Hi,
thanks for the various replies on this issue...some useful food
for thought. The point about viewing distance is a good point,
which I hadn't really considered. Also, increasing the image size
in 10% increments is something I'd heard about before but
forgotten. I tried it actually and I think it was was slightly
better.
The real issue though is the disparity between the background
image and the composite elements (the images I'm working with are
composites) and as such I want to try and make the background
image the best quality I can to start with. So, I went back to the
original RAW files, and remembered that you can open them at
different sizes/resolutions...at the bottom of the RAW window in
Photoshop you can specify the dimensions/resolution and Bit depth
you want to work with.
Dimensions and resolution I understand, though Bit depth is
something I'm unsure about...I have the choice of 8 or 16 bits,
and I'm presuming if I choose 16 bits it will be better quality,
though I don't know this for sure...any one know much about this?
I've tried using it and it certainly increases the files size...so
much so that when I have a final composite psd the file size
exceeds 2gb, which makes it difficult to save unless I zip it!
Also, if I choose a higher resolution setting than 300PPI will
that actually increase image quality?
One more thing; usually in the RAW window I apply a few minor
changes such as exposure, clarity etc, but whilst messing around
with one of the background images the other day I noticed that if
I used the 'Luminance' and 'Luminance Detail/contrast' sliders I
could slightly improve the detail of the image. Does anyone know
what Luminance actually is, or what it's meant to do?
Any good tips for improving overall base image quality much
appreciated. Just to re-cap; the images are composites with a
final output size of around 1600mm x 1064mm.
Thanks again,
Jonathan.
On 25/08/2014 08:13, Pini Vollach wrote:
I have red somewhere that Genuine Fractals have no advantage
now over Photoshop in enlarging images.
About the step by step approach, I don't know if it really
do better.
Lately, I used LR5 to enlarge a small portion (20%) of an old
RAW file that was created with Canon G5
I printed it on a A2 page ( about 38x38 cm) it is a great
print! A little bit soft but this give this specific image a
sense of an oil painting.
From this same file I also printed a greater portion (40%)
(38x52 cm) that came out just great without this softness.
Of course this is not a 160 cm print but was done from "not
so good" camera in today terms.
As much as I know, If you can deliver the printer an image
with a minimum of 120 dpi you can get a proper print. (Of course
300 or 360 is much better).
BTW - I printed another file (5D origin) twice, one 360 dpi
and another 720.
By naked eye you can't find the difference but with a
magnifying glass there is.
Lr5 did the enlargement of the resolution.
Hope this help
Pini Vollach
Sent from PiniPad
It has been my experience that Fractals or ‘Perfect
Resize’ as it has been rebranded is the best tool. But the
10% stuff works too.
Scott Kelby, in one of his early
photoshop books, suggested that one could blow up photos
by a few percentage points at a time. I tried it with a
jpeg file and it worked. For example, increasing the size
by 5 percent fifteen times will approximately double the
size of the image (2.08.) I don't l know if it will work
for you, but it might be worth trying. You can solve the
equation (1.0x)^n = y, for n, where x is the percentage
increase for each iteration, y is the final size and n is
the number of iterations.
Roger
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 22, 2014, at 8:05 PM,
"James Schenken" <jds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Oops, I calculated at 3000 pixels on the long dimension
rather than 4000.
Please make adjustments accordingly.
Sorry about that.
CPAP Therapy is a way to live.
On Aug 22, 2014, at 8:44 PM,
James Schenken <jds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The problem appears to be that the image magnification
is about 44 times.
The image resolution is about 83 pixels per
millimeter.
So, what you get if everything is perfect is 2 pixels
per millimeter or about 50 dpi.
That's OK if everyone is going to be 15 feet away from
the image or so.
Any chance the museum would go for a black and white
half tone for a background?
CPAP Therapy is a way to live.
Art Faul
The Artist Formerly
Known as Prints
------
Camera Works - The
Washington Post
.
