Down with upsampling

[marlene]

I was taught to be very cautious about upsampling in Photoshop. Don't do it unless I absolutely have to, and don't upsample by much.

I was given a photo file -- originally a digital camera image (JPEG, of course), 7" wide at 72 dpi -- that was apparently upsampled to 300 dpi, and then scaled to 128% in the page layout.

Needless to say, it's very fuzzy.

What are some general guidelines on upsampling? I need to explain this to my client, and although I think I know what I'm talking about, I need reinforcements.

mxh

[donmcc]

Which version of PS? Before the CS versions, you could get better quality by upsampling in smaller increments ... I used to go at 125% each time till I got where I wanted to be. The newer versions of the program have this built into the highest quality of resampling.

Don McCahill

[marlene]

The CS version of Photoshop, I believe. But regardless of version and whether the upsampling was done in increments, isn't it excessive to upsample from 72 dpi to 300? (Not to mention scaling up the 300 dpi image by another 28%.)

mxh

[terrie]

>>marlene: But regardless of version and whether the upsampling was done in increments, isn't it excessive to upsample from 72 dpi to 300?

It's not the dpi that's significant...it's the pixel dimensions that are important (in Photoshop: Image > Image Size will show them that)...

I'm not sure this would help your clients, but one way to see if you are going to be in trouble by upsampling is in Photoshop (using Image > Image Size) to UNcheck "resample image" and then change the resolution from 72 to something more appropriate for print--say 150ppi or 300 ppi--and see what the Document Size width and height changes to.

Is the size close to what you need it to be?

Let's say the width/height change to 1.78" x 1.55 and you need 2" x something...upsampling would probably be just fine. If you wanted to make it 8" x something, you're going to be in trouble....

If the size *is* ok, then you could go ahead and check "resample image" (or not) and then change the resolution to what you need...

Terrie

[djb]

What are some general guidelines on upsampling?

1 - you can't add data that doesn't exist.

2 - See 1

[annc]

What are some general guidelines on upsampling? I need to explain this to my client, and although I think I know what I'm talking about, I need reinforcements.Your Real World Photoshop book would be a good place to start. There aren't many more authoritative sources of information on this than Blatner and Fraser.

[marlene]

It's not the dpi that's significant...it's the pixel dimensions that are important

I know, but I have to put it in terms the client will understand. It took me years to explain about resolution, and I do not relish the idea of trying to explain pixel dimensions. <g>

Basically, here's what happened:

Original digital photo was 504 x 404 pixels

Now it's 2100 pixels x 1683 pixels.

So, if my math is correct, the image has been roughly quadrupled, and that's BEFORE it was scaled up another 28% in the page layout.

mxh

[marlene]

1 - you can't add data that doesn't exist.

Well, you know that, and I know that, but that's what I'm trying to prove to the client. <sigh>

mxh

[marlene]

Actually, I did find my RWP and find the appropriate info, but it doesn't provide specific guidelines about the limitations.

Basically, the image was upsized/upsampled by over 400%, which I think is wildly excessive, but I wish I could find something in writing that says it should be limited to, say, 25% or whatever.

mxh

[annc]

Actually, I did find my RWP and find the appropriate info, but it doesn't provide specific guidelines about the limitations.

Basically, the image was upsized/upsampled by over 400%, which I think is wildly excessive, but I wish I could find something in writing that says it should be limited to, say, 25% or whatever.Maybe a print with all the jaggies exposed and pointed out to them would explain it sufficiently?

I feel your pain. In my current job, I've received several files at 75 or 72 dpi, and I've resized them to 300 dpi with the same number of pixels, printed them on my b&w laser printer, and then told the client to show them to the advertiser, explaining that that's the size their wonderful ad will come out at in his magazine. They're all tiny and unreadable, of course. <g>

[Robin Springall]

I feel your pain.
Me too. It's even worse when they do the upsampling themselves, coz then they say "It's all done to your specifications now, so it's up to you to make it look fab". Well, pants to that!

[Steve Rindsberg]

Well, you know that, and I know that, but that's what I'm trying to prove to the client. <sigh>

mxh
If they're too smart to listen to your advice, let them pay the printer to teach them why you can't make a 12" silk purse out of a 2" sow's ear.

[Steve Rindsberg]

Me too. It's even worse when they do the upsampling themselves, coz then they say "It's all done to your specifications now, so it's up to you to make it look fab". Well, pants to that!
Perhaps the thing is to amend the specs. "If the image looks great to you and meets these specifications, we'll make sure it looks every bit as good when printed. If it meets the specifications and looks like something that disagreed with the dog's delicate digestive system, we'll make sure it looks every bit as good when printed.

[terrie]

>>marlene: Original digital photo was 504 x 404 pixels

>>Now it's 2100 pixels x 1683 pixels.

EEEEWWWW!!!! Over 4x the original...not good...not good *at* all...

Terrie

[ElyseC]

So, if my math is correct, the image has been roughly quadrupled, and that's BEFORE it was scaled up another 28% in the page layout.A silk purse that'll never be. Yikes.

[annc]

Me too. It's even worse when they do the upsampling themselves, coz then they say "It's all done to your specifications now, so it's up to you to make it look fab". Well, pants to that!Some of them don't see anything wrong with JPEGs grabbed from the Web and plonked into a full colour job. It's really tough when you're doing work for a client and they are getting ads from their clients, especially when they get new advertisers every issue, and you have to go through the whole thing every time. I cannot get my current newsletter client to insist on a colour proof, so how am I expected to know what the advertiser is expecting?

[Robin Springall]

I try to cover most things in the specs and guidelines on our website but it has too much information for some people. Trouble is, Marlene's bound to get the blame for how it ends up <sigh>

Son: "Dad, when I grow up I want to be a drummer"
Dad: "You can't do both, son"

[ktinkel]

Son: "Dad, when I grow up I want to be a drummer"
Dad: "You can't do both, son"ROFL

So true.

[annc]

Son: "Dad, when I grow up I want to be a drummer"
Dad: "You can't do both, son"I've always had a soft spot for drummers. Ringo was my favourite Beatle, and I always keep an eye on the tympanist when I go to the concert hall.

[donmcc]

Isn't it interesting that a former fan of the Beatles, the first bad boys of rock, now is seen in concert halls?

Don McCahill

[marlene]

They just don't seem to recognize how bad the photo looks on the color proofs. <sigh> It will be interesting to see how they like it on the final printed piece.

FvH

[marlene]

The client has seen a "color blueline" and a higher-resolution color proof. I have suggested they ask for a matchprint.

They know it's not great, but don't seem to see just how bad it is.

I often get 72 dpi files, and only use them under duress. And I am very vocal about my displeasure. Some of my clients think I am too picky.

mxh

[marlene]

Nah, I won't be taking the rap for the bad photo. I didn't create that piece.

I know what you mean about "too much information" -- the readers get overwhelmed, and just don't bother to read the specs/guidelines, and just send whatever crap file they have.

Just today I received a photo my client had requested over a week ago -- the sender embedded it in her e-mail instead of sending it as a separate attachment. Then she sent another e-mail WITH a photo attachment, but it was 72 dpi and a terribly compressed JPEG that was full of artifacts. Really awful.

But we're using it, because that project has to go to press tomorrow. But I have warned the client (in writing) that the photo is going to look really bad.

mxh

[marlene]

not good

It's not even mediocre! <g>

mxh

[marlene]

It wouldn't even have made a good silk wallet, much less a whole purse.

mxh

[ktinkel]

… the Beatles, the first bad boys of rock …lI never thought of them as bad boys at all. Now The Who, maybe (although they too were such good musicians that their antics could easily be overlooked). Or the Rolling Stones, of course.

There must have been some badder boys before the English invasion, surely?

[donmcc]

Not to us, perhaps, but my parents at least ....

They had long hair, they were lippy (smart-assed, my father used to say), and they didn't follow convention. That doesn't even include the whole More Popular than Jesus thing.

They only seemed tame later, after bands like the Stones, Who, etc., tried (and succeeded) in out-badding them, seeing a really good trend developing in those years of rebellion.

Don McCahill

[annc]

Isn't it interesting that a former fan of the Beatles, the first bad boys of rock, now is seen in concert halls?I'm still a fan of the Beatles, and was listening to a lot of classical music at the time as well. As a dance student, I was exposed to orchestral music from the age of about nine, but came very late to chamber music. I still have trouble appreciating much of opera, however, so have a long way to go in my musical appreciation. <g>

[Michael Rowley]

Robin:

so I says to 'im I says: "Sod orff"

So that's how you dealt with Alan Sugar. I wonder if that was wise.

[Robin Springall]

Alan Sugar? Crikey! He's perfectly capable of giving as good as he gets, then adding the kind of expletives that they're too embarrassed to teach even in the army!

[mact]

Part of the problem is that most color proofs these days are made with inkjets. Inkjets are happy with extremely low resolutions, and the transtion to el crappo is very slow and to many eyes not apparent at all.

However, the same thing committed to film becomes obvious.

When i get images that I suspect will be troublesome tell the customer (almost always a printer, these days). If they say go with it, i do. Sometimes they end up getting the customer to provide a new image...and they get to pay for it over again. Sometimes there is no option but to go with it.

Another potential option is to use a toner-based output (DocuColor, etc) if the qties involved are small. This should hide the defect from most eyes.

[marlene]

Part of the problem is that most color proofs these days are made with inkjets. Inkjets are happy with extremely low resolutions, and the transtion to el crappo is very slow and to many eyes not apparent at all.

Yup. I've seen a lot of variation in the resolution/quality of color proofs, and the clients get confused -- the ones with some experience remember the relative clarity and accuracy of matchprints, and it has to be 'splained to them that you can only get a matchprint after you've run out film. (And by then, it's too late to make corrections without spending more money.)

Last week I had to send a job to press with a really dreadful photo -- a very low resolution, poorly exposed, out of focus, blotchy JPEG that was full of artifacts. We just couldn't get the person to send anything better. Right after the client signed off on the proofs, they found out that the person pictured had resigned from their position, and the photo should not have run at all.

Some days it don't pay to get up in the mornin'.

mxh