What's the best print I can make with a 800x530 jpeg?

[gen_b.]

<p>I deleted a significant number of photos a few years ago, thinking I'd 'start fresh'.<br>

Unexpectedly, my Uncle passed away, and his wife longs for a print of a photo I had taken of a beach that was significant to them. All I have is a 800x530 image. I resized it from a Nikon D50 "Normal - large" jpeg using CS2, and saved it on level 12 -- the highest quality. No effects were added.<br>

<br /> I do not think that she'd be critiquing the fine details of the print, but I'd still like to do what I can to improve the quality.<br>

<br /> What's the biggest that I could stretch it, with reasonable quality? Are there any methods of resampling with CS2 that I could attempt?<br>

<br /> I know it won't be ideal, but something is better than nothing.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Gen, this article might answer some of your questions:<br>

<a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-photo-enlargement.htm">http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-photo-enlargement.htm</a></p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Gen,</p>

<p>Depending on the printer, 180, even 120 input dots per inch is often considered the lower limit of a quality digital enlargement, and a modern printer will take each one and subdive it further into as many as 32 pieces or more to blend as smoothly as possible, so you might get something nice. </p>

<p>800 x 530 pixels at 120 pixels per inch = 6.67 x 4.42 inches -- a nice little print.</p>

<p>I routinely take web shots and double to quadruple the default size of an image from the default 300 dpi and enjoy them on my wall to study. I also engage subpixel Gaussian blur after doubling to smooth out the enlargement first. Share the picture with us and I'll let you know how big I can make it and still enjoy it without the feeling of jagged pixelation.</p>

<p>.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Also, <a href="http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfilter.html">http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfilter.html</a> has a very nice on-screen enlargement and sharpening and halo removal system -- very impressive, and something I've not seen before anywhere -- free for 30 days, and longer if you make testimonials at the web site.</p>

<p>.</p>

[kari v]

<p>I've printed very nice 12x16 from about that sized file. It needed couple hours of work to fix some details but still.<br>

Could you post the image? Content matters, some things upscale extremely well, others don't.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>In theory, an 800x530 pixel file is good for a wallet-sized print. However with full sentimental value attached, you can go larger. With proper resampling, a larger print will simply look blurry, but without obvious digital artifacts. The suggestion that you can get a good 12x18 inch print is ludicrous - a good 4x6 inch print will be challenge enough.</p>

<p>How are you retaining, backing up and archiving your images today? Is this a wakeup call?</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I looked at one of my cellphone shots of my grandaughter, a loose head and shoulders shot, and starting from 480x640 pixels I think I could make an acceptable 10x8 inch print. The key factors in answering the question are firstly, what sort of shot is it, a head and shoulders or full length shot and secondly I am sure that the photo is simply a trigger for your Aunt to remember the detail she has stored in her memory. The act of looking and remembering is what the photo will satisfy her even if normally we would think otherwise when deciding if it was an acceptable print, unless it was our partner we had lost.<br>

How big a print can be made to a degree depends on at what distance the viewer looks at it from .... back in the days of 2Mp and 3Mp cameras I remember one person making a large print which he mounted on the wall above a staircase ... it was quite acceptable even to a photographer becuase the nearest you could get to it was around five feet. Likewise a print mounted on the ceiling of a doctor's room for the patient to view when lying on a couch whatever.<br>

I still keep my cruddy [ and good :-)] negatives from fifty plus years ago ... you must have learnt by this not to 'start again' :-)</p>