# How to Enlarge Digital Photos?



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I'm looking for some recommendations how to enlarge digital photos easily and quickly and how much of an enlargement one can reasonablt expect and still end up with reasonable quality.

Right now, I use Preview, enlarge the picture by 25% or so and then use the sharpen option in preview to try to take the fuzziness out.
That works fairly well

But I'm wondering if there is a better way that could enlarge photos up to 100%.
By percentage I just mean enlargement of the width by that amount, ie a 600 pixel wide photo would be enlarged to 1200 pixels wide which area-wise is 400%...

I downloaded and tried PhotoZoom Pro 4 earlier this evening since it was very well rated, but the quality of the enlargement was no better, actually slightly worse, than what I'm doing now.

The process has to be straight forward and simple since I would use it fairly often; I do have PhotoShop and Photoshop Elements but I think using those is too timeconsuming for what I want.

Use of the pictures would be for web publishing.

Also, if the original photo has a much higher resolution than the monitor, say 300 pixels/inch, should I not be able to enlarge that without any loss in quality to show on a monitor with a typical resolution of 72 pixels/inch?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

A lot will depend on the camera. For example most current P & S style cameras can do ~4000x3000 pixel images. However if you shoot at 3 MP and use PS Elements to interpolate up to 12 MP the results will be pretty much identical to shooting at 12 MP. This is because the sensor really only captures at 1.5 to 2 MP and every thing else is interpolated by the camera. Makes little or no difference where you do the interpolation.

Obviously cameras with larger sensors such as DSLRs capture a larger image and there is little or no camera interpolation, resulting in noticeably sharper images especially when viewed at 100%.

Pixels per inch are fairly irrelevant unless you are printing the image in which case 200-300+ pixels per inch range is desirable. 600x450 is the same amount of information whether it is 2x1.5 inches at 300 pixels per inch, or is 6x4.5 inches at 100 pixels per inch. The smaller print will look a whole lot better but on the computer screen there will be no difference.

The big thing to be aware of is images should not be sharpened before resizing either up or down. Sharpening filters should always be the last thing you do to an image.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Maybe I shouldn't have posted my question in the photography forum.
I just thought people who look here are more familiar with post processing of photos.

I'm starting out with pictures people send me.
Often they are only 400 or 500 pixels wide, sometimes 640.
I want to enlarge them to typically 1200 pixels wide but keep as good a quality as I can.

In practice so far, I found that is pretty much impossible - I can enlarge existing pictures by about 25% in width, that's about it.
Anything much larger and the quality really suffers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If the original is pathetic, I sometimes find that darkening the input levels of the image slightly masks the low resolution. Works particularly well for non-linear subjects.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

You know the old saying: garbage in, garbage out. Well, that's a bit harsh, admittedly. But the solution is to get people to send you images at maximum resolution. Pumping up the size 200% is just asking for posterization, unfortunate artefacts, general softness - in other words, pictures that plainly look bad.

Yes, certain images will hold up better than others. But the general rule of thumb with this stuff is start with the most data and then downsample... you can't go the other way around. If you were designing posters or billboards, you can get away with lower resolutions, because those images are meant to be seen from a distance. But in most cases, it's like trying to make the proverbial silk purse out of a sow's ear - and in your instance, I suspect, you simply need to be supplied images at a significantly higher resolution than is currently the case.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> You know the old saying: garbage in, garbage out. Well, that's a bit harsh, admittedly. But the solution is to get people to send you images at maximum resolution. Pumping up the size 200% is just asking for posterization, unfortunate artefacts, general softness - in other words, pictures that plainly look bad.
> 
> Yes, certain images will hold up better than others. But the general rule of thumb with this stuff is start with the most data and then downsample... you can't go the other way around. If you were designing posters or billboards, you can get away with lower resolutions, because those images are meant to be seen from a distance. But in most cases, it's like trying to make the proverbial silk purse out of a sow's ear - and in your instance, I suspect, you simply need to be supplied images at a significantly higher resolution than is currently the case.


Yes, there is no way to better the original image. By darkening it a little, I can sometimes hide the ragged edges of the low-rez image and fill in a little of the pixelation--my one trick. 

Someone recently sent me a photo 1.5 X 1.5 inches at 72 dpi to fill a hole that required a 4 X 6 image at 300 dpi. I told them I might be able to use it to create a commemorative postage stamp of the publication.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

This happens to me in the film & TV business quite often. Say we need baby or infant pictures of a particular actor - that we'll play as set dressing. Proud Mom or Dad, eager to help, inexplicably send me something an inch by two inches at 72 dpi, thinking I'll be able to make do. Or a director will send a link as a reference for a particular look he wants us to emulate. Same thing. Fine, it's just a reference, after all - but then he'll want us to use _that _very image, repurpose it to a 5'x7' or an 8' x 10" hand prop. In which case I'm obliged to explain why it won't do. Sometimes they're interested in the technical aspects but often they are not; they just want it done, thanks very much.

You can start big and go small but you can't go the other way. Although in recent years I've been hearing whispers that they're working on clever reverse algorithms to do just that. If they're having any success, the mainstream world knows nothing of it. That would be a lovely trick to pull off.

