Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Up Rezing Workflow  (Read 2650 times)
batcher
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« on: February 03, 2013, 08:54:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

I would like to up-rez an image from a Canon 5D to print at approx. 30 on the long side. Im looking for some info as to the overall work flow order to achieve the best results.

Should I do any sharpening or noise removal in LR before editing (Tiff) in PS? When would be the best place in the work flow to do noise reduction, sharpening and uprezing if any(more) in PS?

Im sure if done in the wrong order they could be counterproductive.

I have LR4, CS6, along with PhotoKit Sharpener 2 and PhotoZoom Pro 4 available to use.

Thanks for your time and help,

Richard
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5426


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2013, 12:25:20 PM »
ReplyReply

The Art of the Upres
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6823


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2013, 12:32:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, this article is one of those classic keepers, but having been written some 5 years ago, is there anything you would consider important to update at this time?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5426


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2013, 12:36:30 PM »
ReplyReply

The only thing is the recent discussion regarding optimal output resolutions upsample to 360/300 for native rez under those figure (360 for Epson, 300 for Canon/HP) or upsample to 720/600 for images whose native rez is already above 360/720. Found in this article The Right Resolution.

Also, the benefits of printing from Lightroom vs Photoshop come to mind because of the adaptive upsampling and built-in output sharpening.

Otherwise, that's about it.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6823


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2013, 01:08:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Jeff - yes I recall that excellent article as well. Particularly insightful on the question of optimal printer resolution settings to use with the current crop of Epson and Canon printers, and the capabilities of LR which are truly impressive. I'm printing almost exclusively from LR 4 these days, and more often than not from cropped 16MP raw files produced with my Sony NEX6. They can fill a 13*19 sheet easily at high IQ.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5426


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2013, 03:01:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm printing almost exclusively from LR 4 these days, and more often than not from cropped 16MP raw files produced with my Sony NEX6.

Ah...so I got you to finally switch huh? Printing from Photoshop kinda sucks these days, huh?

:~)
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6823


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2013, 03:27:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I knew that would get a response! :-)

Well Jeff - you did - but you may recall I was hesitant because there was no soft-proofing, so once I had to softproof in PS I just stayed there; when LR enabled soft-proofing I switched and I wouldn't go back.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
langier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 617



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2013, 11:18:26 AM »
ReplyReply

For me, I simply use Bicubic Auto in PS CS6 to make the files larger of an existing file.

If I know I'm going larger from the start, I'll start in ACR, clean the noise at that point, add a little sharpening (usually the default), then set ACR to open at the maximum interpolated resolution. From what I understand, there's not too much difference between doing the up-res in ACR compared to doing it later on your master files, but YRMV, depending upon how much work you've done on the file.

The other way I do it is using Perfect Resize 7.x within PS. It has a whole bunch of other things that need tweaking as you go along and you need to work with it a little to tune it to your results. One thing is that it also can sharpen as part of the process.

In any case, from PS, you need to do your sharpening as the last step of the process before printing.

If you are not printing large on your own printer, to see the final results, simply crop an 8x10 piece of your final image and print it and then look at it on the wall.

Generally, when you print large, most will not view the image from 1-2 feet away like most on the LL board! That said, you can many times simply output the image from a lower-res image, 240 ppi, 180 ppi and even lower if it's really going large as in a billboard. The only way you will know what you are comfortable with is to print several samples at full size and then put them up. If you can't print and then show several large prints (I've got limited wall space my self), simply crop an 8x10 or 11x17 out of an image from 180 ppi at full size, 240 ppi, 300 ppi and 360 ppi and put each side-by-side on the wall and take a look. The results may surprise you!

The key to getting the IQ that will look great as a large print 30, 40, 60 inches wide from our DSLR cameras which the math tells us "never" to print larger than 11x17 or 16x24 according to its pixel density is to use excellent craft.

By excellent craft I mean, good technique at capture, the best lenses, clean sensor, tripod, cable release, critical aperture, etc. and then carefully working the file in ACR, LR, PS, etc. to get the best image. Then you need to edit ruthlessly and toss the images that are simply not the best. You've got to do a little pixel-peeping IMO, to see if the image has what it takes to go large. If you shoot JPEG, make sure sharpening is off since that creates image artifacts. Make sure you shoot enough images so that your best image isn't your only image!

Sloppy technique in your craft will probably means that it's a hit an miss with many more misses. Practice your craft!

I can tell you from experience that since I didn't write the rules in the number of pixels needed to make a print of a given size simply ignore them. You'll need to test to see what works for you, of course. My large prints are routinely from files substantially less than 300 ppi. They look just fine.

For a show currently at the National Steinbeck Center, Mission San Juan Bautista reVisions, several of the 36 photographs on exhibit were JPEG files from an iPhone, iPad, Nikon D100 (before I shot raw), Minolta 7, Canon G10 and other older/lower-res cameras. With the exception of maybe 3-4 images, nothing was captured with more than 10-12 MP. A few images were vertical crops from horizontal images and vice-versa. One of the iPad photos was printed from a cropped image and it's a 24x36. The smallest photo on display is perhaps 13x19. At the opening a last Friday, they passed the examination of our peers as I expected they would.

Close up, yes, you can see the difference between the images shot with the D800 and the D100, G10, iPad, etc. From a few feet away and considering the overall quality of the show, no. It really doesn't matter. Between the vision and the craft, the overall quality of the show holds its own.

You can see the book here: <http://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/316049> and read about the exhibit here: <http://www.steinbeck.org/pages/3-photographers-30-images-san-juan-bautista-missio>

Even looking at these images closely, they pass the "18 inch" test. By that, I mean that they appear sharp and crisp looking at them closer than the general public.

In any case, there are many ways to craft your image to get large prints and each is valid. The only way to know what works for you is to try different techniques and see what will work best for you and your work.
Logged

Larry Angier
ASMP, NAPP, ACT, and many more!

Webmaster, RANGE magazine
Editor emeritus, NorCal Quarterly

web--http://www.angier-fox.photoshelter.com
facebook--larry.angier
twitter--#larryangier
google+LarryAngier
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 542


« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2013, 07:25:39 PM »
ReplyReply

The only thing is the recent discussion regarding optimal output resolutions upsample to 360/300 for native rez under those figure (360 for Epson, 300 for Canon/HP) or upsample to 720/600 for images whose native rez is already above 360/720. Found in this article The Right Resolution.

Also, the benefits of printing from Lightroom vs Photoshop come to mind because of the adaptive upsampling and built-in output sharpening.

Otherwise, that's about it.

Jeff,

If you don't mind, I'd like to "fact check" my understanding.  In printing from LR the best strategy for up-res is to just let LR do it on the fly for whatever image size is set.  If below 360 native (Epson) use 360 checked.  If above 360 native, go 720.  Right?  

That's been my "take-away" from tutorials and it seems to work great for me.  Just want to make sure I'm not missing something.   The simplicity of this approach is appealing versus multiple files up-resed for various print sizes in PS or other utilities.

Thanks,
Rand
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5426


WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2013, 09:56:29 PM »
ReplyReply

If you don't mind, I'd like to "fact check" my understanding.  In printing from LR the best strategy for up-res is to just let LR do it on the fly for whatever image size is set.  If below 360 native (Epson) use 360 checked.  If above 360 native, go 720.  Right?  

Yep...you got it right. Pretty simple in LR huh?
Logged
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 542


« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2013, 10:00:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Yep...you got it right. Pretty simple in LR huh?

Jeff,

Thanks!  Much appreciated. Yes, the print module in LR is a thing of simple beauty & functionality.

Props for all you do for us.

Rand
Logged
John Rodriguez
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91


« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2013, 11:19:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff - any tips around applying grain in PS/LR without PK Sharpener?

The images that get me tripped up with uprezzing are those involving very high frequency organic shapes that start to look un-natural.  An example would be a heavily wooded scene with lots of bark detail; I find that past about 1.5x interpolation the bark patterns start to look odd.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5426


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2013, 12:01:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff - any tips around applying grain in PS/LR without PK Sharpener?

You can add "grain" in LR using the Effects panel. I often add grain after adding noise reduction and sharpening to make things look more photographic.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6823


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2013, 12:04:52 PM »
ReplyReply

................... to make things look more photographic.

One could probably write an extended essay about the meaning of that one phrase - but I'm not going there!
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5426


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2013, 12:06:23 PM »
ReplyReply

One could probably write an extended essay about the meaning of that one phrase - but I'm not going there!

Ok...how about looking more analog and less digital?
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6823


WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2013, 12:08:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Whew! No more essay needed :-)
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 423


« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2013, 08:00:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Ok...how about looking more analog and less digital?

Hi Jeff,

there is no analog in this world (infinity and 1/infinity is only known by mathematicians). In film you can count grain, molecules and atoms. Consequently it is digital. The difference is that film grain is distributed randomly in space and size, where digital is distributed regularly in space (like a chess board) and size (pixel pitch).

So let's say: We make things more random ;-)

Best,
Johannes
Logged
John Rodriguez
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91


« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2013, 08:05:21 AM »
ReplyReply

You can add "grain" in LR using the Effects panel. I often add grain after adding noise reduction and sharpening to make things look more photographic.

I'm assuming you'd want to add grain after uprezzing.  Since you recommend uprezzing in LR, would the workflow be - resize on export from lightroom, import the new file into lightroom then apply grain?
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #18 on: February 06, 2013, 08:40:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

I would like to up-rez an image from a Canon 5D to print at approx. 30 on the long side. Im looking for some info as to the overall work flow order to achieve the best results.

Should I do any sharpening or noise removal in LR before editing (Tiff) in PS? When would be the best place in the work flow to do noise reduction, sharpening and uprezing if any(more) in PS?

Im sure if done in the wrong order they could be counterproductive.

I have LR4, CS6, along with PhotoKit Sharpener 2 and PhotoZoom Pro 4 available to use.

Thanks for your time and help,

Richard


Richard,

BartanderWolf recommends PhotoZoom Pro 5, but I don't know how it would compare to your ver 4 version.

For some interesting discussion, see these threads:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=73770.0

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62609.20

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=69603.0

Regards,

Bill
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 06, 2013, 04:09:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I have to back-pedal a bit here and admit I have gotten some amazing results from PZ5.  It is radically faster than PZ4.  Provided the original raws were reasonably sharp to begin with and not mangled in post processing, the 4300 pixel dimension of my old 12mp files looks lusciously smooth and cohesive when taken up to 30 to 35 inches, to print at native printer resolution.  Don't need no IQ180!  Thanks, Bartvander!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad