I’m faced with the following dilemna: I am supposed to create a panaflex banner about 9′ tall from a jpeg that is 7" x 10" @ 300ppi. I talked to the photographer and she shoots in jpeg format so there aren’t any raw files. I have two questions regarding this: 1. Any tips on how to make this thing work? I calculated that I have to blow it up 300%. I’m looking into having a match print made and drum scanning it. Is this a good way to go about it or is there a better "in-house" solution. 2. Why would a professional photographer take jpegs? She told me that it is impossible to shoot a live musical event due to the recovery time if you’re shooting in raw format. I believe she said it was 4 seconds. This is an ongoing project so I would love some feedback from some of you professionals about whether I should demand that photos from now on be taken in raw format or whether she has a valid point. thanks in advance from a disturbed designer peace
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.
As a designer: Don’t give your photographer a hard time. It’s better to switch photographers if you don’t like what they are doing, than to be telling them how to do their job when they want to do it another way.
Take a one inch area of the image and zoom in on your monitor until that area is 14" tall – that will be representative of the resolution that will be printed and the scale you named here.
Then step back from the monitor 15 feet or more depending on how far away the audience will be viewing the banner from. This will give you a rough idea of what the public will see. Most likely it will be good enough. If you can get away with special effects added, then the viewer will have more visual reason to not doubt that the finished banner is not exactly the way it was intended to be and all will be well.
Others here might disagree, but I don’t think the difference between jpeg and raw is going to be your big challenge. It’s taking what you have to work with and putting it into a layout and style that will make it be impressive and great. That is, after all, the job of the designer.
Post a link to one of your images, or a part of the image, if you want us to take a look at it.
The problem with it is you aren’t going to be standing 10 feet away. This is something that people are going to be able to walk right next to. They have already complained about one of the images I put together – the photo, not the layout. They said it was "soft". I still would like to know if it’s ridiculous to expect someone to shoot a live event using the raw format. Believe me, I wouldn’t tell someone what to do but I would put a spec sheet together for all future photos. If someone didn’t want to adhere to that it would be their decision. peace
I still would like to know if it’s ridiculous to expect someone to shoot a live event using the raw format.
If the photographer has a ridiculously slow camera, yes. Or if the photographer doesn’t even know what RAW is and thinks you’re asking for TIFFs.
Someone shooting live events should be using something like a Nikon D2H, which can shoot up to 8 frames per second for up to 25 RAW full-resolution images:
Go to the top Ad agencies in the largest city in your state or nearby state with a metropolis teeming with ad agencies, and get recommendations for a new photographer. If you are out to impress people, you need top talent.
Top talent will have the equipment to do the job right, no question.
Thanks for the timely replies. It’s just another case of the people who are hiring do not understand the technical needs that I have. The photos are good, the technical part is not. peace
I am 100% with your photographer. Saving a pic in RAW format does not somehow make a pic better; it mostly facilitates post processing. A print from a well shot SLR digicam JPEG "Fine" pic generally is not distinguishable from the same pic saved in RAW format. And (unless you own a D2H) you will miss shots shooting RAW instead of JPEG Fine.
The idea that every photog must own the very latest (less tham a year old) events digicam (D2H) or they are unprofessional is not reasonable.
If the pix are too soft for the hard copy presentation it is seldom if ever because they were not saved in RAW format (do your own tests, I have). Standing right next to a 9 foot tall image you should expect "soft" from scanned 35 mm film or SLR digicam pix of a live musical event. Unless of course you shoot medium/large format film, in which case many pix will be missed by the ergonomic limitations of the hardware.
I repeat: except for post processing issues (which admittedly can be very significant) a live event print from a well shot SLR digicam JPEG "Fine" pic usually is not distinguishable from a print of the same pic saved in RAW format.
Allen and I disagree on JPEGs, but, beyond noting that, it’s not worth arguing about it any more. Our concerns are different. Fine with me.
BTW, Allen, if you know where I can get a hold of a copy of the original PhotoDisc Target test image in its original TIFF format, I’d be willing to pay for it. Google didn’t return any valid links for it, and neither Peter Constable nor Gary Hawkey, the original creators of the file at PhotoDisc Inc have returned the emails I sent to their addresses in the license pdf file yet.
I’m no longer happy with the JPEG file because of the artifacts, as I posted in the thread I started to initiate my search.
There you go again. Just because you and I can’t see the difference in print doesn’t mean someone with better eyes than ours can. The point is that the artifacts are there from the get go and they may well interfere with your manipulations.
I’m with Ramon. The artifacts are evident at 100% not to mention 300%. There is enough noise from digital to deal with in the first place. I don’t have a problem placing something like this in a newspaper whose dot gain effectively softens the noise, but once you get into a glossy national or something large like I’m trying to create it’s a problem. peace
Ramon is also right about the manipulation of the photo. What would have to take place to make something 300% bigger and still sharp would be some version of sharpening. I would then be sharpening the artifacts, making them worse. The main problem in this particular picture (and most jpegs I’ve seen) is in the face and other skin tone gradations. They become "stepped" due to the compression. When you are standing next to a larger than life size photo of someone, this is a BIG problem. I’m starting to think the answer is medium format film. This is an ongoing project so adjustments can be made. peace
But you guys are theorizing; I _agree_ with the theory. Of course RAW is better IF all other things were equal, but all other things never are equal; photography is always about trade-offs. Empirically given the real world photo op described, my based-on-tests expectation is that for the photog to save as RAW rather than as JPEG Fine would have cost some content and gained nothing in resolution. Note that "soft" is not typically a description of the consequences of jpeg artifacts, but rather a description of the consequences of inadequate initial image data.
The solution to soft is more image data. The suggestion find a photog with a 4 megapixel D2H to shoot RAW at 8 fps (which is pretty amazing, everyone should test shoot a D2H just to experience 8 fps instant imagery) does not in any large way obtain more image data than a 6 megapixel SLR digicam shot at JPEG Fine.
As your project ongoes IMO 9 foot images viewed close either will be soft or will require the use of 10+ megapixel digicams or scanning of medium format film. Note that if scanning medium/large format film is chosen it generally will entail some loss of content.
You guys are great! I will be the first to admit I am no photographer or expert on the subject. I do know what I need technically to accomplish a project. I am really happy to get some opinions from professionals. I’m leaning to film. Especially after talking to one the photographers (she takes beautiful photos) and learning that she hates digital anyway. thanks peace
I agree with Allen 100%. Your problem isn’t jpeg – it’s insufficient image data – not enough resolution. Shot and prepared properly, there should be no noticeable difference between jpeg and any other format in final print. Of course, the main benefit of shooting RAW is the "pliability" (for lack of a better word), of the image after it’s captured. Not so with jpeg.
… after talking to one the photographers (she takes beautiful photos) and learning that she hates digital anyway.
Hmm … So she’s going to shoot a 9 ft. transparency? 😉
The jpegs I receive are approximately 7" x 10" @ 300ppi (only the 7" is approximate, it’s a touch larger). Does this mean it’s a 6 megapixel camera? We need to find a solution that will work in hi-res glossy print ads and large format banners. Even to do a hi-res ad I’m going to have to up-res a little, depending on the size of the magazine. This particular piece is problematic due to the fact that people are going to be so close to it.
Shot and prepared properly, there should be no noticeable difference between jpeg and any other format in final print.
Phil – could you define prepared properly? I use curves to hit the TAC and deal with contrast and maybe some haloless sharpening where appropriate. I like to do as little as possible. Is there something missing? What I’m going for is 64" x 153.25" @ 50ppi. The original photo is about 20mb in Photoshop and the final piece is 70.2mb. That’s quite a leap thanks for all the thoughts peace
Even as a notorious JPEG hater, I have to agree with Allen here.
Note that "soft" is not typically a description of the consequences of jpeg artifacts, but rather a description of the consequences of inadequate initial image data.