The biggest problem is lingering and widespread public ignorance regarding what's required when you're printing an image vs. simply displaying it on a phone, iPad, or on the web.


----------



## Rob (Sep 14, 2002)

If you're saving files for web use, then the greatest feature in Photoshop or Elements is "Save for Web" under the file menu. You use it to change the size and quality of the image. It's bloody miraculous! Way easier than trying to adjust all the settings yourself. You can enlarge or reduce. I use it all the time.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> *CLIENT:* “Why is the photo grainy? It looks terrible on your flyer.”
> 
> *ME*: ”You sent me a zoomed in photo of the hamburger using the camera on your BlackBerry. They’re 3 mpx at the most.”
> 
> *CLIENT*: ”Not sure what mpx is, but if it’s like mph, then the photo wasn’t moving. The burger was on a plate. On a table. Not moving.”


(Clients from Hell)



> _A client kept trying to send me a higher resolution photo, but I kept getting the same size e-mailed to me. _
> 
> *CLIENT*: I don’t get it! I click the % to enlarge the picture in Photo Viewer before I send it.


(Clients from Hell)



> *Client*: “I’ve sent the image. I can’t wait to see the final product.”
> 
> *Me*: “This image is 115px x 148px at 72dpi. Typically we need images around 1000px and higher with around 150+dpi.”
> 
> *Client*: “Can’t you just Enhance the images like they do in CSI.”


(Clients from Hell)



> *Email from client:* I’ve attached an image. Could you make it HD and send it back?
> 
> *attached jpeg with dimensions: 32px by 54px*


(Clients from Hell)


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Rob said:


> If you're saving files for web use, then the greatest feature in Photoshop or Elements is "Save for Web" under the file menu. You use it to change the size and quality of the image. It's bloody miraculous! Way easier than trying to adjust all the settings yourself. You can enlarge or reduce. I use it all the time.


Enlarging it effectively will only work if you've got sufficient data to begin with, however. Which reminds me - that's another thing people get confused over: the difference between dimensional size and depth of resolution.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

CubaMark: the enhance crack always gets me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Enlarging it effectively will only work if you've got sufficient data to begin with, however. Which reminds me - that's another thing people get confused over: the difference between dimensional size and depth of resolution.


It's like communicating with aliens. I try to ask them for 300 dpi, but their digital photos are all 72 dpi--just covering vast swaths of territory. I have settled on "big file sizes--the bigger the better. 88K? No, bigger!! 10 MB? Yes, bring it on!"


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Well you seem to want a cheap solution krs so this is not for you but...

Photoshop...

Image> Image Size>









You can quite comfortably go up 300% and still maintain a perfectly usable image for printing especially when going through a commercial house. The trick is to make sure that you choose the resampling method, *Bicubic Smoother (best for enlargement)*.

We used to do this all the time when I was working for GSI Lumonics in their marketing communications department as a graphic designer, for trade show posters and banners and the results were terrific.

Now if you had more money still you could buy a plugin for Photoshop by onOne Software called Perfect Resize 7 Pro (formally known as Genuine Fractals). With this little number added into Photoshop you can enlarge an image up to 1000% and still have a decent image. Depending on the edition you buy (Standard or Pro) it is either $100 or $200.

I have not used Perfect Resize 7 Pro, but have used a previous incarnation, Genuine Fractals 5 Pro and the results are surprisingly good.

As Max says though start with the best original capture (both high resolution megapixel count and overall exposure) possible otherwise even using these methods will yield less than desirable results.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> It's like communicating with aliens. I try to ask them for 300 dpi, but their digital photos are all 72 dpi--just covering vast swaths of territory. I have settled on "big file sizes--the bigger the better. 88K? No, bigger!! 10 MB? Yes, bring it on!"


_Exactly. _Give me way more than we need. I can trash the originals once the job's been done to our mutual satisfaction. But if you give me chump change, we can't make a million bucks with it... not in a day we can't.

Screature: I had forgotten the name of that software - I vaguely remember it by its original name, thanks. Seems it _is_ possible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear - within fairly strict limitations, of course.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> The big thing to be aware of is images should not be sharpened before resizing either up or down. Sharpening filters should always be the last thing you do to an image.


I was wondering about that...thanks for the tip.

I have been doing the sharpening last but I always wondered if that was the best way to go.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> _Exactly. _Give me way more than we need. I can trash the originals once the job's been done to our mutual satisfaction. But if you give me chump change, we can't make a million bucks with it... not in a day we can't.
> 
> Screature: I had forgotten the name of that software - I vaguely remember it by its original name, thanks. Seems it _is_ *possible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear* - within fairly strict limitations, of course.


Nope you can't do that, you still have to start with the best image possible.

In the situations I am talking about our original images were shot professionally using a medium format Hasselblad. The negs were then scrutinized under a loop and the final selections were then professionally scanned using a Flextight scanner resulting in a 26-32 MB 300 dpi scan... That is how you can go so big.

Now that being said with today's modern digital cameras using a full format or even APS DSLR you could achieve similar results, but you certainly can't make a silk purse out of sows ear... i.e. make printable results starting with screen resolution images.

Cameras with smaller sensors (4 -10 MB captures) can still be enlarged successfully but obviously you just can't go as large because the resolution isn't there to begin with.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Max said:


> You know the old saying: garbage in, garbage out. Well, that's a bit harsh, admittedly. But the solution is to get people to send you images at maximum resolution. Pumping up the size 200% is just asking for posterization, unfortunate artefacts, general softness - in other words, pictures that plainly look bad.
> 
> Yes, certain images will hold up better than others. But the general rule of thumb with this stuff is start with the most data and then downsample... you can't go the other way around. If you were designing posters or billboards, you can get away with lower resolutions, because those images are meant to be seen from a distance. But in most cases, it's like trying to make the proverbial silk purse out of a sow's ear - and in your instance, I suspect, you simply need to be supplied images at a significantly higher resolution than is currently the case.


I understand all that but getting higher resolution pictures is often not possible - that's why I asked the question in the first place.
I just want to make sure there isn't some method that I should be using that I have totally overlooked.

For instance, I have a Philips DVD player that does up-sampling and if I play a regular DVD on an 1080 HD screen, the clarity the up-sampling provides is amazing. 
I thought there might be something available along those lines for photographs as well.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Rob said:


> If you're saving files for web use, then the greatest feature in Photoshop or Elements is "Save for Web" under the file menu. You use it to change the size and quality of the image. It's bloody miraculous! Way easier than trying to adjust all the settings yourself. You can enlarge or reduce. I use it all the time.


Thanks,
I didn't really want to fire up Photoshop but this sounds very easy and straight forward.
I will certainly try it and compare the results to what I get now with my primitive method.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> Thanks,
> I didn't really want to fire up Photoshop but this sounds very easy and straight forward.
> I will certainly try it and compare the results to what I get now with my primitive method.


Sorry krs I didn't read your post carefully enough to see that you do have Photoshop. When saving for web you can do as Rob mentioned for onscreen only work just make sure to choose *bicubic smoother *as the resampling method.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> Well you seem to want a cheap solution krs so this is not for you but...


Not "cheap" but simple.
I have both Photoshop and Elements so I will certainly try your suggestion.
I just want to be able to do these enlargements quickly and efficiently without having to fiddle too much (if at all) with settings.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> Not "cheap" but simple.
> I have both Photoshop and Elements so I will certainly try your suggestion.
> I just want to be able to do these enlargements quickly and efficiently without having to fiddle too much (if at all) with settings.


If you have a bunch of images to do just set up an Action in Photoshop to automate the process.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Here is the screen capture I took earlier and enlarged 200% using Save for web & devices in Photoshop using bicubic smoother. Because it is 72dpi and a screen capture it isn't great by comparison but not bad either.








original screen capture








enlarged 200%

You have to click on it to see the real results as ehMac shrinks the "preview"


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> If you have a bunch of images to do just set up an Action in Photoshop to automate the process.


I don't think I can....

The photos I start with are anywhere from 400 to 800 pixels wide.
I need to enlarge them to either 1200 pixels wide or 1400 to 1600 pixels wide if I need to crop.

So the enlargement percentage as well as the original and final size vary from photograph to photograph.

I also just tried a sample picture I enlarged yesterday using Preview, I went from 800 pixels to 1600 pixels wide - doing that in Elements was fast and easy but the resulting image was really no better than what I got using preview.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> I don't think I can....
> 
> The photos I start with are anywhere from 400 to 800 pixels wide.
> I need to enlarge them to either 1200 pixels wide or 1400 to 1600 pixels wide if I need to crop.
> ...


I don't have Elements so I don't know if you have the option to choose the resampling method or not... however starting with such small photos to begin with is always going to yield only so-so results.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Here is the screen capture enlarged 200% using PS and Preview as you should see the PS enlargement is noticeably sharper...








PS








Preview

Again you have to click on the images to see the real results.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> I don't have Elements so I don't know if you have the option to choose the resampling method or not... however starting with such small photos to begin with is always going to yield only so-so results.


Yes, you do.

It's not the default but I selected the one you recommended which is also shown as "best for enlargements"

Don't get me wrong, the results were so-so acceptable, just not visibly any better than what I got using preview.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> Here is the screen capture enlarged 200% using PS and Preview as you should see the PS enlargement is noticeably sharper...


Yes, I can see that.

But with the colour photo the difference is not noticeable; I'll have to check and try a few different ones to see.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> Yes, I can see that.
> 
> But with the colour photo the difference is not noticeable; I'll have to check and try a few different ones to see.


Maybe try PS as opposed to Elements it is after all a consumer version and it's resampling may not be as robust as PS.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

OK, I'll have to try that later....

Thanks for all the help and suggestions.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> OK, I'll have to try that later....
> 
> Thanks for all the help and suggestions.


Most welcome...


----------



## besteffects (Aug 8, 2013)

If i want to enlarge digital photos. so, i will use all the photoshop and new digital techniques.


----------

