High Resolution with RAWs - How to ?

[markst33]

Hi there,

 

I have an offer in from a company to buy a photo of mine and I have sent them on a copy of the picture and they have

now come back and said that they definitely want to buy it. However they said that they want this highest possible

resolution 100megs or as close as is possible.

 

This picture is a RAW file taken with a Nikon D50 but I am a bit lost when we start talking about increasing the

resolution to 100 megs.

 

How do I do this. is it possible ? I have Photoshop CS3 which I am teaching myself. Can I use this ? If so how do I

do it.

 

Any help here would be most appreciated and they are looking to complete the deal asap.

 

Mark S.,

Dublin.

[david.elliott]

You can export it to tiff format and upsize (interpolate) it in photoshop.

 

I cant type out instructions -- reading to do for class. But google for 'upsize in photoshop' and stuff should pop up all over

the place.

 

Hope that helps.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Don't interpolate it. Let them know what the full un-resized resolution is and if that fits their needs then burn a CD-R with a 16 bit per channel TIFF in the Pro Photo color space. That will contain the maximum amount of real information.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Along with what Ellis said there's other things to consider on your clients end that may not be controllable on your end

regardless of file size and that is what level of quality your client expects on output when uprezzing.

 

If you control it by pre-uprezzing in CS3 using Image Size/ using Bicubic Smoother you may need to apply a level of

sharpening before uprezzing to avoid a soft look from the 6MP 3000x2000 max file the Nikon D50 delivers. Or you can give

that responsibility to your client and let him sharpen afterward which may induce sharpening artifacts to such heavily

interpolated data.

 

Below is a demo I've posted before on this subject on what level of sharpening should be required to overcome the softening

of detail from interpolation during uprezzing either by the user or printer/output device/client. It shows what to look for along

the edges of detail when pre-sharpening to get the best/natural appearance without halo's when uprezzing.

 

I can't give you exact instruction for your file because each camera manufacturer plus raw converter adds there own recipe to

sensor data along with the subject matter and how the image was exposed with what quality of lens used that requires

different settings for each image, but the example at the bottom should give you an idea what to look for in your own image.

You must view your file at 50-100% zoomed view in CS3 to see if sharpening levels are adequate before uprezzing and 200%

view to see the proper pixel stairstepping you'll need. Stairstepped pixel edges with the thinest halo's possible is the holy grail

in sharpening levels to overcome interpolation softening.

 

But again your client may not care about this level of exactness and quality so all you'll have to do is just uprez the file to your

client's 100MB size in CS3 using Image Size and Bicubic Smoother and be done with it.<div></div>

[patricklavoie]

i would not personnaly deliver a tif 16bit pro photo to any of my client..too easy to get bad print from it if the tech on the other side dont know much..like many *normal* client dont know much.

 

save as tif, 8 bit, srgb and let them know that the biggest size in inch you can deliver is ? x ? @ 300ppi..graphic designer dont know pixels x pixel image (i dont) but they all know INCH when you talk with them. : )

 

100meg is irrelevant as a 13 miilion pixel in 16 bit could be that size (or close too) only the new markIII in 16bit will be that size, but when go to 8bit, will be 50% smaller in size...

 

Then a 100meg file size in is real unresized state have to come from a P45, 125meg per click in 8bit, 250meg in 16bit.

 

let us know how it turns out : )..but trust me..dont deliver a 16bit pro photo, you will eard about the bad print they get sooner than you think.

[mendel_leisk]

Ask them what pixel dimensions they require. If they stick to their guns with with this "100 megs" requirement and do not elaborate, to put it politely: they are idiots.

[markst33]

Thanks to you all for your reponses. They want the image today and they stuck to their guns about 100mgs. I had already sent them a jpeg of the image so they had a good idea what it would look like blown up.

 

I followed Davids idea as I was stuck for time on this (their timeframe not mine) and it seems to have worked out well. I have a TIFF image with a resolution of 95.7mgs with very little loss of clarity. They wanted the image FTP'd today so it would not have reached them in time by post. I think they may have dropped the ball a little regarding their delivery dates.

[patricklavoie]

well, if they dont mind having a huge interpolated print, dont fight them : ) give them what they want...just let them know (or not) that they receving a less quality file that meet there standard as for the weight, not for visual quality.

 

Before sending your file you can save this TIF s LZW, it will take 50% less space when close, and be 50% faster to load; no lost of quality. You can even send them a jpeg quality 12 the file will be even smaller, without any visual lost of quality.

[patricklavoie]

Oh, and by the way, let them know that 100meg file doest say anything!

 

100meg when close or open? 100 meg in 8bit (100meg) or 16 bits (200meg)? 100meg in grayscale (100meg) or rgb (300meg) or cmyk (400meg).

 

as you see, there is plenty of way to get a 100meg file not the size they want..they should ask for a file size in inch and final ppi..that way if your image is 55meg or 165meg and you meet there requirement..everybody is happy.

[david.elliott]

Just to clarify - I am aware of the drawbacks to interpolating.