Ramon – I was looking at jpeghaters.com this morning and they had a wanted poster of you! Better watch your back! 🙂 I love this board. I’ve haven’t found another site with as many well-informed contributors. Of course I’m looking for perfection in an imperfect world and the comment that photography is all about trade-offs resounds. So it’s no different than life itself? How weird! The great thing is now I’m much better informed about that side of the process. thanks peace
Phil – could you define prepared properly? I use curves to hit the TAC and deal with contrast and maybe some haloless sharpening where appropriate. I like to do as little as possible. Is there something missing?
Nothing missing as far as I can see. I used "properly prepared" in the sense that the image isn’t overly manipulated. (Which means the shooter needs to be fairly accurate with exposure.) Obviously, you can’t twist and stretch an 8 bit JPEG much more than a little and expect it to hold up. Shooting RAW is MUCH more forgiving in this regard.
While I don’t have a problem using JPEG for fast moving situations, your photographer did you a disservice by choosing to use a 6mp camera for this job. (assuming she knew output requirements – but even if not, it’s her responsibilty to know) That should NEVER have happened. Either she didn’t know you needed a 9 ft image or she has much to learn about digital imaging/photography.
Luckily her exposures and composition are beautiful and there’s not a lot of tweaking to do. I believe it’s all a matter of lack of communication between myself, the end user, and the originators. As you can imagine, there are people in the middle who don’t understand our separate needs and I’m actually using this dialog as a way for us to figure this out, as I have forwarded this thread to my marketer who has forwarded it to the photographers involved in this ongoing project. There’s been a lot of good ideas presented here and I’m sure a solution is at hand. peace
1. It depends a lot on your output device. Some devices do a heck of a lot better job interpolating than Photoshop does. For instance, we have a Durst Lambda photowriter and we do 30"x45" images all day long from files the size you are talking about – people cannot tell the difference, and old school photographers constantly tell me "that cannot be digital."
2. The JPG format generally does very little degradation. It depends on what the camera settings are. We’ve found almost zero difference once you print from JPG to Raw. If there are a lot of gradients, yes, you might notice a slight difference. Otherwise, the difference is so slight that it makes no sense to take shots that take much longer and much more room on the card…
As for printing it out and then re-scanning it, I’ve never seen that have much success – except for the drum scanners who make money on a job like that! lol
I suspect that the photog was not told to create music-venue images that would look good up close when blown up to 9 feet tall. If that kind of resolution is required it is a totally different project specification.
Note that this is not about film vs. digital, it is about choosing 35mmfilm/6MPdigital and speed/flexibility/low cost or going to (expensive, creativity-limiting) larger film/digital formats. You may choose resolution, but you _will_ have fewer good shots to choose among, sometimes to a degree that makes 35mm/6MP quality a better compromise.
Scanned 35 mm SLR film and 6 MP SLR digital images are of very similar effective resolution for purposes of this discussion. The pix you describe reflect typical output (brands vary some) from the current crop of approx. 6 megapixel SLR digicams.
Motordrive 35 mm or high fps high-end digital would be my choices for flexibility, freedom to move about, and catching the "decisive moment", as Henri Cartier-Bresson called it. Medium format 4.5×6 cm or 6×6 cm film or digital would give sharper images but at the expense of less freedom of movement. Large format 4"x5" or larger or their digital equivalents are simply inappropriate for such venues unless you are doing posed portraits of the talent.
Some other considerations: 35 mm film, particularly the higher ISO films that would be called for are going to exhibit some visible grain; maybe very visible, particularly in smooth, non-textured medium tones. Digital is going to have its own artifacts — extreme blowups from 4-6 megapixel originals, even RAW, isn’t terribly high resolution. Think in terms of 10 or greater megapixels for higher quality.
Grain and digital artifacts are going to be there. There is no way around it, so accept it. They will be a part of the image when seen up close, as will softness from resolution limitations — less-than-perfect state-of-the-art optical-mechanical objectives, film, and light receptors. Expect flare, coma, internal reflections, chromatic aberrations, etc. to be magnified when observed up close.
At "normal" distances from mural-size prints, these are no more noticeable than in good photographic enlargements you see in well-produced coffeetable books. But if you stick your nose right up to the mural you will see pea-to marble-sized grain clumps and digital artifacts, regardless of the path the image took from camera to print.
Paul, I’m curious if your photographer would consider renting a Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c for a test. I think it is the best digital camera for what you need.
At some point, very soon, I’m going to have a conference call or meeting with all the involved parties and come to some sort of agreement as to the next step. At least we have identified the problem and now can work towards the solution. We still have at least a year and a half of this project to look forward to, maybe more. This is the most challenging and satisfying project of my career so far, everything from counter cards to 60′ x 20′ billboards, bus wraps, presentation folders, etc Really fun. I’ve seen your posts many times Laurentiu (I’m a regular troll here during down time at work) and will definitely bring this suggestion to the table. If I can find out the output device, I will let you all know. It’s great to hear the name of Bresson invoked in this discussion. Maybe we could amend the aphorism "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it" to: Those who ignore the history of their art are condemned to defile it. peace
Phil – could you define prepared properly? I use curves to hit the TAC and deal with contrast and maybe some haloless sharpening where appropriate. I like to do as little as possible. Is there something missing? What I’m going for is 64" x 153.25" @ 50ppi.
All the valid points about original capture resoltion notwithstanding, any output printed at 50ppi will lack some detail when viewed close up. You mentioned that people would be only a few feet from this 9 foot banner. I don’t think its unreasonable to have a lack of "sharpness" in an image printed at this size at 50ppi.
Close-up viewing needs a higher OUTPUT resolution.
Also, if these are concert shots, the Kodak DCS 14 mentioned and the prosumer Canon and Nikon SLRs (D100 and 10D) all have problems with low light automatic focusing. They also have small buffers and, as mentioned, will clog up when shooting RAW. This effects timing, spontaniety and sometimes "getting the shot." If you’re talking about higher resolution than the Nikon D2H, but with quick capture (and no RAW handicap), the Canon 1D-markII is what I’d turn to.
The point of this is that there have to be compromises and judgment calls at each step.
There is NO way that your photographic images will be crispy sharp when blown up to 7′ tall and viewed from just 18"-24" away, no matter how high the printed resolution is. Certainly not taken with any camera you’re likely to use short of the near room-size Polaroid view camera or the Hubble telescope. And I have doubts about the latter. <vbg>
As explained, ANYthing shot with a 35mm, 6x6cm, or their digital equivalents will have limitations due to optics and the media — film or digital — used.
Even if an image could be perfectly captured and could be printed out at 300 ppi, the file size would be unwieldy. While technically feasible, it would be an impractical tour de force and expensive. And the other image anomalies will be even more obvious.
There is a psycho-optical phenomenon that you should understand: folks (OK, MOST folks) can accept less-than-crisp images that result from extreme blowups and the limits of image capture — if there is also a certain amount of film grain and digital noise and relatively low printer resolution. Take these away, and the lack of image sharpness becomes objectionable.
Shooting at a concert where there may not be a lot of light and there may be a lot of movement could be challengingin. Your photographer might be using a higher speed setting which would also degrade the image.
The biggest problem with shooting in camera jpegs is that they are almost always sharpened. That sharpening is your biggest enemy when trying to upres the files as the sharpening halos get bigger too. Since it’s so easy to res it up and see how it looks, I would do that. 300% is a bit of a stretch, but not all that bad. You might be surprised at how well it does work. Adding film grain or judicious noise to the image after rezzing can make a huge difference in the final image.
BTW, last week I shot a concert for a DVD cover at House of Blues in L.A. Shot most of it with a 1Ds at E.I 800, shooting all raw and there was never any problem. Sure, I had to download cards more often than with jpegs, but I owe it to my clients to give them the maximum flexibility that I can. That means shooting raw and giving each image individual attention. Maybe your photographer forgot that digital cameras have a sizable ram buffer that allows you to shoot somewhere between 8 and 40 frames (depending on camera and file options) before those images are written to the CF card.
The problem with shooting any camera at a higher EI or ISO is the added noise or grain. This would be more evident in very big enlargements seen up close. But the other option is a less noise or grain and more motion blur. Again, a choice has to be made.
But there is a certain "raw", spontaneous quality in these concert images that is expected — they are not tightly controlled studio shots. And if the concert images looked too perfect, there would be the perception that they are staged.
Someone shooting live events should be using something like a Nikon D2H, which can shoot up to 8 frames per second for up to 25 RAW full-resolution images:
Yes, but then you’d have 4 megapixel images with noise in them. Why not use a Canon Mark 2, which will give you more fps, a bigger buffer, and 8.5 megapixels!
Actually these are photos of a highly controlled concert scenario (not a tour) that deserves high quality photos that almost cross the line to a studio shoot. That’s part of the technical problems facing us. Thanks for all the feedback. peace
I started to think early in this thread that might be the answer. Once again, I’m no photographer so there might be issues I don’t know about but after discussing it with you guys I think medium format film sounds about right. I don’t think the photographer would be allowed to influence the lighting of the show but I’m not having problems with the exposures anyway, just the fact that I have to blow these things up into unrealistic sizes.We spoke with the photographer about film and she told us that the turnaround and cost would be considerably more. All I need is some contact sheets and then we’ll get a few images drum scanned. Are contact sheets from medium format prohibitively expensive? I find it hard to believe they are, but once again, I don’t really know. What I do know is that I’ve worked with drum scans from medium format at large sizes and was really happy with the results. I’m also starting to think that since this show isn’t moving around, we could do virtual studio photography if the artist was amenable. Hard to capture that moment of connection, though. Love the thread peace
Contact sheets should cost no more than a 10 x 8 print. Or make your own "Contacts" by putting batches of negs on a flatbed scanner, scanning directly into your computer and making inkjet prints of each batch.
I assume that, for the final high-rez scans, you do intend to scan directly from the film and not from the contact prints?!
The best way to do the shot the group is to mimic studio conditions and controls. Set up a backdrop, some gelled lights, mikes, speakers, simple props, etc. Things like record album jackets (OK, CD covers), promo posters, ads, are generally done that way and are tack sharp and very well lighted. Live concert performances, for the usual reasons, are far more difficult.
I hate to say this, but it sounds like your photographer is full of excuses and using the wrong equipment for the job. As a photographer myself, I can say that you either have the right equipment or you rent it. Furthermore, you shoot film to back up your digital and not only do you shoot film and digital tests beforehand, you have a conversation with the Art Director to find out exactly how the images are going to be used to make sure that you are on the right track equipment wise. If your photographer doesn’t ask the right questions, you have to ask for him/her.
Paul, I suggested you interview and hire a professional that shoots to your liking, and this, based on the photographer’s portfolio. You, as an admitted non-photographer, should not have to be nosing around here looking for ways to do a job that belongs to someone else.
If you like the person’s work that you have, as you say you do, with a little correction (a lot actually as you read through this thread) then I suggest that you do not really like this photographer’s work. Get someone who can do the job to your ‘complete’ liking, and don’t waste time trying to re-make the person you have, is the way I would go about it.
PS, at the interview, have all of the requirements of the job down in writing, as to size, finish size, location, etc. and what, specifically, you want as a result.
A good pro will bang it out for you, and quickly too.
If your photographer doesn’t ask the right questions, you have to ask for him/her
Or you may have the wrong photographer! The "right" photographer knows the venue, what is expected, what equipment to bring to the shoot, and how to handle it. And, what questions to ask.
You shouldn’t have to give more than minimal direction to the photographer any more than you’d have to give much direction to a good fashion model or a good illustrator. They just "get it",
In every area of the graphics world, a person who has been through school, and the school of experience, will have a line of questions that go ahead of doing any job: When do you need this, What size is the finished? Is the product available for photography? and others. The questions are the ‘wheels’ that put the job in motion and get it done in the shortest amount of time at the greatest savings to the customer, and, with the best result.
If you don’t work with a pro, you may be stuck with coming to these forums trying to discover what is going wrong with your project.
Been on vacation guys, thanks for the info. I think a spec sheet is what is required after some thought. I’ll put one together with my production manager (since there’s no AD I guess it defaults to us) and move along. Medium format film or a higher res camera – I’ll leave it up to the photographer and deal. And the one big thing I learned is that I should probably get Photoshop 8) peace
I’ve read all the posts and though I don’t have a whole lot to add, I do have a lot of experience printing stuff like this and I’ve definitely seen the best and worst on more than one occasion.
I’ve printed wall murals, etc. from JPEGS off a consumer digital camera up to 8×10 transparencies. I can’t count the times I’ve sent artwork back to be re-shot (when possible) because the people shooting the job were either ill-prepared, or just simply, bad photographers.
50ppi image resolution will actually yield an impressive amount of sharpness off a drum-scanned 8×10 and a 50ppi image resolution will actually yield a very soft image off a lower-megapixel digital camera. It doesn’t only depend on the image, but also the output device resolution.
Most of the images for our wall murals are 50ppi to 72ppi but are printed at a hardware resolution of 363x363dpi.
I read and agree with a suggestion to take a chunk of the image and do a full-scale print to show the client exactly what you’re seeing. That’s what we do since some of our customers tend to have trouble grasping prints of this dimension.
Medium format in a controlled environment seems optimal — but it’s hard to emulate the look on the face of a guitarist appearing to pass a very large bowel movement as he squeezes the last drip of a note from his ‘axe’ in a photography studio vs. on stage in front of a crowd. As far as a med. format camera handling the concert photography scene … how about a Mamiya 645AF then drum scan the chromes?
On the digital end of things, we’ve had NASCAR images come in from photographers using their D1-H and they’re very very nice and clear…even though they were set to capture cars screaming by at 200mph. They were also great photographers and there’s the benefit — Talented photographers.
One thing I’ve seen with using ISO400 and faster films is when you enlarge it sooo much, the film grain looks worse than jpeg artifacts. I despise all but the highest JPEG compression, but I equally despise super-enlarging fast film. But for once-in-a-lifetime shots, sometimes you just gotta take what you get.
Also, customer education is essential. Paul, you mentined the customer had complained about a print you had done in the past. Was the customer able to base that complaint on an image they’d seen in the past or were their expectations simply beyond what technology is able to offer?
The complaint was about a new piece that is larger than life and able to be seen up close. I don’t think the technology is out of reach, just that what was delivered to me is unable to meet their expectations. I have been having to slightly upres my 6 megapixel images for magazine ads, etc. and then a need for a large panaflex banner came up. 6mp just won’t do it. This is also not a situation with a customer, it’s all in house so the fault lies with our communication skills. No big deal, just another bump in the road. I think that we all have a better idea what we’re looking for and what is possible now I think it’s time for me to say either 10+ mp or medium format and leave the details up to the photographers. peace
In your spec also include the large blowup close viewing consideration. Lighting/exposures (including larger formats) that look great at 8×10 inches can suck enlarged to 8×10 feet. The photog _must_ make image content compromises to optimize for close viewing huge blowups; and the client must be aware that those compromises are being intentionally specifed.
Thought I’ld throw this out as a Hail Mary suggestion. Don’t know if it would help. I’m not a pro photographer or pro PS user.
Have you tried upsampling and downsampling using PS interpolation algorithms as a kind of pixel washing machine? What you do is upsample beyond the finished size and rez to a point that you can just start to see noticeable blurring. Double finished size would be best-(100ppi/18 feet tall). The bigger the better keeping the blurring to a minimum that you know sharpening can correct for with the least amount of haloing. Whatever size and rez you enlarge to must induce resampling.
Now downsample to the finished size. You might experiment with mixing Nearest Neighbor with Bicubic when enlarging and/or reducing since NN seems to have some affect on jpeg noise over Bicubic.
Depending on the image this technique seems to soften noise without flattening perceived color depth (painterly feel) while retaining clean stairstepped sharp edges in zoomed view.
Tim I’ll give it a try. You never know. I believe you are actually the first person to address the first part of my question. The complaint was about softness, not noise, so if I can rid myself of the artifacts and then sharpen who knows. I’ll give it a rip and report back. I’m surprised you aren’t a pro – from your posts I would have never guessed. Let’s hear it for dedicated people! peace
The title of this thead was less than informational which is why it took a while for me to look in to see why it was growing.
Having shot live music for the last 25 years there is nothing wrong with shooting RAW you definatly get the best pics, If you are limited by your camera writing the files to your card/disk, don’t waste your shots and you won’t be left waiting for your camera to write to card/disk.
there is also nothing wrong with shooting Jpegs. You get more chances to get that good shot but your exposure must be right on. since your film speed will be 800 or 1600 you will have digital noise but the grain will still be finer than film in the same conditions. and you also get noise shooting RAW at high speed.
The bigger the show the better the lights. this is a half truth. even big shows have bad lighting and being able to shoot RAW is sometimes the only way to get a good live shot.
If you have to use lights its not realy live although having premission to use a flash can be very creative if you know how. getting permission to use a flash is dificult with bigger acts.
As far as writing to disk speed RAW vs. Jpeg. The bigger acts usually have a 2 to 3 song limit for shooting. unless the photographer has permission from the band to shot more. If you have the entire show to shoot, do it RAW you have plenty of time to write the files to the card/disk. Another nice thing about shooting digital is if you take an exceptionally bad shot you can erase it. and have a second chance.
Whether you are shooting film or digital of live concerts you will most likely end up with grainy images to some degree. blowing up grain is inevitable but if the image captures the moment in an exciting pose or action that is spectacular, a bit of grain is not going to matter. It gives the shot a live feel. Led Zepplin’s Song Remains the Same movie is a good example.
I meant Bilinear instead of Nearest Neighbor on resampling.
Dang! I need to have PS open when I post. My memory seems to fail me.
I discovered the effects of Bilinear playing around turning a pro shot royalty fee 72ppi/5X7inch compressed jpeg into a 300ppi file. The compression edge gnarly’s virtually disappeared with Bilinear. It may have a different effect with higher rez not so heavily compressed files.
Thanks Buko – This is a really big act and I can tell you that the lighting is definitely state of the art (I’m not sure if that makes it easy for photographers). I haven’t had problems with the exposures. There’s no way a flash is going to be allowed. So you’re saying that in a concert setting a really fast film or ASA setting is needed and this leads to grain? Makes sense. I worked with a movie frame that had that wonderful grain in it and had no problem with it. I like it better than artifacts or blotchy skin color gradations (which I find the hardest to deal with when using jpegs). Am I wrong or do jpegs simplify the color content as part of the compression method? It sure seems like it. Sorry if the title misled you peace
"JPEG" is an algorithm with a range of compressions from 1 to 12. Just because some past image was visibly less good after JPEG 6 compression does not mean that JPEG 12 compression of a different image today has similar consequences. Kind of like saying because I sat in a Ford Pinto and it was too small all Fords are too small for me.
It is necessary to test. And it is almost always a mistake to fault JPEG per se for image flaws. Faulting non-maximum12 compressions makes a world of sense; but it is seldom if ever the JPEG algorithm at fault, rather the choice of less than 12-level compression resolution.
Looking to fault JPEG vs non-lossy compression algorithms as a major issue to fix the image limitations discussed in this thread IMO is a mistake, energy directed in the wrong direction.
Note that of course saving in RAW is desirable due to the post processing benefits if all other things are equal, which they seldom are.
Paul, one thing I’ve noticed is that if the jpg is exposed properly the grain should not be that bad. its only when the jpg is exposed wrong that the picture falls apart when you try to adjust it.
For example: I just photographed KISS. They have wonderful lights but they are not always turned up bright so you can see everything. So every shot is not perfect as much as I would like them to be.
If the lights were bright then there should be no problem getting a good picture. You just may need a better photographer.
I wish I could post a link to the pic but I feel like it would be a violation of the project. From your last comment, Allen it seems like I need RAW format. To blow it up this big is what I call major post processing. I’ve also needed to hit newprint curves, clone some things out, sharpen the face, etc I have also stupidly left out an important piece of information: the photo is a composite that was done elsewhere. It was sent to me as a .psd but I found out later the original materials were jpegs. It holds its own at magazine sizes but fails when blown up to banner size. I’m thinking of the future now and am over this particular conundrum. We’ve got at least a year and half left, maybe more. A spec sheet is coming soon peace
Maybe you could post a small crop from the image, kind of like a rectangle with no recognizable features but plenty of noise or grain.
Have you looked into noise reduction software? It wouldn’t hurt to download the GrainSurgery plug-in demo. It’s fully functional, except that it places a fine grid over the image until you buy it.
My intent was not to suggest that RAW is a solution. My intent was to suggest that RAW – although a good tool – is NOT the solution. Look elsewhere (more image data sources like 10+ megapixel SLR digicams) or go with the artistic approach Laurentiu suggests.
Laurentiu – If only. I’ve done some pretty grainy things in my time, with MANIFESTO as the appetizer and ART as the main course with a little RAISON D’ÊTRE on the side. It’s just not gonna work this time peace
Here’s a link to the forehead of the artist. I cropped the banner, changed the ppi to 72 and set percent to 100, then saved as jpeg maximum compression: <http://pages.sbcglobal.net/pbc1313/temp/forehead.html> Let me know what you guys think peace
If that’s not a typo and you do actually mean LOWEST possible quality (maximum compression), then the obvious question is: how well does this crop represent what you’re seeing on your original?
Flesh gnarly’s is enough for me to see he should consider the previous suggestions and apply art effects filters of some kind. Or maybe apply some dust and scratch filtering on a copied layer set to luminosity blending.
Ramon’s Grain Surgery suggestion from what I saw in an example in a previous thread on grain removal would do the trick as well.
This crop represents what I’m seeing rather well. I saved it at maximm quality (doh!). Buko – I had problems getting fleshtones as there aren’t many and the artist is pretty recognizable – remember the final piece is at 50ppi so the web resolution shrinks its physical dimensions. Even from this piece you can see that the flesh is really pixelated. Ramon – does Grain Surgery work better than Image Doctors JPEG Repair? I have that and in most cases am not very impressed. It has helped me a few times. I’ll try again for a littler larger sample a little later today. I’ll also try to post the same sample from the original peace
I know the sample size is ridiculous guys but this photo has used alot and is pretty recognizable – maybe I’m just paranoid. I did post the original juxtaposed with the blow up I’m going to download Grain Surgery and then try Tim’s idea and will post those when I can today peace
Experiments complete – Grain Surgery gets rid of the grain but softens the photo too much, when sharpening is applied back it comes. It is definitely superior to JPEG Repair in Image Doctor. Tim – your suggestion didn’t have much of an effect, before and after looked pretty identical with after degraded just a bit. So – off we go into the wild blue peace
You can further control the GrainSurgery effect by first duplicating the image layer, applying either GrainSurgery (alternatively Gaussian Blur, Dust and Scratches or a combination of both), making a snapshot of that and setting the History Brush to it. In History you can go back to the last step before you duplicated the layer (which makes the duplicated layer disappear), then –with the History Brush still set to the snapshot– start painting the grainy areas of the original image selectively without touching the eyes or any other features that affect the impression of sharpness.
Of course I was being lazy. I would use the same technique for sharpening. We’re going to 10+ megapixels in the future and we have a shot that works, for now. I also think that my insatiable desire for software precludes spending $179 right now, I have to pick my battles with the company. But I will keep this piece of software in mind, it’s the best I’ve seen at reducing unwanted grain. Thanks for the tip, Ramón G Castañeda! paz
Ramón – One final question: Using Grain Surgery (and or Noise Ninja) and the masking techniques you mentioned, would you apply the filter before or after enlargement? peace
