Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

upsizing to print a poster

Paul Topol
I want to print pics super size, like poster size or bigger.

I am shooting RAW with a canon 1dx and 5d3.
Using CaptureOne I have been processing into TIF 16bit with Prophoto profile and 100%
Resolution is at at 600px/in.

Because I want to increase the size of the final print should I process at 200% and 1200px/in.
What happens to the interpolation?
I would have thought doing it from RAW would be the ideal way.

Or should I upsize it (to use a McDonald's phrase) using NIK and OnOne software, or Photoshop?.

Anybody have some experience or advice?

Thanks

Paul
0

Comments

8 comments

Date Votes
  • Paul Steunebrink
    High quality printing does not require resolutions beyond 300 px/in. With higher resolutions you make it harder to reach your goal of a large print.

    You can upsize with CO8 during processing to 250% max. I assume that printing directly from CO8 has the same limitation.
    Specialized programs may give a better result, but experience and a lot of testing comes into play here.
    0
  • Paul Topol
    Thanks for the reply.

    So, Should I then leave the resolution at 600 and scale to 200%?

    Thanks

    paul
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Hi,

    you're working with some misconception about resolution. If Paul stated 300dpi as all what is needed for high quality printing, this holds true essentially for all printing sizes. That means that what you need for bigger output sizes is MORE PIXELS and not more resolution. But for many purposes when big poster size output is needed one would work with lower resolution - which still delivers good to very good detail. This means normally resolution in the range fron 180-200dpi. This takes into account that big prints are usually viewed from larger distances.

    The basic calcultions you need are: Pixels on the long side divided by the resolution = print size in inches
    Example: 6,000px / 200dpi = 30in (30" x 2.54cm/in = 76.2cm)

    If you need bigger, "upressing" is needed which means in the example transforming 6,000px into 12,000px (=200%)

    Then you get: 12,000 / 200 dpi = 60in (60" x 2,54cm/in = 152.4cm)

    If reducing resolution to 180dpi you get: 12,000 / 180dpi = 66.67in

    The question is whether it's better to do the upressing: a) out of the RAW converter; b) in an image editing program like PS; c) in specialized SW; or d) in the printer's SW. There are special printers which achieve in their internal upressing SW/process better results than usual SW solutions so this would be a particular question to discuss with your printing service. To them you'd usually deliver full pixel size (from your camera) and "normal" resolution output from your RAW converter (100%) in combination wit the desired physical output size (in inches or cm). For normal print services you usually have to prepare the data by yourself. In any case it may be interesting asking the print service whether they can send you their printer ICC profile so you would be able to simulate / adjust (if necessary) the colour rendering (which may differ from your usual screen rendering). Additionally you should ask which colour space the file should be, which file format / bit depth. Since printing big usually means spending pretty big money thoroughly preparation is a good idea.
    0
  • SFA
    As Michael has said - contact the printing service and take their advice.

    In my experience the 250% "enlargement" that Paul mentioned works well. There are people that suggest multiple small step enlargements are the way to go and for images with very fine detail that they want to retain when printed very large they may be right. I have seen pre-prepared presentations. It's a lot of work even then.

    If you really want to go very large then I would guess that you could process to TIF at 250% and reprocess the TIF another 250% but you will end up with a huge file and may start to hot system capability limits. Your print provider is very likely able to offer the same capability from your original file although this may come as part of a special processing service charge.


    HTH.


    Grant
    0
  • Filthy Lucre
    The advice to contact the printer is sound. As was stated previously, often commercial printers employ Raster Image Processors (RIPs) which do a superior job of upsizing a file, superior to any software we're likely to own — including Photoshop and presumably Capture One. If the printer says to send the un-interpolated file, then that is what you should do. Also, there's a 95% chance the Prophoto profile will have to be swapped out for sRGB or maybe Adobe. Check to see if the printer will handle this of if you should convert before submitting.
    0
  • Paul Topol
    Thanks guys for all your help and advice.

    You have answered my questions.

    I plan to print my own on my Epson 9900 using Qimage or Mirage Print.

    Any other suggestions?
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Paul811" wrote:
    Thanks guys for all your help and advice.

    You have answered my questions.

    I plan to print my own on my Epson 9900 using Qimage or Mirage Print.

    Any other suggestions?


    What does Qimage suggest?

    Are there any Epson resources or forums that can suggest a route to investigate?

    Are you planning to print up ti the maximum size of the device or try to go beyond that by printing in panels?

    What media are you planning to print onto.

    At what distance are you expecting the results to be viewed?

    All of these things (and more) are likely to be factors to consider.

    Printing directly from RAW may not be that critical for this purpose. I'm no expert here and have not checked what the Epson 9900 can do but assuming it's a similar to most others and offers 8bit processing printing from a file should be fine.
    As Paul said 300px should be fine - potentially much less than that unless you have a lot of very fine details that will be inspected from close to the print rather than and overall viewing distance.



    Grant
    0
  • Alan Rew
    [quote="Paul811" wrote:
    Thanks guys for all your help and advice.

    You have answered my questions.

    I plan to print my own on my Epson 9900 using Qimage or Mirage Print.

    Any other suggestions?


    IIRC one good article from Jeff Schewe recommended just reducing the pixels per inch count of an image (with interpolation turned off in Photoshop first, and only using interpolation after that to get the output print size you want. Changing the ppi is by definition a lossless process, and non-destructive as well.

    Interpolation algorithms do have their own particular 'look' in the final file, depending somewhat on the details in the original file. You'll find that some people swear by QImage (which I've not looked at for a long tie, but used to have several interpolation algorithms to choose from), others use Photoshop etc. FWIW for landscape & architecture I find that the Photoshop plugin formerly known as Genuine Fractals works surprisingly well, though the results have their own 'look' and you need to try out different software & see what suits you.

    Do some experiments. You don't need to print off a full-size print, just scale your original, crop out a piece of the image that's representative & print that on a smaller piece of paper. This can save you lots of money in paper & ink.

    HTH

    Alan
    0

Post is closed for comments.