 

However, they asked for a 100meg file and that is the only way I know of to

get there. :P

[patricklavoie]

youre rigth, its the only way when a images is already taken..the other way would be to get a 45 000$ digital back, like a P45 + a Blad + lens..around 55 000$ total ; )

 

or to go back to film, and scan it...whatever suite your need best LOL

[david.elliott]

I want to win the lottery and give that a try Patrick. :D

 

I also want to try shooting film one day. Problem is I have no idea how to develop my own film and I know the kids at the local

walmart - I wouldnt trust them with anything haha.

 

Mark - Glad things seem to have worked out!

[patricklavoie]

i use interpolation everyday also FWIW, so there is nothing bad about it ; )

 

even with a 23million or a 39million pixel cam, my client always want a bigger format deliver (well most of them) like a 24x36 300ppi *in case* they need it.

 

Since they request it, i give it to them..but my interpolation is barely 150%-200%, and i start from a 125meg file in 8bit rgb so that is nothing, you wont really see *bad* things appening. but to go from a 30meg file up to a 100meg file you are asking a lot on visual quality..if they are freak about it and look at it at a photographer distance; meaning if thre nose touch the print ; )

[markst33]

OK then for future reference what IS the best way to end up with a large high quality image from RAW that is suitable for large prints. I get lost when people start talking about 8 bit and 16 bit and LZW's.

 

If someone could relay the steps from start to finish using PS CS3 that would be great.

 

And thanks again everyone. Photo.net is definitely the best site for amateur photgraphers around. I have tried a few sites but PN is by far the best especially when it comes to getting questions answered.

 

Mark

[patricklavoie]

OPTION 01

 

start with the highest possible million pix camera you can afford to buy or rent. you will then in need of interpolation do it less.

 

OPTION 02

 

shoot medium format film and scan it to your desire

 

OPTION 03

 

theres none : )

 

LZW is a compression format included when you save as TIF, its a lossless compression, i use it all the time on my TIF file.

 

As for the 8bits vs 16bits, my english is not good enough to describe technicaly what it is, using google would help : )

 

Let say that visually it could nto do a big difference for now, and a lot of printer dont use those 16bits for now. Let say that you have more information in your image, and when you manipulated it, you get a better histogram with less damage..not sure you follow me, but like i said try google to get a better concept.

 

RAW / TIFF / JPEG / 8 bit / 16bits / interpolation / srgb / rgb / cmyk / color management is the digital basics that you need to cover asap, until then you will only follow what people ask without knowing what best and for why.

[markst33]

Thanks for that Patrick, and your english is perfect.

 

I have a Nikon D50 and thats what I am going to be working with for the forseeable future (unless I win some money).

[gerard_smulevich]

There is an option 03. Gigapixel tiled images.

 

You shoot a multi-image "tiled" pano and "flat-stitch" it into one large hi rez image; then crop to frame it as desired. All you need is a pano head with a vertical bracket to shoot with the camera in portrait orientation and a pano-stitching app. like PTGUI. Simply shooting 5-7 shots with 30% overlap to create a composite landscape-oriented picture made up of 5-7 portrait-oriented frames will give you a hi-megapixel TIFF that can be slightly uprez'd if needed. It REALLY works and is flawless if done with a minimum amount of care.

 

On up-rez'ing: The trick there is to use Bipolar Smoother but in 10% increments (steps). CS3 likes 10% increments. I asked the technicians at A&I Colorlabs in Hollywood how they uprez for pro enlargements and that's how they do it; no third-party software or plug-ins needed.

 

BTW: I did 3 test prints , 12x16 on a Noritzu lightjet of the same image uprez'ed using 3 different methods: the CS3 10% BP Smoother method, then one using Genuine Fractals and one using another 3rdparty app that I cant recall. There was ZERO difference on a 100% up-sampled output. Conclusion: no need to buy extra software. Just use CS3; but also consider trying the flat-stitch pano process described above.

 

g

g

[patricklavoie]

1_only work on nature image / table top..dont try it on a fashion shoot or for a portrait..or a commercial job, so even if it work, it have limited area where you can use it.

 

2_theres no need for the past 3-4 minimum to use the 10% incremental interpolation..since at least the bicubic smoother option.

 

3_Agree, that using genuine fractal or directly photoshop you will get similar result; i personnaly use Ps myself.

[alan_rockwood]

Mark,

 

Make sure the copyright issues are worked out and agreed upon.

[tri-x1]

File size means nothing. I don't know why some companies demand that.

 

For print use the photo should be sharp at 300 dpi at whatever dimensions they intend to use it. It also should be CMYK, not RGB. And it doesn't need to be 16 bits. Just got done converting a bunch of 16 bit photos down to 8 bits (300 dip) for use in a coffee table type book. In most commercial printing, any resolution over 300 dpi is overkill and wasted disk space.

[patricklavoie]

should only be convert to cmyk IF the user got the appropriate icc profile from the commercial printer ONLY.