4 x 5 foot prints, now we are getting serious...

Got a good potential gig coming up, but a little nervous. The client has been happy with my Olympus E-10 4 megapixel work for print, now they want some large prints to hang, 4 ft. by 5 ft.

Can it work? A prepress friend suggested that instead of the file, make a 4x6 or 5x7 photo print and then have it drum scanned. Or is there recommended technology for boosting the resolution or file?

Any suggestions? This could be a very pivotal job and I would like to use the E-10. Let me know!

Frank

-- http://www.franklinmcmahon.com/

Hi Frank,

What some people use here is Genuine Fractals, a PS plug-in that allows you to res up files to very large sizes.

4 ft by 5 ft might be pushing the issue beyond acceptable quality......I don't have personal experience to know.

Others hopefully will comment on the largest size they've printed a GF file.

Hey.....how's things in Portland?

Best wishes,

David
-- http://www.mongoosephoto.com

Just out of curiousity, what kind of viewing distances are we talking here? I'd think that'd make a HUGE difference in just how fine your detail and res would have to be. Of course, I've never printed any of my stuff over 8" X 12" so I'm far from experienced in what you're inquiring about. I'm curious to see the answers you get though. ---PW

I recently did a QImage, multi-page print, of my boy. Final size was 32H x 25W from a SHQ JPG Image. No other processing - just printed on QImage. From 4-5 feet away you can tell it's a bit fuzzy. From 10 feet it looks great. I spayed with back with spray-glue and mounts the sheets on poster board.

5 years ago my spouse took a 35mm negative, image of me on our wedding, and had it enlarged to almost life size. The enlarged head sizes of both shots are about the same size, but the one I did of my boy is much better. Up close, incredible noise from the 35mm shot, but from 10-15 feet - looks great. My only advice would be to take it to a processing company that knows what they're doing and ask them, and try both ways.

Davidk

Frank McMahon said:

Got a good potential gig coming up, but a little nervous. The
client has been happy with my Olympus E-10 4 megapixel work for
print, now they want some large prints to hang, 4 ft. by 5 ft.

Can it work? A prepress friend suggested that instead of the file,
make a 4x6 or 5x7 photo print and then have it drum scanned. Or is
there recommended technology for boosting the resolution or file?

Any suggestions? This could be a very pivotal job and I would like
to use the E-10. Let me know!

Frank

--
http://www.franklinmcmahon.com/

Click to expand...

If you don't have access to Genuine Fractals (It's not realy expensive). You can try QImage. It's a printing program that scales it's prints using the same algorithms that GF. QImage is shareware It will allow you on print per each time you execute the program and will work for 30 days.

On the contrary there is one Demo of GF that will allow you to save open 20 times the files. (rescale is done at opening time).

--E-20, C-3030 and E-100rs happy owner

Frank,

Take the focus point of the image, crop out a 112 x 112
pixel area, and print it at 3 inches by 3 inches.

That's the -sharpest- image you'll be able to get.

Interpolating with Photoshop, Genuine Fractals, etc,
will only serve to blur the stair-stepping you see with
pixels that size. You won't get sharp edges without
some specialized post-processing, and even then, it
might be ugly...

Hi Frank, try a GF Search here and the Pro Forum, I read last year someone did a bilboard that started with an E-10 file and GF. I think it was for a Texas car dealer.
JP Photography

larry said:

Frank,

Take the focus point of the image, crop out a 112 x 112
pixel area, and print it at 3 inches by 3 inches.

That's the -sharpest- image you'll be able to get.

Interpolating with Photoshop, Genuine Fractals, etc,
will only serve to blur the stair-stepping you see with
pixels that size. You won't get sharp edges without
some specialized post-processing, and even then, it
might be ugly...

Click to expand...

--The best always,JP Photography~slow load show, enjoy~ http://members.localnet.com/~endoline/JPresters

Hi Frank,

This one is a tough question.

I would be interested in the subject matter and how close you will be to the subject.

I routinely print to 20x16 from E10 images and I have a 36x24 hanging in my pal's wedding car showroom. The shot of the car is excellent at 36x24 as it fills most of the frame. The bride and groom standing full length by the car are a different story.

I haven't found any digital camera up to the D1X , (I am waiting to test the Kodak 760 and the medium format backs are beyond my means) that do a good job of resolving a human face if the head size is too small. Beyond a group size of about 16 people full length there are just not enough pixels to get the detail that is needed.

Somebody on this site quite a few months ago had a billboard poster produced from an E10 image and it was incredible. Enclosed is the url but I notice that the image link no longer works. Why not try emailing the guy for more info.

Just another suggestion. Shoot with the E10 and back up with mf transparency. Very cheap to do and you don't even need to get it processed if the E10 image is fine. I cannot see any difference at 20x16 between tiff and 2.7 jpeg. At the sizes you are contemplating I would suggest you do some tests with tiff and raw. Download Genuine Fractals as the free demo and see how you get on with it. The other alternative is to increase the image size in Photoshop 20% at a time until you get to your target print size.

I would be interested in the method that you intend to finally print at. Litho? Inkjet? Lightjet etc.

By the way. Anybody who tells you that you need a 300 dpi image to print with is talking twaddle. 144dpi is more than enough if you are going the wide format inkjet route.

I hope this help.

Regards,

Richard

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&page=1&message=952361

Frank McMahon said:

Got a good potential gig coming up, but a little nervous. The
client has been happy with my Olympus E-10 4 megapixel work for
print, now they want some large prints to hang, 4 ft. by 5 ft.

Can it work? A prepress friend suggested that instead of the file,
make a 4x6 or 5x7 photo print and then have it drum scanned. Or is
there recommended technology for boosting the resolution or file?

Any suggestions? This could be a very pivotal job and I would like
to use the E-10. Let me know!

Frank

--
http://www.franklinmcmahon.com/

Click to expand...

Here's a look at a poster that I did for my daughter from a not so great shot at a picnic last July. The original was a SHQ photo that was cropped and manipulated in PS. Genuine Fractals was then used to resize (upsize?) the image to about 38' by 26'. The resulting Tiff file was an amazing 210mgs. I then took it to a local photo shop and had it printed on hi-gloss paper and then mounted on posterboard. Although the print was a little darker than the the original, the photo below looks darker then it really is as it was taken in a darkened room a few minutes ago so I could include it in this post. The brightnes of the print could have been adjusted at the printers and in hindsight I would have had them make an adjustedment. They charged me $30 for the print.

I think the result was fairly acceptable considering that the original shot was oof (MY fault not the camera- I focused on the blanket), the file quality was shq and the lighting that day was poor and no flash was used.

From a viewing distance of a few feet the effect is very good. My daughter was extremely pleased to be the star of her own poster and even invented a new autograph for the occassion.

I think that a well composed shot under better lighting and shot in raw mode would produce the results that would make your client very pleased. I would suggest that you try either GF or another intropolation method on a test shot, burn it to a CD and have your local print shop have a look. He could then tell you if the result would be worth it. I believe that you will be impressed with result

Best of lUCK

PERICON

Original shot:



Poster as it hangs on my daughter's wall:

Hi Pericon,

Lovely daughter......lovely shot. And the poster indeed looks great for the conditions you described.

Surely you mean 38 inches by 26 inches (not feet)??

Best wishes,

David-- http://www.mongoosephoto.com

LOL... Most Surely...

Thank You for your kind comment.

Pericon

DF said:

Hi Pericon,

Lovely daughter......lovely shot. And the poster indeed looks
great for the conditions you described.

Surely you mean 38 inches by 26 inches (not feet)??

Best wishes,

David
--
http://www.mongoosephoto.com

Click to expand...

I've used GF Print Pro 1.0 to interpolate a 640 X 480 image up to 7200 X 4800. This image was printed on a 3" X 2" transparency @ 200 dpi and mounted in a light box. The result was beyond our requirements for clarity.

eileen

Excellent, excellent.

Lots of great info. Seems GF is worth looking into.

I didn't mention what I would be shooting, it is probably going to be close-ups, baskets of fruit, lobsters, New England food etc. So it may fly OK.

One nutty idea I had, since they will be stationary objects is to shoot in quarters. In other words, zoom in and shoot 1/4 and then stitch them together for a 16 (!?) megapixel image. I think if I was far enough away, so the tilt of the camera would not change the perspective, it might work. I am thinking natural lighting or always-on lights as opposed to flash due to variations between shots. Has anyone tried this? Any web tutorials on this technique?

Some of the other options mentioned sound somewhat easier though.

Any other comments, let me know. Still have to decide on the best route. Thanks to all, especially Pericon, who photographed the poster! Also I e-mailed Tom Judd, he deleted the billboard photo off his server, but he wanted to photograph it again driving by tomorrow and then repost it so I could see it! Awesome! I always get so much great help and advice here!! Thanks!

Frank

http://www.franklinmcmahon.com/

-- http://www.franklinmcmahon.com/

Hey Frank,

Good luck with your shot(s). There is a website out there that has someone using his Nikon 990 to do quarters or thirds or ninths and stitching them all together as a composite image. Doing this with your shots will most certainly produce sharper images for you. I did this for a poster-size image for my church, I shot a crowd in three shots and then stitched them together for a panorama which was printed at 30" wide. It turned out really well. However for your shots you might want to look into a pano head for your tripod if you want to do composite shots. Even at about 20-30' away, my shots had some perspective error.

Let us know how it turns out!

-Eric K

Frank McMahon said:

Excellent, excellent.

Lots of great info. Seems GF is worth looking into.

I didn't mention what I would be shooting, it is probably going to
be close-ups, baskets of fruit, lobsters, New England food etc. So
it may fly OK.

One nutty idea I had, since they will be stationary objects is to
shoot in quarters. In other words, zoom in and shoot 1/4 and then
stitch them together for a 16 (!?) megapixel image. I think if I
was far enough away, so the tilt of the camera would not change the
perspective, it might work. I am thinking natural lighting or
always-on lights as opposed to flash due to variations between
shots. Has anyone tried this? Any web tutorials on this technique?

Some of the other options mentioned sound somewhat easier though.

Any other comments, let me know. Still have to decide on the best
route. Thanks to all, especially Pericon, who photographed the
poster! Also I e-mailed Tom Judd, he deleted the billboard photo
off his server, but he wanted to photograph it again driving by
tomorrow and then repost it so I could see it! Awesome! I always
get so much great help and advice here!! Thanks!

Frank

http://www.franklinmcmahon.com/

--
http://www.franklinmcmahon.com/

Click to expand...

Fre Miranda has his SI PS action which he says is better than GF and it is free.--Blokey http://www.pbase.com/blokey/galleries

Frank,

Here is a link for a stitching program. I have used it for stitching ten pics to make one and it works great and it's free.

http://www.panoramafactory.com

You are right about backing up some to do the shots,
good luck
dwayne

Eric K said:

Good luck with your shot(s). There is a website out there that has
someone using his Nikon 990 to do quarters or thirds or ninths and
stitching them all together as a composite image. Doing this with
your shots will most certainly produce sharper images for you. I
did this for a poster-size image for my church, I shot a crowd in
three shots and then stitched them together for a panorama which
was printed at 30" wide. It turned out really well. However for
your shots you might want to look into a pano head for your tripod
if you want to do composite shots. Even at about 20-30' away, my
shots had some perspective error.

Let us know how it turns out!

-Eric K

Frank McMahon said:

Excellent, excellent.

Lots of great info. Seems GF is worth looking into.

I didn't mention what I would be shooting, it is probably going to
be close-ups, baskets of fruit, lobsters, New England food etc. So
it may fly OK.

One nutty idea I had, since they will be stationary objects is to
shoot in quarters. In other words, zoom in and shoot 1/4 and then
stitch them together for a 16 (!?) megapixel image. I think if I
was far enough away, so the tilt of the camera would not change the
perspective, it might work. I am thinking natural lighting or
always-on lights as opposed to flash due to variations between
shots. Has anyone tried this? Any web tutorials on this technique?

Some of the other options mentioned sound somewhat easier though.

Any other comments, let me know. Still have to decide on the best
route. Thanks to all, especially Pericon, who photographed the
poster! Also I e-mailed Tom Judd, he deleted the billboard photo
off his server, but he wanted to photograph it again driving by
tomorrow and then repost it so I could see it! Awesome! I always
get so much great help and advice here!! Thanks!

Frank

http://www.franklinmcmahon.com/

--
http://www.franklinmcmahon.com/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Someone on the Nikon SLR forumn does that multi-stiching with several shots w/ a D1. Might want to post over there for some tips.

Dwayne Anders said:

http://www.panoramafactory.com

You are right about backing up some to do the shots,
good luck
dwayne

Eric K said:

Good luck with your shot(s). There is a website out there that has
someone using his Nikon 990 to do quarters or thirds or ninths and
stitching them all together as a composite image. Doing this with
your shots will most certainly produce sharper images for you. I
did this for a poster-size image for my church, I shot a crowd in
three shots and then stitched them together for a panorama which
was printed at 30" wide. It turned out really well. However for
your shots you might want to look into a pano head for your tripod
if you want to do composite shots. Even at about 20-30' away, my
shots had some perspective error.

Let us know how it turns out!

-Eric K

Frank McMahon said:

Excellent, excellent.

Lots of great info. Seems GF is worth looking into.

I didn't mention what I would be shooting, it is probably going to
be close-ups, baskets of fruit, lobsters, New England food etc. So
it may fly OK.

One nutty idea I had, since they will be stationary objects is to
shoot in quarters. In other words, zoom in and shoot 1/4 and then
stitch them together for a 16 (!?) megapixel image. I think if I
was far enough away, so the tilt of the camera would not change the
perspective, it might work. I am thinking natural lighting or
always-on lights as opposed to flash due to variations between
shots. Has anyone tried this? Any web tutorials on this technique?

Some of the other options mentioned sound somewhat easier though.

Any other comments, let me know. Still have to decide on the best
route. Thanks to all, especially Pericon, who photographed the
poster! Also I e-mailed Tom Judd, he deleted the billboard photo
off his server, but he wanted to photograph it again driving by
tomorrow and then repost it so I could see it! Awesome! I always
get so much great help and advice here!! Thanks!

Frank

http://www.franklinmcmahon.com/

--
http://www.franklinmcmahon.com/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--Frank--------------------------Be Well, Take Pictures, Enjoy Life!

I photographed a number of people last year, some full body, some half body, all with at least 2 subjects (an adult and a kid), with my E-10. The files were shot as SHQ jpgs. I am not sure what program they used to interpolate the files, but the end prints were 4'x7.5', give or take. Yes, 4 feet wide by 7.5 feet tall, larger than life size. The prints were for the March of Dimes event in Las Vegas, and were mounted to a full sheet foam board, then hung above each of the stations at the show.

So, how was the quality? Most were pretty good for color and sharpness, but from less than about 4 feet away you could see pixels and a loss of detail, didn't look real bad, but it was obvious and noticable. From 5 feet and further, they looked pretty good, and viewing distance on something that size is probably around 10 feet, so for that usage they looked really nice. I don't have a picture of them with me, but on Monday could take a close up and distant shot of them (if i remember) to post for you, if interested.--Matt Chase http://www.matthewchase.com

Frank McMahon said:

Got a good potential gig coming up, but a little nervous. The
client has been happy with my Olympus E-10 4 megapixel work for
print, now they want some large prints to hang, 4 ft. by 5 ft.

Can it work? A prepress friend suggested that instead of the file,
make a 4x6 or 5x7 photo print and then have it drum scanned. Or is
there recommended technology for boosting the resolution or file?

Any suggestions? This could be a very pivotal job and I would like
to use the E-10. Let me know!

Frank

Click to expand...

Frank,

The suggestion of Genuine Fractals is a good one. I have used it for some small work (under poster size) with images from a Kodak DC 290 with great results. I just bought an E10 but sure it would work with that also. Another suggestion is NIK Sharpener Pro (www.tech-nik.com). I went to a Hasselblad sponsored pro-digital seminar last year. They took an eyeball of a girl in a portrait and using PS, GF and NIK in conjunction with each other, blew this eyeball portion of the portrait up to about 5' x 6' on a screen with absolutely no loss of clarity, resolution and sharpeness. Her eyelashes looked as sharp as a razor's edge! NIK Pro can also be used to selectively enhance sharpeness so all of the image does not have to be enhanced.

Good luck with your assignment.

Angelo