• This topic has xiv replies, 7 voices, and was final updated 13 years, 1 month ago by LeeLynch.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through xv (of 15 total)

  • Author

    Posts

  • November 8, 2008 at 9:58 am #987548

    I posted this question in the photo forum simply have had no responses, then I idea I would try over again here.

    I have but withdrawn from my Fine Art America gallery. One of my paintings sold and was to exist diddled upwards into a 30 past xl inch print. It was too fuzzy and the auction was cancelled and I uploaded another epitome with more mega pixels to no apparent comeback.

    I'm a hack when it comes to photo shop and I idea I was getting by.

    Is there any way for me to judge the quality of the photos I submit to printmakers such as Fine art America prior to uploading.

    In this detail case the image was of a pastel on fibroid paper so the edges were not crisp to start with. I querried the honcho at Fine art america to see if the trouble was that my original painting was a 12 by 16 inch and it was being blownup besides much. He said that a 4 by 4 inch could be blown up to billboard size if properly photographed. So I've closed my gallery until I tin resolve my trouble.

    Am I asking the proper experts here? I'm not sure where to start trying to find solutions.

    [FONT=Fixedsys]

    November ix, 2008 at eight:28 am #1108667

    I'd be curious what size images you uploaded (in pixels, not MB). I haven't heard that complaint almost FAA, merely would like to know if they are interpolating too large.

    November 9, 2008 at 9:28 am #1108669

    Ah Marsha, you lot're forcing me to admit my lack of composure. The max megabyte upload was ten,000 megs and that is what I uploaded and took what ever megapixels I got.

    I'yard going to take to go back to nuts and figure out what I need to do with my images to maxamize the quality of my transfers.

    Even though they said the original size of the paradigm didn't matter, enlarging my 12 past 16 image to the thirty by 40 range seems excessive, especially since it was a pastel on coarse paper. That would just magnify the texture by 400 percent and that tin can't be adept.

    [FONT=Fixedsys]

    Nov ten, 2008 at 7:36 am #1108668

    Well, looks similar I too am going to accept to practise some homework. I don't know what software he is using to interpolate and haven't tested any of my images yet.

    For general rules of thumb, high quality printing (not interpolated) should be at 300 pixels per inch. Epson (which he uses) recommends 360 pixels per inch. I start with all of mine at that resolution. Makes file sizes quite large.

    A couple of other cautions. Since you lot must catechumen your files to JPEG, do any resizing or other modifications in PSD or TIFF, because EACH time you relieve in JPEG, pixels are tossed out and therefore quality deteriorates. That could possibly explain part of the trouble.

    If you lot want to be totally conservative, you lot can just stay with the smaller sizes.

    Good luck!

    Nov 10, 2008 at ix:fifteen am #1108670

    Thank you Marsha. I approximate I'll have to become back to school on photoshop and really develop an understanding of what is going on. I tend to do everything in jpeg and after a lot of resaving photos, I apparently accept lost some quality.

    [FONT=Fixedsys]

    November 11, 2008 at 5:26 am #1108674

    Hi Hal, I'1000 pitiful you had to cancel the auction and shut the gallery.

    I querried the honcho at Fine art america to run into if the trouble was that my original painting was a 12 past 16 inch and information technology was existence blownup besides much. He said that a 4 by 4 inch could be blown up to billboard size if properly photographed.

    He's right. I wonder if he could've advised you on how to exercise it.

    In my humble opinion, to blow upwards a 12″ 10 16″ painting to a 30″ x 40″ print (12 times ii.5 = thirty, sixteen times 2.5 = 40), yous need to scan it at 300 ppi. This would produce an prototype 9000 pixels by 12000 pixels. When saved every bit a tiff file (with LZW pinch, which is a setting you come across while trying to salvage equally tiff) you should have a file inside 10 mb approx, depending upon the complication (no. of colors) of the epitome.

    Now most flatbed scanners are 8.five″ x eleven.vii″, if you can access a tabloid size scanner (11 x 17) or something larger, fantabulous… your trouble is solved. Otherwise, you will have to scan the painting in sections in a smaller scanner and then stitch together the parts to build a single, non-layered tiff file. Of course y'all'd demand a program like photoshop or paintshop pro or gimp (haven't used the latter 2) to practise the stitching. You tin can also save it as a high quality jpeg file, if file size is a constraint at your gallery, just tiff is the manufacture standard for printing.

    Now how to exercise the stitching? WC has a overnice commodity[/URL] on the procedure although it uses paintshop pro, but if you lot are familiar with photoshop, this will at to the lowest degree give you an idea. The basic thought is to have three or four scans of different areas of your painting, open each browse in the program, and and then fit the parts together on a larger, new file of appropriate dimensions and resolution. I'chiliad sure you can yourself effigy out how to do it equally I did long before I had read that article.

    As regards taking pictures… well, to produce a 9000 x 12000 pixel image you lot would need high end equipment. The viii megapixel sony I have generates (at highest settings) a 2448 pixel past 3264 pixel paradigm at 72 ppi. Changing the resolution to 300 ppi, and certificate size (print size) to xxx″ ten forty″ hikes up the pixel dimensions to 9000 10 12000. Then information technology all fits, eh? BUT… in hiking pixel dimensions from 2448 to 9000, you are adding pixels from nowhere, thereby blurring the image. Not good for printing. Hence you need a much higher megapixel photographic camera.

    Otherwise, stitching is your reply.

    P r o due south due east n [/I]j i t . R o y[/B][/Colour]



    November eleven, 2008 at x:21 am #1108671

    Give thanks yous Roy. Yous and the others have given me a lot to recollect most and I'll find some time to experiment and see what I can come up upwards with. I take photograph shop but haven't delved very deeply into information technology. I guess it'southward time to larn.

    [FONT=Fixedsys]

    Nov 12, 2008 at 12:38 pm #1108666

    The max megabyte upload was 10,000 megs and that is what I uploaded and took what ever megapixels I got.

    I'1000 bold that y'all meant that the max file size was 10 megabytes, non 10,000 megabytes (which is actually 10 gigabytes). As noted in Te_Wheke'southward reply to y'all in the photography forum, it would be tough creating a x MB file from your original that will print at 30 x 40. Information technology sounds to me that you lot were fighting a losing boxing from the beginning given the terminal desired image size and the limited file size. On the other hand, if you really meant ten,000 MB, then never mind. ;)

    Ray

    "The tragedy of life is not that it ends and then soon, but that we look so long to brainstorm it."- W. M. Lewis
    "It takes a lot of courage to release the familiar and seemingly secure, to embrace the new. Simply there is no real security in what is no longer meaningful. At that place is more security in the adventurous and heady, for in movement there is life, and in change in that location is power."- Alan Cohen

    November 12, 2008 at 1:39 pm #1108672

    Thank you oddthumbs, I'm afraid I'yard exposing my ingorance. Yes max image size was 10 megs.

    [FONT=Fixedsys]

    January 26, 2009 at 12:53 am #1108675

    I would say the scan+stitch approach should address your problem. Past my math:

    Desired resolution = xxx×xl – to print at 300dpi -> 9000×12000 pixels
    Input = 12×sixteen original

    to obtain 9000 pixels from a 12″ browse:

    9000/12 = 750 dpi

    Scanning your image at 750 dpi may be tiresome on the scanner, but even low terminate scanners are capable of 1200dpi these days. So if y'all browse your original at 750dpi (possibly in pieces, and and then stitched back into one image), you should exist able to get a 9000×12000 pixel image, which would then exist printable at 30×xl at 300dpi.

    In practice, I recollect this is simply exterior the range of my working retentiveness on my system (WinXP 32bit) – when I become upwardly around 10000×10000, things get iffy. When my local printer prints inkjet on canvas, I find that I can get away with less than 300 dpi, similar 260 or 270, and notwithstanding go practiced results. Even but dropping from 300 to 270, the pixel requirements drib to 8100×10800, which is safely below my threshold capacity. This would require but 675 dpi when scanning. But reducing dpi by 10% gives a xix% reduction in raw image size (0.9 ten 0.9 = 0.81 image area).

    March five, 2009 at 1:06 am #1108678

    I only signed in FAA, when I loaded images for print options – there is a table with optional sizes with proportions of your artworks and information technology shows what is the biggest size y'all can impress from your file.
    My pastel artworks are 12″x16″, my camera photos 8″x11″ with 300 resolution, so I saved jpg file with 100% compression its virtually iv-5 Megabytes. When I put prices for impress at the terminate your page when you lot submitting art – it shows me that max size of print for that file can exist up to 14″x20″. It merely doesn't recommend me to print bigger sizes.
    But I didn't take sales of prints yet and I concerned how its gonna look when it printed.

    March five, 2009 at 8:49 am #1108673

    Hi Nadia: An extreme solution would be to purchase a print for yourself to see how it looks at maximum impress size. They exercise requite y'all a discount when you purchase your ain print.

    In my case a client wanted a thirty by xl inch impress of my pastel and when I had originally uploaded my 12 past sixteen inch paradigm the FAA indicated that the 30 by 40 size was acceptable. It turned out that information technology wasn't. My pastel had been done on fibroid paper and the edges were soft and not well-baked. That may take made the divergence.

    [FONT=Fixedsys]

    March six, 2009 at 1:32 am #1108679

    yous right its skilful style to print something at max size to check information technology.

    March 9, 2009 at one:42 am #1108676

    Don't know if this will help you out or not, just here goes. I had a digital image that I created and wanted it diddled up onto a canvas so I could paint it in florescent paints. The original image was 6in.X6in at 300 dpi. I put the image on a scanner and scanned it in 1200 dpi. and saved as a jpg on a null disk. I then took information technology into photoshop and resized the image down to 600 dpi. I then took information technology to a professional visitor that does big enlargements. They took my 600 dpi paradigm and blew it up and printed it on sheet. The final size of the canvas is 58in.x56in. The company that did the enlarging is in Dallas, Tx. and practice piece of work for people and companies in the arts, merely I'k sure if you accept a Fastsigns in your surface area they could help you out Fastsigns do press for businesses on canvas for awnings. Ok hope this is helpfull.

    March x, 2009 at ii:52 am #1108677

    Don't know if this volition help you out or not, just here goes. I had a digital paradigm that I created and wanted information technology blown upwards onto a canvas and so I could pigment it in florescent paints. The original image was 6in.X6in at 300 dpi. I put the epitome on a scanner and scanned it in 1200 dpi. and saved equally a jpg on a nix disk. I and so took information technology into photoshop and resized the image downward to 600 dpi. I and so took it to a professional company that does large enlargements. They took my 600 dpi prototype and blew information technology up and printed information technology on sail. The final size of the canvas is 58in.x56in. The visitor that did the enlarging is in Dallas, Tx. and practise work for people and companies in the arts, only I'1000 certain if you lot accept a Fastsigns in your surface area they could assistance y'all out Fastsigns practice printing for businesses on canvas for awnings. Ok promise this is helpfull.

    I forgot one important point. The epitome that I took to exist scanned was RGB. Net images are RGB. When I scanned information technology I saved it as a CMYK jpg. Outside printer companies need your files to be in CMYK for reproduction.

  • Author

    Posts

Viewing fifteen posts - one through 15 (of 15 total)

  • The topic 'Trouble with images in Fine Art America' is closed to new replies.