Resizing and quality

[Bosch232]

Hi all,

I worked on a photo today with the intention of printing and framing as a 5x7. I discovered tonight that it would be best as a larger print, namely an 8x10. (I know a bit of cropping will occur).

My question is can I resize the photo up in dimension without compromising print quality? Or should I just bite the bullet and do the retouching again at the new larger size?

Thanks.

 

[Tom Mann]

What are the pixel dimensions of the present version?

Tom M

 

[Bosch232]

2789 x 1992

 

[Bosch232]

I ran a test print, it looks good.

 

[Tom Mann]

As you pointed out, you'll have to crop the long dimension slightly when you go from 5x7 to 8x10. So, that means that to calculate the final ppi we should use the lower of your two numbers. Doing the division shows that your final print resolution will be 250 ppi (pixels per inch).

For almost all images, that will be quite adequate. If you have a very highly detailed image (eg, architecturally sharp lines, texture, etc.), and the viewer puts their nose right up to the print, they might perceive it as very, very slightly soft compared to if it was at 300 ppi, the oft-quoted number. However, the effect will be small. For most pix, such a small level of softening is likely to be much less than softening of the image due to camera shake, lens and depth of focus issues, etc. You should be fine.

Tom M

 

[Tom Mann]

Ahh. I see we posted at exactly the same time. Glad to hear you had good results.

Why don't you stay around and post some of your images. We would love to see them.

Best regards,

Tom

 

[Bosch232]

Thank you for the reply, Tom. I learned from your post.
Below is the image. It looks a little soft here, but is tack-sharp in 'real life'.

It looks quite nice printed and framed on the wall at 8x10.

 

[Tom Mann]

Hi Bosch - Good to hear from you. Nice photo. I'm glad to see that it printed well. A lot of people take statements like "300 ppi is the minimum" as if they were handed down on stone tablets (...yeah, I just saw the newly released movie, "Noah" ;-) ) whereas, in fact, the minimum ppi actually depends on lots of factors, and even then still comes down to personal preference.

Best regards,

Tom


PS - I just had an idea about how I would make the photo even more eye-catching than it already is. If you are interested, drop me a PM with an email address for you, and I'll dash off a sketch of what I'm thinking about and send it to you.

 

[Tom Mann]

Hi Bosch - I received your PM. My idea is to try to encourage the viewer's eyes to stay more on the main subject instead of being distracted by the busy, high contrast background. Towards this end, probably the easiest fix would be to lower the contrast of the background, maybe also add some additional blurring over what your f/4 L lens gave it, and I would frame and/or mat it to draw attention away from the busy edges.

I exaggerated the efx so that my intent was obvious (eg, and inadvertently, I made the kid on the right look like a ghost, LOL), but obviously one could throttle them back to whatever degree one likes. Anyway, just a thought.

A more involved fix would be to remove the two seated people and replace them with more greenery. The image would no longer be true to the original scene, but visually, I think this would make a big improvement. I find them very distracting, even at lowered contrast. Also, one really should maintain the variation in sharpness of the grass as you go from near the camera to plane of best focus and then beyond. I didn't bother with such frills in this little idea sketch, but it really needs to be done -- or you need a 300/f2.8 lens, LOL.


Cheers,

Tom

 

[MikeMc]

We all need a 300mm f2.8 EDIF....But I love what you did!

 

[Bosch232]

Yeah, someone pony up the $7k, and I'm all over it..

Haven't had a chance to revisit this photo project yet.