Your current prints are about 68% the size of the prints could make with
the 4(7)800. (10.75x15 is 68% of 15.75x22) To replicate the upsampling
that would be done on the larger print, crop your picture to 68% it's
original size in each dimension (e.g. you would crop a 1600x1200 to
1088x816. Obviously your files are larger).
I think that makes sense. I did something similar in making a
digicam/printer comparison book when I worked at OMAX.
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bob Whitmire
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:33 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Upsizing E-1 prints
Okay, so it's new printer time. Like another on this list, I'm bouncing
between Epson's 4800 and 7800. The 7800 is another grand, but it's a lot
more print space. Now, I have quite a few 6x9cm and 4x5-inch slides
around,
and those will print nice and big. But I'm wondering about my E-1 files,
which I process from RAW to .TIF, resulting in a file roughly 29.5MB,
with a
native size of roughly 6.5x8.5 inches. With either printer, depending
upon
orientation, the actual image size I'd be shooting for, the way I mount
and
mat, would be in the neighborhood of 15.75 x 22 inches.
Up until this point, I've had no issues with upsizing E-1 prints to the
largest image size I print, which at the moment is 9.75 x 14, even 10.75
x
15, or an Epson 2200. From more than a foot or so away, these babies
look
really good. But the sizes possible with a 4800 or 7800 are considerably
larger, and I wonder about the stretch.
Questions are these: Is that too much of a stretch for the E-1? Will
Picture
Window Pro, which I use, handle that degree of upsampling? Would Genuine
Fractals or another upsizing program do better? I have Photoshop
Elements
3.0, and I think GF is available as a plug-in. Also, I know AG was
talking
recently about going really large with E-1 prints through a pro lab he
uses,
and so there's always the possibility of getting professional printing
done
with the images I want printed at the larger sizes.
Surely some of you old-pros have a way I can actually test with the 2200
by
upsampling something and printing as though it were 15.75 x 22, only
with
just a portion of the image actually printed? Yeah, I ought to be able
to
figure it out for myself, but at the moment my mind is pretty much out
to
lunch because of other considerations, the most egregious of these being
advancing years. <g>
Any comments or advice welcome.
Thanx in advance,
--Bob
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that
is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
copying or distribution of this message or files associated with the message
are strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, kindly
notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your
computer
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|