How do I increase the resolution in my image when ready.......

[James_Earl_Jones@adobeforums.com]

to print out my final print. I am a newbie thank you...I just got back into photoshop and am learning as I go along. Be nice.

[SPAMMERS_SHOULD_DIE_bonniejdesign@bonniejdesign.com]

You should be working at the proper print resolution from the get-go.

To increase resolution at the last moment will only degrade your image.

[James_Earl_Jones@adobeforums.com]

OK WELL MAYBE THAT DIDN'T COME OUT RIGHT. SO, IF I AM WORKING ON AN IMAGE HOW WOULD I INCREASE THE RESOLUTION SO I AM NOT GETTING A PICTURE OF PIXELS.

[Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com]

The number of pixels in your image is decided at the moment that you create it -- whether by scanning, or directly in a digital camera.
You need to start with a big enough file for your final needs -- not be increasing resolution after the fact.

You also need to turn off your caps lock!

:~)

[Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com]

James,

Unlike TV crime dramas which miraculously reveal a clear license plate number shot by a security video camera 50 yards away, you cannot reveal image detail or texture that is not in the original image (although you can enhance weak detail). If your image is small or low resolution and you can't reshoot the original at appropriate resolution, you may be able to interpolate data that could give you a satisfactory larger image using resampling techniques, including Genuine Fractals. The image would be larger. The edges would be suitably sharp. But you would have no additional detail. And set side by side with a properly shot original, there would be differences in detail and overall quality.

Neil

[Larryr544@adobeforums.com]

In the old days with slower machines, documents were oftened processed at a lower resolution until near the end, then resized up before the details such as text were added. This was proposed by Kai and it is still done on slower machines sometimes.

If you have a fast machine and enough drive space start with the full rez image.

To resize upwards in PS CS use bicubic smoother. I believe this was your question. SOme people do it 10% at a time.

[Phosphor@adobeforums.com]

No matter what, there is no substitute for lots of big fat data.

Start with as much image info as you can get, in the form of high pixel count and color bit-depth.

Sizing down is OK. Sizing up is just plain WRONG.

[Buko@adobeforums.com]

As alluded to by Neil, what you need is the Hollywood filter. This filter which works wonders in the movies has yet to be found in real life.

[John_Slate@adobeforums.com]

Well that shouldn't be a problem. I think James has some connections in Hollywood.

[MichaelHope@adobeforums.com]

James,

If you have a 100 dpi file to start with and you increase the file to 300 dpi, Photoshop takes an average of the dots on either side and adds 2 more dots in between to increase the amount of pixels to 300. The problem is, the new pixels--say between a black pixel and a white pixel--would be 2 grey pixels (at 50% actually). The result is a soft, fuzzy image with, as someone else mentioned, no greater quality than the lower rez image.

This process is interpolation. It should be avoided when going larger than your original.

James Earl Jones is a great hollywood name. The hollywood filter, less so.

[John_Slate@adobeforums.com]

Of course when you are only given a small number of pixels to begin with, and can't get access to original artwork to rescan (this has happened to all of us), resampling is the only choice sometimes.

The biggest factor when determining whether you need to do this or not is the type of printer or rip to which you will be printing.

Some printers/rips re-interpolate all raster imagery anyway to soemthing like 300ppi, so if that is the type of printer you use, there is really no reason to uprez in Photoshop. All you will do is create more data to transfer, and get basically the same result (i.e. kind of a mushy pixel effect).

Other types of printers/rips do not resample rasters and if the rez is low enough, pixels become glaringly visible. If that is the type of printer you use, then uprezzing in Photoshop is the answer. It's not a great answer, just the best one under the circumstances. Better to have a kind of mushy image that visible pixels.

Then again, some people actually WANT pixels to show sometimes for an effect, but that is a whole nother issue.

An 8ppi image will print nice crisp 1/8 inch squares of color on the 2nd type of printer mentioned above, but unless special care is taken, will be tranformed into a weird mush pile by the 1st type of printer. It is probably, better to resample those types of things using nearest neighbor, or maybe making it in the first place using the mosaic filter.

[James_Earl_Jones@adobeforums.com]

Thank you all for your for your advise, I guess I need to look at how big the images are. I am not shooting digital but having all my still images transferred to cd at a pro-lab. Photoshop is so foreign to me right now. It has been about 3yrs since I last used it, now that I finally have the money I have the luxury of using it everyday. I have also just recently made a change from PC to Mac. I purchased a Mac G4, which is great considering I had a $500.00 Hewlett previously. I find that Mac's are so much more user friendly than anything I have used in the past.

By the way I am not the real Jame Earl Jones........ :)

I was thinking about Greta Gabel, but I'm not that sexy!

[Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com]

James:

You may need to give your Lab rather specific instructions because the standard "Save your photos to CD" services usually give you very small JPEGs (probably less than 2MB) which are suitable for on-screen monitoring or web-work but are only suitable for very small images if you are going to print them.

[James_Earl_Jones@adobeforums.com]

Ann,

So I guess you could say I may be really screwed. I know they told me I wouldn't be able to print anything bigger than a 8 x 10 from their cd's, which is fine for now I guess. With the Epson 2200 I can only go maybe one or two sizes bigger anyway. I will have to double check with the lab and find out. Thanks for bringing this to my attention

Thank ya.....Thank ya vury much!

[Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com]

That could be an 8 x 10 on your inkjet -- but only a 4 x 5 on a press.

You may want to can the rest of your order for those CDs and invest in your own film scanner.

:~(

[James_Earl_Jones@adobeforums.com]

Damn.....What does a good scanner go for? I be coming from the ol' school darkroom to the new school!

[Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com]

Check out eBay.

You might be able to pick up a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED rather reasonably now that Nikon have announced their new range of scanners.

[James_Earl_Jones@adobeforums.com]

Any special hook ups or connections needed? Will it effect the space on my computer?

[Rene_Garneau@adobeforums.com]

Will it effect the space on my computer?




Not really, just the space on your desk. : )

[Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com]

The physical footprint is quite small and it should come with both Firewire and USB cables.
Yo will need sufficient space on your HD to store files until you burn them to a CD. Obviously, firewire will give you better performance if you can use it.