw, its not much better. I'm not sure why, but it just wasnt that sharp right out of camera. I had just gotten the D70 and didnt really have my technique down yet

[ishi_p]

Just goes to show how different we see things. To me the amount of detail looks fine and there is plenty of it. Perhaps it would be better with a better lens but I dont know what you used. I personally dont feel you will get much more from a normal DSLR. But to me it is the Quality of that detail that matters in a big print. If anything this looks over sharpened or too much contrast. A smaller size with that high contrast may be ok but a big print will look harsh. I resize in Photoshop to 300ppi and go to 100% size, this is a lot bigger than the size it will print but if a typical a monitors resolution is around 72 to 96 dpi so your print will show that detail. This will be (more or less) a 3x2 part of your picture.<div></div>

[john_gallino]

Yeah from a significant distance that would be fine, but this will be placed in a home and probably not a large home, so I'm not quite satisfied with that quality. I've asked her to pick another photo or a smaller size.

[ishi_p]

I guess it also counts what they want or expect. If it were me and they really wanted it that big I would soften the whole thing buy lowering the contrast.

Example contrast ? 20, brightness +5

[ishi_p]

Thats contrast minus 20

[r_johnston]

If you have PhotoshopCS, make a TIF copy, and load it. Enlarge it to 20x30, and see what it looks like. If necessary use Smartsharpen, and sharpen it a bit. Personally I believe in satisfying a customer whenever possible. If they are willing to accept less sharpness, they get what they want. It is not all about me, it is all about the client.

 

Sharpness, like Beauty, is in the eye of the Beholder....

[John Crowe]

It is oversharpened. I don't think the original would be that bad. Looks like the focus point may have been to far into the foreground. The high contrast lighting in this photo is pretty tough to handle though.

[brian_ellis19]

It depends on your own standards. By my standards there's no digital SLR that can produce an acceptable (to me) 20x30 print except perhaps one that's not going to be viewed any closer than maybe 6-8 feet. The 1dsMarkIII may be an exception, I haven't seen anything from that camera yet.

[arthuryeo]

A 20x30" printed thru Costco is only $10 + shipping + tax. You should be able to just print one based on PS/CS3 upsizing and USM. It's not that expensive to give it atry, is it?

[les_baldwin1]

I routinely print at this size on a W6400 printer and this image will work OK. You will not win any awards but if properly color corrected and RIP'ed you should see a decent print.

 

As already stated it would not be viewed from 6" away. More 18-24" minimum.

 

The final DPI should be aroun 180 or so FYI. If you have a current version of PS CS2 or CS3 it can resize quite well but work from your RAW not the JPEG. And for best results take it to a local pro printer and have them do all the heavy lifitng you approve what they show you ahd viola - a decent print.

[david_henderson]

I think the people who earlier on in the thread were indicating that this maybe isn't an interesting enough picture ti hang on a wall have it exactly right. Whether its sharp enough, how you can find out whether its sharp enough, and how much it might cost you to find out whether its sharp enough are not terribly relevant if this image isn't up to it. Do you have better ones you could use.

[Landrum Kelly]

The merits of the picture aside (irrelevant, since such judgments are subjective, and persons have their own reasons for wanting to remember a scene), I would try it at 12x18, or, if you were printing, using the 13x19 paper on a 13"-wide carriage printer. (You might want to think about getting one of those! Learning to print is very challenging, but also very rewarding.)

 

I know that I occasionally have gotten good 12x18 prints from a five-megapixel camera--and that astonished me. (It was the Olympus E-20, and here is one photo, not a great photo, but one that meant a lot to me personally--and the print was surprisingly sharp: http://www.photo.net/photo/5227371 .)

 

Good luck on what you decide to do. Some persons have been able to upsize using Genuine Fractals in order to print larger, but I cannot bear witness to its effectiveness, since I have never tried it.

 

--Lannie

[tom_luongo1]

A different cropping and some other previously mentioned edits will improve your result. Better to have a more interesting photo than to worry about clarity of the fine details. The original horizon line went through the center of the frame which often causes a static composition. The perspective is more interesting if you crop the horizon near the bottom or top of the frame. Keep that in mind the next time you are composing in the camera.

 

Yes, cropping will lose a few pixels, but you'll still have plenty for the 20"x30". Best to work from the original RAW as some capture information is lost when the in-camera jpeg is produced. The 12-bit RAW will help pull detail out from the shadows too. (Use the Photoshop Shadows/Highlights adjustment)

 

The exposure was 1/80" at f/18. You'll get better sharpness with faster shutter speeds (less camera shake) and wider f-stops in the f/8 to f/11 range (less diffraction).

 

You have a few dust bunnies too but the spot healing tool will take care of those easily.<div></div>