Upsizing pictures for large canvas

[jointdoc]

I have a picture from my 5D MKII that is full frame that I want to print on a 30x40 inch canvas for my office waiting room wall.  I need to upsize the picture which is a HDR Landscape from Maine and I can't decide whether to use Photoshop CS5 and upsize by 10% each time until I get it large enough or buy Perfect Resize 7.  The waiting room is small so people will see it up close which I believe it will require 240 dpi.  I have not done this before and I want to get it right the first time.

Any suggestions?

[Kernuak]

For printing on canvas, you don't actually need as high resolution, 150 ppi is fine and many are printed as low as 100 ppi. If you print at 40x27 inches, that will give you over 140 ppi, which is more than adequate for canvas.

[jointdoc]

Thank you Kernuak that was my impression  but my lab insists on 240 DPI.  I will call them back.  Anyone else with first hand experience in this situation?

[Aglet]

For printing on canvas, you don't actually need as high resolution, 150 ppi is fine and many are printed as low as 100 ppi. If you print at 40x27 inches, that will give you over 140 ppi, which is more than adequate for canvas.

Agreed.  I've got a 36" wide canvas I processed from a Rebel XTi, works out to about 140ppi in final form, and it looks just fine from normal viewing distances, maybe a touch soft from close up but the canvas texture complements it and people love looking at it.

When I tried Perfect Resize I did not like the output from it for close up inspection.  I'd use it on a billboard or a huge print where nobody's going to look too closely at it.  It does do some strange things to improve acutance at a distance but it's not a "photographic" look if you're fussy.  It depends on the image, it may be acceptable.  You can download and try a demo for free.

Upscale your image to the requested 240ppi the shop wants, and, as others have stated, using PS bicubic larger, in ONE step, then carefully sharpen the resulting image for an optimal appearance using some of PS's various sharpening tools.  Some 3rd-party plugins from Topaz or Nik Software can also do slightly different sharpening methods which may provide a slight advantage but not likely enough to warrant using them.

And if your clients are wincing in pain while they wait, maybe they'd prefer something a little softer and soothing to look at anyway. 

[zim]

Hmmm…. very interesting Perfect Resize 7 was definitely on my software list but these comments are making me wonder. Anyone care to come to it’s defence? I remember a post some time ago where someone was extolling it’s virtues but I can’t remember the context now.
Also can anyone clarify that Bicubic Smoother in Elements 9 which is what I use to enlarge is exactly the same as is in the full product?

Thanks

[Quasimodo]

Interesting question. I had a long talk with a friend of mine who is a graphic designer, and he tried to make me understand, that the 5D II was capable of large pictures with excellent size. He argued that if you put it next to a medium format copy of the same image, you would probably spot a difference, but in itself it is more than enough for the kind of room you are talking about. He argued further that if we were talking billboard size, the distance of which you look at the picture would still make it a great and sharp photo.

I value my friends knowledge highly, but I still wanted to see how things are in real life. I am waiting for a copy of a picture I took with the 5D II and the 100 F2.8L HIS. I upsized it in photoshop CS6 (just did it in one go (from 240 dpi to 300, and resized it to 100 width and 70 height. That made the jpg to 47,2mp. I am anxiously waiting for the print The picture is enclosed below, and I plan to hang it on the wall in my kids room.

G.

[stanleykozak]

The place where I got one of my images printed from a single frame of the 5DIII to 60" canvas, used Alien Skin Blow Up 3. Might be worth of a trial to see how you go. The end result was great!

[RLPhoto]

I've used genuine Fractals with great results with Lower MP cameras. Wouldn't hesitate to use it if needed to blow up my 5D3 photos.

[TexPhoto]

Get a trial version of some of the above software and try it, vs just plain photoshop.  You can try it on screen for nothing, you can crop out a sample and print it at walgreens for $.15 a print.  (blow it up to 30x40, then crop a 4x6 piece, and print it.) You can even take that to the room and try it out on the wall.

I will wager that you won't be able to tell the difference.  I wonder if some of the one trick pony upsizing programs add a little sharpness or vibrance to make you say oh wow this is better... 

[funkboy]

well, after some googling, it turns out that a thread on this forum is the best summary of the upresing section of Reichmann's print tutorial: 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3610.msg83945#msg83945

lots of great points in there, all of which make good sense to me...

Schewe makes some great points in this one as well:  http://forums.adobe.com/thread/983614

[Quasimodo]

well, after some googling, it turns out that a thread on this forum is the best summary of the upresing section of Reichmann's print tutorial: 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3610.msg83945#msg83945

lots of great points in there, all of which make good sense to me...

Schewe makes some great points in this one as well:  http://forums.adobe.com/thread/983614

Really interesting. I will actually take time this fall to watch the full tutorial.

I have a couple of questions:

Why would you need or in what situations would you need 420 or 720dpi? (as mentioned in the article you referred to.

Has anyone any personal experience with the Canon Pixma Pro 1?

[M.ST]

Use Perfect Resize 7 Pro. It´s better than the Photoshop CS6 functions.

[funkboy]

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/983614

Why would you need or in what situations would you need 420 or 720dpi? (as mentioned in the article you referred to)

If you dig down through the comments on the Schewe article on the Adobe forum, here's his recommendation about final output resolution for printing from Lightroom:

Times have changed. The bottom line now is if the native resolution of your image will print at under 360 PPI for Epson or 300 PPI for Canon/HP, upsample to 360/300 in LR and apply the correct output sharpening. If the PPI is over 360/300 but below 720/600 PPI, upsample to 720/600.
 
As for Photoshop, you would have to upsample and then output sharpen...I really don't print much from Photoshop any more since it's a better workflow from LR.

He goes on to state that output resolutions above 720dpi (or 600, depending on your printer) are only worth messing with in specific circumstances (mostly proofing) with specific printers.  He also recommends picking the algorithm based on personal taste and the subject matter (e.g. a given algorithm will react differently to human skin in portaits vs. textile patterns or landscapes).

This argument makes a lot of sense to me.  Assuming you've got a modern Epson printer, it's going to resample anything under 360dpi up (or down) to 360dpi if you've got it set at that resolution, and up (or, more rarely, down) to 720dpi (via the "photo RPM" or whatever the driver calls the max resolution option).  You're much better off doing the upsampling in LR and adding some output sharpening than blindly letting the printer driver do all that for you.

He also argues against throwing away pixels wherever possible, e.g. if your image's native rez is 450dpi it's better to upres to 720dpi and output sharpen than to discard data by downsampling to 360.  You also clearly don't want the printer driver to be doing the downsampling for you either.

[Quasimodo]

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/983614

Why would you need or in what situations would you need 420 or 720dpi? (as mentioned in the article you referred to)

If you dig down through the comments on the Schewe article on the Adobe forum, here's his recommendation about final output resolution for printing from Lightroom:

Times have changed. The bottom line now is if the native resolution of your image will print at under 360 PPI for Epson or 300 PPI for Canon/HP, upsample to 360/300 in LR and apply the correct output sharpening. If the PPI is over 360/300 but below 720/600 PPI, upsample to 720/600.
 
As for Photoshop, you would have to upsample and then output sharpen...I really don't print much from Photoshop any more since it's a better workflow from LR.

He goes on to state that output resolutions above 720dpi (or 600, depending on your printer) are only worth messing with in specific circumstances (mostly proofing) with specific printers.  He also recommends picking the algorithm based on personal taste and the subject matter (e.g. a given algorithm will react differently to human skin in portaits vs. textile patterns or landscapes).

This argument makes a lot of sense to me.  Assuming you've got a modern Epson printer, it's going to resample anything under 360dpi up (or down) to 360dpi if you've got it set at that resolution, and up (or, more rarely, down) to 720dpi (via the "photo RPM" or whatever the driver calls the max resolution option).  You're much better off doing the upsampling in LR and adding some output sharpening than blindly letting the printer driver do all that for you.

He also argues against throwing away pixels wherever possible, e.g. if your image's native rez is 450dpi it's better to upres to 720dpi and output sharpen than to discard data by downsampling to 360.  You also clearly don't want the printer driver to be doing the downsampling for you either.

Thank you for your insightful answer. I realize that there is many things I have to learn. I have no clue what my dpi is from the camera. I mainly shoot with a 5D II and a 1Ds III. When I open it in photoshop the default seting used to be 240, and after I changed the number to 300; it now opens images at 300. I have no clue if that is from the camera or anything. ..  The Pixma Pro 1 I am looking at offers 4800 x 2400 dpi, and according to different reviews I have seen it can print gallery quality prints. I have no clue if the DR or resolution of my 5D II can utilize this. I have earlier had quite cheap printers and have seen that there are great differences on the paper print, and I am looking for the best results of my pictures (given my limitations as a photographer and my equipment).

[TrumpetPower!]

Eh, I see lots of bad advice on this thread.

Let me try to cut through it all with but a single bit of advice.

DO NOT RESIZE.

Either you have your own large-format printer that you'll be using or you don't.

If you do, you're not coming to the Canon Rumors forum for advice on how to use it, which means that, if you're here and reading this, then you're not the printer operator.

Resizing is a job for the printer operator. That's what you're paying for.

Just prepare the file to the best of your abilities, and let the printer operator figure out how to get the best possible output for that particular printer.

You're not only not going to do even as good a job as the seasoned pro, you're going to make things worse. Once you've done your resizing, the damage you've done to the file can't be undone.

So, just hand over the file and be done with it. If you don't like the results, discuss it with the printer operator and be ready to take your business elsewhere.

Cheers,

b&