Increasing the image size substantially.

**morea** · 08-03-2005, 12:26 PM

Doubtful.

Here is a great article about the differences between raster and vector art:
http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/fo...hread.php?t=41

**morea** · 08-03-2005, 12:36 PM

Here is some more information:

http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/fo...ad.php?t=6805&

http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/fo...ead.php?t=6805

http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/fo...ead.php?t=8324

http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/fo...ead.php?t=7183

http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/fo...ead.php?t=7401

shible · 08-03-2005, 12:38 PM

you shod meak it 300 Resolution & 357X424 pixels it will be good

Eggles1 · 08-03-2005, 12:46 PM

I would go so far as to say not only 'doubtful' but impossible.

Depending on the process, most images need to be in the range of 200 dpi (desktop printer) to 300 dpi (offset printing) to look acceptable, with no visible pixelation.

If your image size is 357 px x 424 px, then if printed at 200 dpi, the max size the image could be would be 357/200 x 424/200 which is 1.785" x 2.12", which is a hell of a long way from 24" x 30", which is around 13-14 times larger. And where are all those missing pixels going to come from? Sure, you can force Photoshop to resample, and interpolate the missing pixels, but if there is any detail at all, it will totally be lost, as interpolation is based on making a guess at what colour to make the added pixels, based on the surrounding pixels.

Start again.

Cyclops · 08-03-2005, 01:48 PM

the resample in photoshop, using bicubic algorithm, is safe and recomanded as much as it doesn't increse the file size more than double (doubles the numbers of pixels). Offset prints can be made at 200 dpi too, and in some cases at 150 dpi, but it is too risky. Digital printing can go as far as 150 dpi.

PrintDriver · 08-03-2005, 02:25 PM

You could print it 12 times across and 15 down at actual size...

Resample a 2" image to 24" in Photoshop and it will be beautiful...
From a city block away.

I don't recommend interpolation at all. Relying on interpolation either in photoshop or some of the other even better programs out there is a waste of image, time and money. While you might get away with a few percentage points increase in size, it isn't going help in such drastic cases.

Garbage in Garbage out.

This is a hopeless case.
Start over with your end result resolution in mind.

Step · 08-04-2005, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Doors of Paradise

I have recently finished an image in Photoshop that is 357X424 pixels, which is quite small. But soon I plan on printing it out, but here is the problem.

I need for the printed image to be no more than 24"x30".
Is there any way to print it that was without loosing any quality?

Thanks.

I'm on a quest.....I've tried re-sampling in Photoshop. I have countless products including Extensis ones that claim to enlarge photos 1600% without quality loss. I've tried printouts and re-scanning, re-shooting digitally, you name it. When I figure out a way to enlarge photos without the quality loss, I will get the technique patented and be the next multi-millionaire.

**morea** · 08-04-2005, 02:52 AM

will you say that you knew me when?

Increasing the image size substantially.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment