Upsampling vs upscale???

J
Posted By
jsfox
Jun 10, 2005
Views
1207
Replies
6
Status
Closed
Hi, with my point and shoot digital camera the only resolution I got is 72 dpi, if i want to make a nice print photo i should up the res to 250-300 dpi. I used to change the resolution of the picture and since it lower the overall size of it I upsampled my images.

However I just read that I can put a new background of, lets say, 300 dpi and bring my picture above this new background and use the free transform tools to proportional upscale the image to fit the entire background.

that confuses me, because i dont know what is best? Upsampling or Upscaling? Which one makes better pictures? or its exactly the same?

Thx
Related Tags
upsampling vs

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

MV
Mathias_Vejerslev
Jun 10, 2005
Its the same, both resamples per your preferences.
D
deebs
Jun 10, 2005
Hi js

There’s really a very practical and pragmatic way to tell and that is try and see 🙂

Take 2 images one nices and bland (eg blue skies and sandy beaches) and the other more complex (eg lots of leaves and/or fine detail).

Apply the options as you see fit and print one of each, then compare in a blind test
Y
YrbkMgr
Jun 11, 2005
But as Mathias states, whether you upsample with the Image Size dialog, or upscale with Transform, they are both using the same algorithm to resample the image. It is the same.
DM
Don_McCahill
Jun 11, 2005
Ignore the fact that your camera claims to only have 72 dpi. It doesn’t, but is too stupid to know. It has two pixel dimensions, one for width and one for height.

When you bring the photo into Photoshop, you can set a ppi (sort of like dpi, but for screens) to whatever you want. If you have a camera that does 1024×1024 dimensions (say … I have no idea what it really is, then you can make a picture that is 10" x 10" (about) at 100 ppi, or one that is 5" x 5" at 200 ppi. The smaller image will look better, due to the higher ppi.

But in both cases you will be using the original pixels, without doing any of the resampling interpolation that Mathias and Tony are talking about. You will only want to get into these options if you need a larger picture than the original pixels would provide (like 10×10 with 200 dpi, in the examples above.) Then you use Image > Image Size with resampling on.

But first try to change the ppi with resampling off, and you might get a sharp picture without it.
Y
YrbkMgr
Jun 11, 2005
But first try to change the ppi with resampling off,

Good point Don.
J
jsfox
Jun 11, 2005
But first try to change the ppi with resampling off, and you might get a sharp picture without it.

That was my first option, the images really looked excellent but small, and I want to use at least a couple of them to print in a half poster size or to hot transfer to a t-shirt. That is why I had to upscale or upsample. I hesitated to do that because that means add more pixels that my original shot had, but printed looked very small.

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections