Recently learned here how to up the size and resolution on a project in CS4 where the document size, in inches, was tiny to begin with. I’m now working with a .tif image that’s got the document size I want (approx. 20" X 27") and I’m assuming I just change the "Resolution" box from 72 to 300 to max it out. Is this correct?
When you say really tiny, how tiny is the original? And of course you can go from 72 to 300 but the result will probably be blurry. If the image is sharp, native, at 20" by 27" at 72 try 180 or so as a final resolution. Especially if your target is print.
Well, that’s an upsampling of better than 400%. You’re going to be inventing an awful lot of pixels. :/
You’d be better of changing the resolution box to something less, say even as low as 144 ppi, for a more reasonable 200% upsampling.
Don’t expect miracles either way, but a 200% is bound to give you less artifacts.
If you have a 20×27 pixel image @ 72 ppi, you have pixel dimensions of 1440 pixel by 1,944 pixel, which is a low resolution image. Personally, I wouldn’t bother making a print of that sucker any larger than 5" x 7".
…."If the image is sharp, native, at 20" by 27" at 72 try 180 or so as a final resolution. Especially if your target is print."…
—————
It looks reasonably sharp onscreen (iMac 24) but loses sharpness "slightly but noticeably" when I blow it up to what would be about the 20" X 27" life size with the Wacom tablet slider bar. My aim is a high quality print. Just curious as to why 180 ppi would be preferable to 300…
…."Because you’re inventing less pixels when going from 72 ppi to 180 ppi. That’s also why 144 ppi would be even better."…
———————-
I see how this would be the case with an image that’s not being changed or being changed very little save for upping the resolution. What I’m still somewhat confused on is whether these negative aspects of "over-rez-ing" (sorry for having to make up new words here!) would hold true on a work in progress, particularly a "from the ground up" painting. I’m thinking it would be like starting the painting at a lower resolution (sort of comparable to the traditional media "oil sketch" in one or two earth tones) and then finishing it at maxed out resolution (like the finished traditional media oil painting where every bit of canvas "real estate" has been subjected to the necessary piling on of pigments-and-oil). …but I’m coming from a traditional media background. Does this "over-rez-ing" hazard still apply to the early stage project for which the plans are to alter every square inch of canvas space with the digital brush/smudge tool before its completion? Thanks.
Len – what is the resolution of the original document? Given that this is a painting and paintings are usually more forgiving you will probably do fine. But what did you start with?
Forget the friggin’ inches. Your info denotes a 1,471 pixels by 1,977 pixels, period.
That is a low resolution digital image, probably from a very modest 3 megapixel point and shoot camera.
Now, the pixels, Photoshop and your printer don’t give a darn whether it’s a photograph of a painting in progress or a detail from a Rembrandt original.
…."Now, the pixels, Photoshop and your printer don’t give a darn whether it’s a photograph of a painting in progress or a detail from a Rembrandt original."…
——————————-
Okay, I’m assuming then that final (large format) print capability is wholly dependent upon the size/resolution of the project as measured at its start and it cannot be increased, resolution-wise, at any point, as a base for overpainting pertinent to creating the large format print. Is this correct? If so, is printing out a low rez copy of the painting then photographing the printout as a RAW file and then importing the RAW file directly into CS4 as a new project a workaround for this?
Now, the pixels, Photoshop and your printer don’t give a darn whether it’s a photograph of a painting in progress or a detail from a Rembrandt original.
Not exactly true in that a painting starts out with much more blur than does a sharp photograph. My expectation is that such an original would generally be visually more tolerant of uprez.
Sorry, but I honestly don’t understand what you mean by a "project".
I thought you had a digital image file which you wanted to print. Now you’re talking about "overpainting". Unless you care to elaborate, I’m afraid I can be of no further assistance to you.
If so, is printing out a low rez copy of the painting then photographing the printout as a RAW file and then importing the RAW file directly into CS4 as a new project a workaround for this?
I have a digital image file measuring 1472 X 1978 pixels which I want to use as a base to create a digital painting over – completely displacing the aforementioned base image. I wish to up the resolution of this digital image file to the maximum 300 ppi at its present dimension X dimension size so that it will make maximum use of the digital overpainting in such a way to exist as a large format print ready file when all the digital overpainting is done. Hope this helps.
I want to use as a base to create a digital painting over – completely displacing the aforementioned base image.
Ah, that’s a whole different story. 😉
Actually, what you want to do is paint on a layer or number of layers over the background layer. There’s no reason to paint over the actual pixels. When you’re done, you can either discard the background layer or deselect it so it’s invisible.
Yeah, then just change the resolution and upsample to 360 ppi before you start painting. For high quality "giclée" prints on high-end Epson printers 360 ppi gives you the maximum quality, better than 300 ppi.
Incidentally, the term giclée is gradually becoming obsolete. Giclée is French for "sprayed on", literally, and it means nothing other than "printed on an ink-jet printer". 🙂
Of course, the term does help market the product, usually printed on high-quality canvas, rag paper or other fine-art-printing paper and, often, with a protective spray-on coating like PremierArt Print Shield Spray Coating, ECO Print Shield, etc.
I have a digital image file measuring 1472 X 1978 pixels which I want to use as a base to create a digital painting over – completely displacing the aforementioned base image.
What Ramón said in Post #17.
As to post #18, I do not believe that usage of giclée is gradually becoming obsolete at all. It appears to me that its usage has been growing as a term used to describe artistic high-end inkjet printing on various quality media.
[…DisclaimerI’m assuming you know the implications and ramifications of copyright protection if you paint over an original by someone else, of course.]
That is something I have always wondered about. In a low-end way I have used that technique of painting over photos (my own or with permission) but do not know where the copyright line might blur using originals by others.
E.g. imagine one of Wade’s building pix used as a base for a fairly radical abstract painting – – and with the original photo image file base layer deleted. Wade and the architect both might feel the original in the painting, but it would seem to be a difficult copyright claim.
…."There’s no reason to paint over the actual pixels."…
———————————————-
If one wanted to paint over the actual pixels without involving an additional layer(s), would there be any downsides to upping the resolution as I described earlier? Thanks…
The downside is painting directly over the original. If you have a separate layer, you can quickly toggle back and forth to compare what you’re doing with what you started off with.
On the copyright thing, I think the Shepherd Fairey/Obama poster case involving the Associated Press will most likely determine the fair use benchmark for the next decade or two…
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
