- This topic is empty.
Old buds
-
Would love to see how good the print to canvas went, I’m sure this is a striking print at that size. Where did you get it done and are you happy with the finish?
Thanks Tim and John,
seems strange coming back to this one after all this time-I got the print made in Dublin,
by http://www.inspirationalarts.ieI’ve had bigger prints made,
but this is the biggest off a single frame.I enlarged this one myself using Genuine Fractals, by OnOne software-
there is a free download of the full version which gives you a limited number of enlargements
before the trial runs out-
well worth a look-This one was printed at 360 dpi,
which works out at 250 Mp-
which is probably overkill at this scale really-A print this size is as much about where you hang it as it is about the picture itself,
and this one is probably not yet in the right place-thanks for coming back and looking-
appreciate it-j
btw,
the print quality is extremely good-
considering the size of the original-
of course it would be better to start off with a higher res image,
but you’ve got to work with what you have-I know there has been debate about the pointlessness of too many megapixels,
but I don’t subscribe to that view myself-
subject, of course to the resolving power of the optics to begin with-nice one j
it looks great in the room,hangin there
..and theres me thinkin 10mp would struggle larger
than A3
nikon f80 it is then,good times ahead :)I’m far from being an expert in photoshop, but would it not do to increase the image size and resolution in photoshop and then print from that having sharpened for the new sized image. I did this recently for a 24×16 inch print and i was happy with the results. Just wondering what the advantage is in the way you went about it. I’m sure there are other ways of doing this too, would love to know the best practice for printing large, do you do anything different when printing to canvas as opposed to archival paper?
Have a happy Christmas.
John.
Thanks, John, Thomas-
John, uprezing or upscaling, or enlargement, as I probably wrongly prefer to call it, can be dealt with in many different ways, I use the Genuine Fractals plugin for Photoshop- but you can simply resample in Photoshop.
If you do the resampling method, there are lots of resources online to point you in the right direction. These reccommend you to enlarge in incremental steps, usually of 10% at a time. These can be recorded as an action, and replayed as an action set. Some even recommend enlarging bigger, then downsampling.I prefer the plugin.
These details are taken from another post of mine, Chatter- https://www.photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?t=3017
They show the difference between a straight 500% enlargement, with no incremental stepping, and the Genuine Fractals plugin method.
Both have received the same level of sharpening-
The first one was enlarged 500% using Bicubic Smoother, the second was enlarged 500% in Genuine Fractals.
A 500% enlargement is pretty major, and you can expect the image to degrade anyway, but I think the GF method produces better results, with finer lines, and sharper local contrast.
This is particularly noticable in the wind vane atop the mast, I think. I hope you can see the differences-As far as the differences between printing on canvas and paper, I send my big canvas prints out for printing, so I’m not particularly knowledgable about all the technique-
but I believe the processes are pretty similar, with the obvious difference being the profiles needed for the different media.Photozoom is a good enlarger too, looks well by the way JB………love yer telly :wink:
Thanks Noely-
if only it were my telly- :DI went onto PhotoZoom website-
I personally wouldn’t like the look of that one at all-
it looks like some of the “artistic” filters in photoshop-only my opinion now…
I use Gf print pro 4 and Photozoom pro…not much of a difference really…..(I prefer GF meself) :wink:
Just can’t figure out how to make GF work with CS3 yet-
Tho quite sure its only a matter of more time,
and more money-Like I said, I had a look at some of the enlargement examples on their (photozoom) website, and they looked quite crude to me,
and removed any semblance of a photographic image, and replaced it with something far more graphic-PaddyJoe,
sorry to see you go,
tho I think you’d been rumbled quite a while back-For anyone not quite up to date with the story,
Last night, PaddyJoe bowed out of our lives with a flourish.
As you said, not everything is as it seems. Perhaps this should be more obvious to photographers than anyone else, but, not to put too much spin on it, PaddyJoe belonged to the great literary tradition that brought us Myles nagCopaleen, Mark (as read) Twain, Lewis Carroll and George Eliot. All Noms de Plume, (sorry PaddyJoe) and aliases used to enable ideas to be put across without the baggage of being associated with a real person.PaddyJoe was never malicious, though often irreverent, and gave much to this site.
No Laws have been broken here, maybe not even rules. Its not as if PaddyJoe can bring his avatar into a bank, and use it as a proof of identity.
The internet in general, and this site in particular, is a spectacular resource which allows us a platform for self expression, with the opportunity for immediate feedback and comment. Identities are not sacred, but ideas are.Thankfully, its very difficult for Ideas to be extinguished, no matter how many words are excised from the record.
Long live PaddyJoe
You will be sorly mist.And thanks for adding to the value of the site with all of your 120+ posts-
j (not PJ)
jb7 wrote:
Just can’t figure out how to make GF work with CS3 yet-
Tho quite sure its only a matter of more time,
and more money-Like I said, I had a look at some of the enlargement examples on their (photozoom) website, and they looked quite crude to me,
and removed any semblance of a photographic image, and replaced it with something far more graphic-LOL
jb7 wrote:
Long live PaddyJoe
You will be sorly mist.
And thanks for adding to the value of the site with all of your 120+ posts-j (not PJ)
In my view some people take photography (and themselves?) far too seriously and Paddy Joe brought not only a bit of fun to the site, but also a bit of a reality check. His ‘malaprops,’ his freudian slips, his wicked sense of humour etc will be ‘sorly mist’ (sic :lol: ) by me as well.
(If anyone wants to see Paddy Joe’s (brilliant) final post, then I can send it on request by PM.
Brandyman (also not PJ)When I get an order for a massive print I will be referring back to this thread (or just PMing you probably).
Excuse the pun, but the buds photo is growing on me too.
I was on the forum for a few minutes this morning and PaddyJoe was also logged on. He posted a few messages, but they have all disappeared now. I think this is a shame, personally. He was good crack and I don’t remember any of his posts actually saying anything nasty.
Sorry for using the thread, JB. The merest mention of “he-who-could-not-spell” seems to get one’s messages deleted.
No problem Pete,
Hope to see you making some big ones soon,
it really does add an extra dimension to a picture.
If I can be over literal for a minute-j
Love the final image Joseph. Looks fantastic to me and I imagine looks even better in ‘real life’. pm me the number
of whoever it is that cleans that place, would ya… my house is like a tip!Rob.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
