OT enlarging photo

Page 1 of 2  
My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about half an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print larger? Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping) pictures.
TIA
--
You know it's time to clean the refrigerator
when something closes the door from the inside.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/28/2016 10:47 AM, KenK wrote:

If you try to make a photo larger, it will usually pixelate/distort which looks bad. You might be able to increase the saturation, or save as a .bmp which has more picture detail, and then increase the size a little bit, but it depends on the original format of the photo.
Old school methods are to make a copy negative of the original photo using a larger format than the original, then you can print the original as a larger photo without obvious distortions.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/28/2016 10:47 AM, KenK wrote:

I have just spent three full months scanning my negatives because at the age of 66 I have finally been recognized as a photographer and now have a fine arts dealer to represent me.
In short, all you have to do is resize the photo to 8 x 11
Note: Although any photo software can do that, unless you use a good program such as Photoshop *which can re-sample the image* you will lose information when the size is increased and you will have a poor print.
A good simple and easy to use program is iRfanview.
Even though it's free, it's very good and I sent the guy a contribution
Here are instructions
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/65221/resizing-an-image-using-irfanview/
Here is where you can get IRfanview
http://www.irfanview.com/
Note: Before you begin, have the person email you a decent sized jpeg if they have not already done so.
If it's a 75k file for example, there will just plain not be enough info to work with...you'd want a file size to begin with of at least 1 meg or so
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/28/2016 11:08 AM, philo wrote:

Making a small image larger will rarely produce a quality image. OTOH, resizing will work if you have a large image and want to make it smaller.
If you only have a smaller version of an image to print, print that image, take a photo of it making sure the dimension settings are larger, and the copy "negative" of the smaller image will usually print larger photos and maintain the image quality.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/28/2016 11:38 AM, Muggles wrote: X

Photoshop and IRFanview are very good at interpolation. I have gotten great quality prints by simply re-sampling. There is of course a limit. That's why I told the OP that if the file size he's working with is 75k for example...then forget it.
With a 1 meg jpg, there is probably enough information there to re-sample

That would work but assumes the OP has the equipment and know-how to do so.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/28/2016 12:17 PM, philo wrote:

He did say the image was about 4"x 5". It depends on the compression the image he was sent was saved to - it could be made a little larger.
It depends on how large he wants the final print to be and how much blur and distortion he's willing to overlook even with a 1mb file.

He said he's not familiar with working with Photoshop, so he could play with irfanview and learn the tool steps, or ask someone who knows how to do it to help out, or see if the person who sent it has an original that's larger. Often times uploaded pics are sized down before upload because of server limitations on uploads. The photo owner probably has an original that's already larger.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/28/2016 12:31 PM, Muggles wrote:

I just tried an experiment with one of the first digital images I ever took back in 2000 when I had a 1 MP camera
Off the camera the image was 300k 5 x 7" @ 192 dpi
I used Photoshop to re-sample to 8 x 11" @ 300 dpi
It looked very good and I could notice no pixillation, it would have made a pretty decent print
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/28/2016 12:42 PM, philo wrote:

I could get similar results with many of my photos, but they were larger files, so had to hunt for a smaller one that was compressed down to 30kb (5"x6")and tried to resample to 8 x 11" and it was pretty bad out of focus and pixelated.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/28/2016 12:52 PM, Muggles wrote: X <snip> >>

yep , that's why I said not to even bother with anything under 75k
The 300k jpg off my 1 mp camera is probably near the lower limit of usability
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/28/2016 12:56 PM, philo wrote:

I agree.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/28/2016 12:17 PM, philo wrote:

You are correct I believe. You can make a photo larger, but you cannot make a bad photo any good. I often prefer to work, initially with Raw images.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/28/2016 04:26 PM, SeaNymph wrote:

As far as making a bad photo good, it's just a matter of showing it to the right person. I've seen some horrible junk that other people loved...so who knows?
I only used RAW for a short period of time...I'm mostly into B&W and that was just not necessary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/28/2016 4:35 PM, philo wrote:

I love black and white. To me, it forces a bit of creativity, since there's no color to distract the eye. When I lived in Bermuda I learned how to develop my own film. I would love to do that again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/28/2016 05:19 PM, SeaNymph wrote:

I love B&W but after a while darkroom work, to me just became tedious.
I first started with digital in 2000 and by 2005 fully made the transition. Since my darkroom had not been used once in ten years I gave everything away last year.
Now that I have a fine arts dealer representing me, I've learned that his clients will be wanting silver-gelatin prints.
Since I was not particularly good in the darkroom anyway I do not regret getting rid of my stuff. I now have sent some stuff off to two different labs and I'll see which one does the best job
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/28/2016 5:24 PM, philo wrote:

I learned B&W darkroom developing and printing back in the mid to late '80's. When digital came along I found my niche and love to manipulate images, or otherwise edit them. Composites are my ultimate favorite.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/28/2016 05:37 PM, Muggles wrote:

Even though I'm a computer geek who spends a lot of time building and repairing computers I am not terribly Photoshop proficient.
I shoot everything in color but a huge portion of it I convert to B&W and do little more than adjust the brightness and contrast. I do a lot of low light shooting and many of my digital images have the look of Tri-X.
That said I do some color as well and always have my wife do the final editing as she has essentially perfect color vision.
We took a color-vision test and her acuity was deemed exceptional while mine was just average. I think in general women are better with colors then men.
My wardrobe consists mainly of black t-shirts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/28/2016 5:47 PM, philo wrote:

I do enjoy working with B&W but with a twist by editing for selective color. That's kind of fun.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not sure what you mean by RAW, but if I do any image manipulation, th first thing I do is save it in a no-loss format. JPG is lossy, so save it as a BMP. (PCX also works). Do ALL your editing and keep saving as BMP or PCX. When you are done, print from the BMP or PCX. But if you want a screen image like for a website, then convert it back to JPG. Otherwise you have a very large file.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 02:47:03 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@unlisted.moc wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format
--- ---
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I'm not sure what you mean by RAW,
RAW is the best way to take photos. For posting to Facebook, a JPG taken with a phone is fine, but for people who are serious about cameras, a camera that offers RAW format is the sensible option. RAW is actually not just one format. It depends on the camera. But in general it's a format that contains a lot of the exposure data. It's the data from the camera's sensor. There are also editors specifically for RAW editing. Once the image has been worked on it can then be reduced to a 24-bit bitmap for digital processing or printing. But a bitmap is a reduction.
Example: When I was first trying out RAW options I took a photo of a cyclamen in a dimly lit room. The image was so dark it was mostly gray tones. As a RAW image I was able to brighten it to bring out the pink flowers, like turning on lights in the photo. If that image had been saved as JPG then brightening would have only lightened the gray pixels, because a JPG is just a compressed bitmap. There's no extra data to get out of it. The image points are already set as 24-bit-color-value pixels, so there just isn't any pink/red in that dark photo.
Storing it as BMP (or TIF, which is usually just a compressed BMP) is good once optimizing has been done in RAW, but if you don't start with RAW it's like starting with no camera settings options.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.