Cropping images (1 Viewer)

[ed78user]

Hi.

I'm using a coolpix 4500 and Nikon ED78 for my digiscoping. Post-Pro' in Photoshop 6.

I'm interested to know if people crop their images to a standard size, say - 6x4 or larger/smaller maybe.

The Manual states the Coolpix is good for prints around 7in on the long side. I've personally had good results from images blown up to 10in on the long side.

I'm just wanting to standardize my image database and am wondering what others do?

Thanks

 

[IanF]

Hi ed78user,

On bahalf of Admin and the Moderators, welcome to Bird Forum :t:

I'm afraid that I seldom print out large sized images, mainly just going for webpage use. I usually try to crop for a decent composition, which may be at 1600x1200 and then resize to 800x600 or sometimes 640x480. Resizing to a smaller size often helps to given an apparent sharpening of the subject.

Hopefully someone who prints more will be along shortly.

See you around.

 

[Carl Baggott]

Hi,

If you want to print pictures the quality of the original photograph will determine what you can get away with print size. Some of my best images can be printed at A4 size (29.7 x 21 cm), but poorer quality images can look quite good if printed at around 6 x 4.5 cm. The smaller ones I turn into a montage with 15 images on an A4 sheet. However, the most common size I use is 15.24 x 10.16 cm (6x4 inch). The challenge for me is getting photos which look good when printed. The problem is that photos can look good at 72 dpi on your computer screen, and sharpen up well, but when you increase the dpi for printing, the image can become 'fuzzy'.

 

[alan_rymer]

Try the freeware utility "Easy Thumbnails". It can sharpen, brighten, change size by pixels and also JPG compression of an individual photo or a whole directory of photo's.
It creates a "thumbnail" of whatever size in the same directory as the original.
An excellent piece of software!.

Link here: http://www.fookes.com/ezthumbs/

 

[Richard K-M]

Hi.

I'm using a coolpix 4500 and Nikon ED78 for my digiscoping. Post-Pro' in Photoshop 6.

I'm interested to know if people crop their images to a standard size, say - 6x4 or larger/smaller maybe.

The Manual states the Coolpix is good for prints around 7in on the long side. I've personally had good results from images blown up to 10in on the long side.

I'm just wanting to standardize my image database and am wondering what others do?

Thanks

Hi

I use an Olympus C3030Z camera (not for digiscoping - it's usless for that - too much vignetting) which is 3 mega pixels. Using Photoshop, I can get A3 size prints.
I suggest you store all your images raw from the camera onto CD. When working, change them to TIFF files so that there's no loss of detail if you open and close them often. When you have an image that you are pleased with, save it as a TIFF if you're going to print it, or as a JPEG of an appropriate size for the web.
You can see some of my images at www.rkmas.co.uk
Regards

Richard

 

[christineredgate]

I crop the image to rid it of the part I do not want,and then just resize if it is going to be used for e-mail etc.

 

[Andy Bright]

It's more a case of cropping them all to the same aspect ratio if you want some sort of standardisation in your collection. Use the marquee tool set at 4:3 or 3:4 ... or 3:2, 2:3. With a full uncropped image of the highest quality from a cp4500, A3 is more than possible. Cropping down to 1600x1200 should still be ample for a 10x8.

If you're struggling with print output you could try an online print company like www.photobox.co.uk usually 24hrs or less to delivery from the time you order.

 

[Richard K-M]

It's more a case of cropping them all to the same aspect ratio if you want some sort of standardisation in your collection. Use the marquee tool set at 4:3 or 3:4 ... or 3:2, 2:3. With a full uncropped image of the highest quality from a cp4500, A3 is more than possible. Cropping down to 1600x1200 should still be ample for a 10x8.

If you're struggling with print output you could try an online print company like www.photobox.co.uk usually 24hrs or less to delivery from the time you order.

Hi

1600 pixels for a 10 inch print only gives 160 dpi, I don't think that's high enough for a good quality print.

Richard

 

[Andy Bright]

Hi

1600 pixels for a 10 inch print only gives 160 dpi, I don't think that's high enough for a good quality print.

Richard

It's quite easy to get wrapped up with the convention that only 250-300dpi will suffice for a good print, in reality and with some subtle incremental interpolation (and use of continuous tone printer) the results can be described as good, but not excellent... it's all subjective and subject dependant, it has to be said. But close-ups of birds/feather detail are more testing than many subjects.

Anything much beneath 150dpi and you are struggling, so my description of 10x7.5 from 1600x1200 being 'ample' is a little over the top.
If you pm me with your address, I will happily send a 10x7.5 that will change your mind forever as to what's possible from a meagre 1600x1200 pixels, albeit not from an inkjet.

I have noted that you do offer a print service of your own, I wonder what printer you are using for your service?
Regards,
Andy

 

[Richard K-M]

It's quite easy to get wrapped up with the convention that only 250-300dpi will suffice for a good print, in reality and with some subtle incremental interpolation (and use of continuous tone printer) the results can be described as good, but not excellent... it's all subjective and subject dependant, it has to be said. But close-ups of birds/feather detail are more testing than many subjects.

Anything much beneath 150dpi and you are struggling, so my description of 10x7.5 from 1600x1200 being 'ample' is a little over the top.
If you pm me with your address, I will happily send a 10x7.5 that will change your mind forever as to what's possible from a meagre 1600x1200 pixels, albeit not from an inkjet.

I have noted that you do offer a print service of your own, I wonder what printer you are using for your service?
Regards,
Andy

Hi Andy

I use a Canon S9000 A3 printer.

I'm locked into high quality, but that's because I always have publication in mind and my pics are submitted to an agency who demand high quality! - I use a Rollei 6006 medium format SLR for my "serious" photography, which you can see the results of on my web site.

Believe me, I know what can be achieved from digital, I'm working with it all the time, but I wouldn't go below 200 dpi and expect to get a decent print.

But there, I'm a perfectionist.

Regards

Richard

 

[Andy Bright]

Ah, I see. I was taking into account the fact that the digiscoper, or even the typical birder/photographer is never going to expect a front cover or get the loupe out on his prints. Obviously my responses are aimed at the typical user of the forum..... It's unlikely that I would be saying the same on NPN.

Up until very recently most of the populous were happy with a 6x4 or even a 7x5, so your heady standards aren't quite as necessary to most.
Best regards,
Andy

Hi Andy


I use a Canon S9000 A3 printer.

I'm locked into high quality, but that's because I always have publication in mind and my pics are submitted to an agency who demand high quality! - I use a Rollei 6006 medium format SLR for my "serious" photography, which you can see the results of on my web site.

Believe me, I know what can be achieved from digital, I'm working with it all the time, but I wouldn't go below 200 dpi and expect to get a decent print.

But there, I'm a perfectionist.

Regards

Richard

 

[Jay Turberville]

1600 pixels for a 10 inch print only gives 160 dpi, I don't think that's high enough for a good quality print.
Richard

I agree that this is low and I too lean towards 200 DPI as a minimum for 8x10 and smaller prints. But I'm trying to reconcile this with your comment that you can get an A3 sized print from your 3MP camera. Such a print would be even lower in resolution than 160 dpi(around 130 dpi).

Perhaps you are simply considering that the A3 print will be viewed from a further distance away. This is something that people should keep in mind when struggling with the issue of how large they can print an image. So much depends on the subject, quality of the captured image and also the intended viewing distance.

When I was considering moving from the 3MP CP995 to the CP5000, I downloaded original JPEGs of the same scene (of a house) from a review sight and printed them at 11x14. I could clearly see the difference, though it wasn't a huge difference. But when I showed them to a friend without telling him which should be sharper, he thought the 3MP image was sharper. Both images were of the same subject, but they were taken in different months and at different times. The shadows in the 3MP image made for more contrast in the details of the house pictured. So subjectively it appeared sharper while objectively it clearly had less detail.

The lesson is to consider guidlines, but to use your own eyes (and the eyes of others) to make the final determination of what makes a good print.

 

[Andy Bright]

Perhaps you are simply considering that the A3 print will be viewed from a further distance away. This is something that people should keep in mind when struggling with the issue of how large they can print an image. So much depends on the subject, quality of the captured image and also the intended viewing distance.
.

Yes, this is the major factor you have to consider once above A4, that viewing distances are not the same and that most will not be scrutinised to the same extent as smaller hand-held/album prints (my interest being wall hung framed prints)

Still, I have sent off some 10x8's from 1600x1200 crops to various members who asked and they will make their feeling known on this thread...hopefully positively.

The A3's have actually been exhibited by other parties at various exhibitions (photographic as well as bird orientated) to great acclaim...although how close 'joe public' got, i don't know.

 

[wookie7062]

Interpolating

The software available for interpolating images is now amazing. I routinely blow up images from my Canon 10D from 6 megapixels to 12 megapixwls with only a very slight loss of quality. This can be done reasonably on Photoshop but if you are more serious about the quality a program called Genuine Fractals does a brilliant job. I think you can get a freeware version on the web which lasts for a month or so. Incedently it does a great job of reducing file sizes for the web too. If you are going to increase pixel numbers in photoshop do it in stages. Perhaps 5% at a time. you can create an action for this to save time.

 

[Andy Bright]

The software available for interpolating images is now amazing. I routinely blow up images from my Canon 10D from 6 megapixels to 12 megapixwls with only a very slight loss of quality. This can be done reasonably on Photoshop but if you are more serious about the quality a program called Genuine Fractals does a brilliant job. I think you can get a freeware version on the web which lasts for a month or so. Incedently it does a great job of reducing file sizes for the web too. If you are going to increase pixel numbers in photoshop do it in stages. Perhaps 5% at a time. you can create an action for this to save time.

I've been suggesting incremental interpolation (via photoshop bicubic) for several years now, the results seem to favour images with fur or feather to my eyes. There's a number of interpolation algorithms out there but it's surprising how subject dependant they are. GF is always pretty reliable though, and Fred Miranda's action is nice and simple.

 

[Jay Turberville]

The software available for interpolating images is now amazing. I routinely blow up images from my Canon 10D from 6 megapixels to 12 megapixwls with only a very slight loss of quality. This can be done reasonably on Photoshop but if you are more serious about the quality a program called Genuine Fractals does a brilliant job. I think you can get a freeware version on the web which lasts for a month or so. Incedently it does a great job of reducing file sizes for the web too. If you are going to increase pixel numbers in photoshop do it in stages. Perhaps 5% at a time. you can create an action for this to save time.

I've tried Genuine Fractals and incremental Photoshop resizing. Both are useful, and as Andy points out, better or worse depending on the subject. But in the end, they are all simply interpolations and don't add detail. The sharper and more contrasty the original, the better it will survive the uprez.

The bump from 6MP to 12MP really isn't that huge BTW. Its about a 40% increase in linear resolution. Good sharp images can often withstand this type of increase in size.

 

[Jay Turberville]

The A3's have actually been exhibited by other parties at various exhibitions (photographic as well as bird orientated) to great acclaim...although how close 'joe public' got, i don't know.

I have a picture of a Greater Yellow Legs that is enlarged to 11x14 from a digiscoped CP995 image. I always get very positive comments about it. But then, it is hung in our bathroom and you'd have to stand on the "plumbing" if you wanted to put your nose to the print. So it looks quite nice at the "imposed " 2-3 foot minimum distance.

 

[Atricapilla]

Cropping -Dpi

Yes, this is the major factor you have to consider once above A4, that viewing distances are not the same and that most will not be scrutinised to the same extent as smaller hand-held/album prints (my interest being wall hung framed prints)

Still, I have sent off some 10x8's from 1600x1200 crops to various members who asked and they will make their feeling known on this thread...hopefully positively.

The A3's have actually been exhibited by other parties at various exhibitions (photographic as well as bird orientated) to great acclaim...although how close 'joe public' got, i don't know.

I have just been "inspecting" two cropped images(1600x1200) sent to me by Andy,along with some friends who are far more knowledgable(photographically)than me;all we can say is that these prints(10x8)are superb in every aspect ,these have to be the best digiscoped photos we have seen ;the sharpness and detail are truly outstanding and that's from 2 to 3 inches not feet,these prints would impress more than just "Joe Public" thats for sure.Well done Andy, these will hold a place on my wall as the standard to aim for -whether I will ever be that good in the future only time and sheer effort will tell. :clap:

 

[Andy Bright]

Glad you liked them, Bob. The Fieldfare was from about 1700x1250'ish crop. Remember that these are printed on a fuji frontier printer, so interpolation isn't really necessary...on a domestic inkjet you'd probably be better off increasing them by interpolation in photoshop or whatever.
I'm sure you'll get some cracking shots of similar quality in the future, just that it takes plenty of shutter-presses to get a really good 'keeper'. There aren't many excuses for not blasting away as many shots as you can at the subject... especially as 256mb and 512mb cards are relatively cheap these days.
Regards,
Andy