Upresing Image

Explorer ,
Aug 27, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi All,

I have an image that is several years old and much lower res than I am used to these days.  I need to get it ready for a large printing on metal for a public art project I was just awarded.  I'm not used to printing or upresing so I'm looking for detailed instructions on how to go about it for best results.

The image as it is as a 8 bit tif is 62.9mb's and says it's 19x12 inches at 300dpi.  I need to print it at 60 inches wide as a b/w image.  

Any thoughts?

Many thanks,

Silvia 

OS Catalina 10.15.6

PS 21.2.1

TOPICS
How to, Mac

Views

95

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more

Upresing Image

Explorer ,
Aug 27, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi All,

I have an image that is several years old and much lower res than I am used to these days.  I need to get it ready for a large printing on metal for a public art project I was just awarded.  I'm not used to printing or upresing so I'm looking for detailed instructions on how to go about it for best results.

The image as it is as a 8 bit tif is 62.9mb's and says it's 19x12 inches at 300dpi.  I need to print it at 60 inches wide as a b/w image.  

Any thoughts?

Many thanks,

Silvia 

OS Catalina 10.15.6

PS 21.2.1

TOPICS
How to, Mac

Views

96

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Aug 27, 2020 0
Most Valuable Participant ,
Aug 27, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

can you share this image?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 27, 2020 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Aug 27, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

As a rule, up-sizing images is a very bad idea.  Adding pixels where none exist introduces unwanted artifacts and pixelation.  That said, I would discuss this with the print professional.  They will know what the best approach is for the paper, size, ink and process they are using. But don't expect miracles.  60 inches is a far cry from the original.

 

Nancy O'Shea, ACP
Alt-Web Design & Publishing

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 27, 2020 1
Explorer ,
Aug 27, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks Nancy.  I completely agree, but in this case, it cannot be helped.  It happens.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 27, 2020 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Aug 27, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The best place to start is using Image Size with Preserve Details 2.0 selected as the Resample method. It should preserve details much better for enlargement than any other choice in the Resample menu.

 

Photoshop-Preserve-Details-2.jpg

 

But the higher the percentage of enlargement, the less the details might hold together. If the resulting file doesn’t meet your standards, you may need to use specialized upsampling software such as Topaz Gigapixel AI, which is well-regarded for this kind of thing, but requires a powerful GPU and is another $100.

 

Also, ask the metal printing service what ppi resolution they recommend for a work of that size. 300 ppi is probably not recommended because it would create a very large file size at 60 inches, and if the work is designed to be viewed at a distance, a lower ppi resolution will be perfectly adequate. I just don’t know what the guidelines are for ppi on metal at specific art sizes and viewing distances.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 27, 2020 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Aug 27, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Yes, I agree the viewing distance and PPI will be big factor.  That's why I said talk to the print professional.

 

 

Nancy O'Shea, ACP
Alt-Web Design & Publishing

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 27, 2020 0
Explorer ,
Aug 27, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Is it still important to upload a small percent at a time?  I remember that being a thing, like 120% at a time. This is going into a public art collection so it's possible it will be seen from not so far away.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 27, 2020 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Aug 27, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The advice to scale up in small steps is, as far as I know, not necessary or no longer better, ever since Adobe added improved upscaling methods. Now you can simply use one of the improved methods in just one step.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 27, 2020 0
Explorer ,
Aug 30, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

So you should use Preserve Details 2.0 rather than Preserve Details enlargement?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 30, 2020 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Aug 30, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Short answer:

Yes, Preserve Details 2.0 is the newest one. It’s supposed to be noticeably better than Preserve Details.

 

Long answer:

The more important the project, the more important it is for you to test how good your specific artwork looks when upscaled with different options. You get a lot of choices because the best resampling method can sometimes depend on what’s in the image content (edges, color transitions…). You don’t have to test them all because not all of them are relevant to upscaling photo content; for example, some are better for screen shots or web graphics.

For fine art photo enlargement, consider running tests that compare:

Preserve Details 2.0 

Preserve Details 

Bicubic Smoother 

Bicubic Sharper 

Bicubic 

 

If you don’t want to try them all, concentrate on the first three. And if you want the tests to run faster with smaller files, make a copy of your photo for testing, crop it down to an important area (without resampling of course), and run the upscaling tests on that. Keep an eye on edge quality, pixelation, smooth transitions vs banding, etc.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 30, 2020 0
Adobe Community Professional ,
Aug 30, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

"in this case, it cannot be helped"

 

Why, exactly, can it not be helped?

 

19 x 12 inches at 300ppi is 5700 x 3600 pixels. That's not a particularly small image! In fact, it's big enough to work as-is for almost any practical purpose, if the image is otherwise of good photographic quality (in focus, no camera shake etc).

 

I'm with Nancy on this. Upsampling is almost always a bad idea, no matter what fancy algorithm you use. There is absolutely nothing to be gained, but a whole lot to lose in terms of artifacts which you always get with upsampling.

 

The only justification for upsampling, ever, is if you can actually see individual pixels. 60 inches wide just means you'll be seeing it from a greater distance, so the effective optical resolution stays the same. You'll want to step back. The eye demands it, so that you can take in the whole. Standing up close is physically uncomfortable.

 

You will always get the cleanest result by leaving the file as it is. Instead, spend your energy on optimal sharpening.

 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 30, 2020 1
Adobe Community Professional ,
Aug 30, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Sylvia,

I also have had to upscale images because of not having an original to go back to--I agree sometimes it can't be helped. I have had really good results through the years at uprezing at 150% until I get to the size I want and have had some very good results.

 

Let us know how it turns out!

Michelle

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Aug 30, 2020 0