How do you make small pixel photos better on printout?
 

I got a bunch of photos that are only 560x700 or so and when I print
them on 8 x 11 the features are not very fine. How can I improve on
it?

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:31:58 GMT, wrote:

I got a bunch of photos that are only 560x700 or so and when I print
them on 8 x 11 the features are not very fine. How can I improve on
it?

Can't add information that is not there. Your file size equates to
~70-80 PPI for 8X10. Good prints need more like 200-300.

you CAN use the un-sharp mask in Photoshop---or some other sharpening
SW to make them look a bit sharper. Also, make sure the contrast is
as high as possible without losing highlight or shadow detail.

Finally, with that file size, I would stay in the range of 4x6 to 5x7.
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".

Mark Herring wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:31:58 GMT, wrote:

I got a bunch of photos that are only 560x700 or so and when I print
them on 8 x 11 the features are not very fine. How can I improve on
it?

Can't add information that is not there. Your file size equates to
~70-80 PPI for 8X10. Good prints need more like 200-300.

you CAN use the un-sharp mask in Photoshop---or some other sharpening
SW to make them look a bit sharper. Also, make sure the contrast is
as high as possible without losing highlight or shadow detail.

I've got an unusual suggestion.

Print out the picture at its natural size on photo paper.

Using good lighting, take a hi-res picture of the picture.
A 3.4 megapixel or greater camera, possibly using a closeup lens.

Print that out at a larger size, a size that still seems to
have all the detail. Repeat until you get the size you want.

I'm not sure why this works, but it does.

It's critical to take good pictures each time.

"Carrie Lyons" wrote in message ...
I've got an unusual suggestion.

Print out the picture at its natural size on photo paper.

Using good lighting, take a hi-res picture of the picture.
A 3.4 megapixel or greater camera, possibly using a closeup lens.

Print that out at a larger size, a size that still seems to
have all the detail. Repeat until you get the size you want.

I'm not sure why this works, but it does.

If you have PhotoShop or something similar, you can achieve the same
effect with various filters, much faster. For instance, Gaussian blur
with a radius of 1-2 pixels (experiment: undo, redo to get the right
figure); (that achieves the smoothing out that printing and
photographing does) or descreening; then sharpening and adjusting
contrast. After all, the idea of PhotoShop is to provide digital
methods to do all the photo manipulation in seconds that would have
taken hours in the lab.

From: "Carrie Lyons"
Organization: Kook Terminators, Inc
Newsgroups: comp.periphs.printers
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:13:40 -0600
Subject: How do you make small pixel photos better on printout?

Mark Herring wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:31:58 GMT, wrote:

I got a bunch of photos that are only 560x700 or so and when I print
them on 8 x 11 the features are not very fine. How can I improve on
it?

Can't add information that is not there. Your file size equates to
~70-80 PPI for 8X10. Good prints need more like 200-300.

you CAN use the un-sharp mask in Photoshop---or some other sharpening
SW to make them look a bit sharper. Also, make sure the contrast is
as high as possible without losing highlight or shadow detail.

I've got an unusual suggestion.

Print out the picture at its natural size on photo paper.

Using good lighting, take a hi-res picture of the picture.
A 3.4 megapixel or greater camera, possibly using a closeup lens.

Print that out at a larger size, a size that still seems to
have all the detail. Repeat until you get the size you want.

I'm not sure why this works, but it does.

It's critical to take good pictures each time.

Hahahahahahaha, this is the funniest thing ever...

so u propose to introduce the distortion of the printer, of the lens, CCD
chip, jpg compression to IMPROVE the original??? lol lol

maybe u should try upsampling the original image in Photoshop first?

hehe, can't stop laughing.. lol

Brian

wrote in message . ..
I got a bunch of photos that are only 560x700 or so and when I print
them on 8 x 11 the features are not very fine. How can I improve on
it?

560x700 pixel is not much information to print at the size 8 x11 inch
and the data must be upsampled. Normally the printer driver does this.
This is convenient, but you cannot control the result.
There are differnt methods to upsample or interpolate. They differ in
speed and quality. Pixel replication is a verry fast method, but the
results are poor. Normally bicubic interpolation is a good trade off
between speed and quality. But there are better methods availably.
Some are implemented as photoshop plugins, others are standalone.
The tool I use for printing is Qimage. It can be use free for 30 days.
so you can find out whether you like the results.
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/
But of cause there are other products in that market.

Winfried

On 29 Jan 2004 12:15:22 -0800, (W. W.
Schwolgin) wrote:

wrote in message . ..
I got a bunch of photos that are only 560x700 or so and when I print
them on 8 x 11 the features are not very fine. How can I improve on
it?

560x700 pixel is not much information to print at the size 8 x11 inch
and the data must be upsampled. Normally the printer driver does this.
This is convenient, but you cannot control the result.
There are differnt methods to upsample or interpolate. They differ in
speed and quality. Pixel replication is a verry fast method, but the
results are poor. Normally bicubic interpolation is a good trade off
between speed and quality. But there are better methods availably.
Some are implemented as photoshop plugins, others are standalone.
The tool I use for printing is Qimage. It can be use free for 30 days.
so you can find out whether you like the results.
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/
But of cause there are other products in that market.

Winfried

Fundamentally, this isn't worth the trouble. There simply isn't enough
information to make it worth while. The results will always be fuzzy,
and if you somehow did (by resamply and sharpening) make it look
better, it would be full of spurious artifacts.

Paul

Alan wrote:
wrote:

Print out the picture at its natural size on photo paper.

Using good lighting, take a hi-res picture of the picture.
A 3.4 megapixel or greater camera, possibly using a closeup lens.

Print that out at a larger size, a size that still seems to
have all the detail. Repeat until you get the size you want.

If you have PhotoShop or something similar, you can achieve the same
effect with various filters, much faster. For instance, Gaussian blur
with a radius of 1-2 pixels (experiment: undo, redo to get the right
figure); (that achieves the smoothing out that printing and
photographing does) or descreening; then sharpening and adjusting
contrast. After all, the idea of PhotoShop is to provide digital
methods to do all the photo manipulation in seconds that would have
taken hours in the lab.

I'll give it a try sometime, thanks.

Brian Lehen wrote:
so u propose to introduce the distortion of the printer, of the
lens, CCD chip, jpg compression to IMPROVE the original???

Hi-res pics on my Nikon are TIFF format, and despite your
laughter, it works.

maybe u should try upsampling the original image in Photoshop first?

I'll check that out too, thanks.

--
$20 mil from Nike: http://miscstuff.org/~cypherpunk/Tiger_Woods_Swoosh.jpg

Paul Cooper wrote in message . ..
On 29 Jan 2004 12:15:22 -0800, (W. W.
Schwolgin) wrote:

wrote in message . ..
I got a bunch of photos that are only 560x700 or so and when I print
them on 8 x 11 the features are not very fine. How can I improve on
it?

560x700 pixel is not much information to print at the size 8 x11 inch
and the data must be upsampled. Normally the printer driver does this.
This is convenient, but you cannot control the result.
There are differnt methods to upsample or interpolate. They differ in
speed and quality. Pixel replication is a verry fast method, but the
results are poor. Normally bicubic interpolation is a good trade off
between speed and quality. But there are better methods availably.
Some are implemented as photoshop plugins, others are standalone.
The tool I use for printing is Qimage. It can be use free for 30 days.
so you can find out whether you like the results.
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/
But of cause there are other products in that market.

Winfried

Fundamentally, this isn't worth the trouble. There simply isn't enough
information to make it worth while. The results will always be fuzzy,
and if you somehow did (by resamply and sharpening) make it look
better, it would be full of spurious artifacts.

Paul

Paul,

you are right, in this case there might not be enough information for
a good print. But why do you say "fundamentally"? To my experience the
interpolation method makes a difference. I did a test and printed an
image with the size 10 x 15 cm at 300dpi (about 6.2 MB as tiff). I
printed the image with Photoshop Elements and Qimage at the size
10x15cm. Of cause the was no realy difference.
Then I did a second test with the same file and printed at 100dpi and
a size of 30 x45 cm. In this case there was a visual difference. The
Qimage print looked smoother and more sharp. But nevertheless, a
100dpi image will not give a good print.

Winfried