Question about pixels and enlarging a photo

Started May 3, 2012 | Discussions thread
RetiredInFlorida
Senior MemberPosts: 1,303
Like?
Re: NR may do more harm than good IMO
In reply to richardplondon, May 4, 2012

richardplondon wrote:

I agree that some of the rather blocky digital noise and compression artefacts might look rather coarse and crude if enlarged as they are. However: I wonder whether a different approach might work for this kind of subject matter - also, for the slightly grungy (no offense intended) low-light aesthetic that is apparent in this photo.

file size IS 40x60

So for printing purposes, I would be tempted to "embrace the noise" - disguising some of the more obviously digital artifacts and also the limited detail (due to the poor lighting levels) with a moderate injection of artificial film-grain-style noise . This would change the viewer's expectations in terms of detail, and avoid that woolly, slick effect you sometimes get from digital in the complete absence of fine-scale textural detail.

to "embrace the noise"
Topaz DeNoise
.13
.09
.71
0
0
0
0
-
.31
.11

A film enlargement that is grainy yet sharply focused on the negative, has a certain definition and subjective clarity to it, per se as an object - even though the exact details of the subject portrayed may not be visible. If something could be done to emulate that, I think this picture could work out very nicely.

yup, a $3000 lens does that beautifully.

regards, RP

-- hide signature --

Mike

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow