Enhancing a jpg

In article , PeterN
wrote:


you can't get water out of stone


Moses would disagree.

moses is fiction.

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

I've a 780 x 490 b/w 100kb jpg photo. I'd like to enhance the image to
print at about A1 size (23"x33").

I'd doubt there's any one way to do this, and it's bound to involve
compromise. And I don't have a great deal of software - Affinity Photo
plus anything that comes free with a Mac. Any suggestions please?

As others have implied, your objective is a more than a bit of a
stretch. The common minimum photo print resolution is 300 pixels per
inch (ppi). So, you're essentially attempting to blow up a smaller than
2x3" image to more than 10 times its size (no problem for film, btw)!

it absolutely is a problem for film.

I believe he meant that if he had the original film it could be scanned
and produce a quite acceptable 23x33" pring.

that's not how i read it but it doesn't change anything.

Of course it does.

it doesn't.

large prints from small negatives won't work any better than large
prints from low resolution digital images.

For the case above, he would certainly get a far better result with the
original film than with his small JPG.

if his digital image is 780x490, the equivalent film would be smaller
than even minox.

comparing it to 35mm film is disingenuous.

He could reasonably get 4000 dpi from a good sharp negative, so 5669
pixels on the long edge. That's 7x more detail than his present image
or 171 dots per printed inch.

A wet scan could about double that if the original was quite sharp, low
ISO film.

33 x 23" is not an exceptional enlargement for 35mm film. To be sure
it's not made to be looked at at a distance of 12 inches.

35mm starts to look soft at 11x14 to 16x20 range.

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:


780 x 490 to 33 x 23 is pretty hopeless at about 24 printed pixels per inch.

Viewed from five feet away it would look okay-ish.

Point is there is no such thing as information that is not in the
original image.

exactly the point.

On 12/17/2016 12:49 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2016-12-17 11:14, PeterN wrote:
On 12/17/2016 10:55 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

I've a 780 x 490 b/w 100kb jpg photo. I'd like to enhance the
image to
print at about A1 size (23"x33").

I'd doubt there's any one way to do this, and it's bound to involve
compromise. And I don't have a great deal of software - Affinity
Photo
plus anything that comes free with a Mac. Any suggestions please?

As others have implied, your objective is a more than a bit of a
stretch. The common minimum photo print resolution is 300 pixels per
inch (ppi). So, you're essentially attempting to blow up a smaller
than
2x3" image to more than 10 times its size (no problem for film, btw)!

it absolutely is a problem for film.

I believe he meant that if he had the original film it could be scanned
and produce a quite acceptable 23x33" pring.

that's not how i read it but it doesn't change anything.

large prints from small negatives won't work any better than large
prints from low resolution digital images.

everything has limits and film is no exception.

claiming there's 'no problem for film' is simply wrong.


Would it really be so terrible if you tried to help the OP instead of
starting an irrelevant argument.

780 x 490 to 33 x 23 is pretty hopeless at about 24 printed pixels per
inch.

Viewed from five feet away it would look okay-ish.

Point is there is no such thing as information that is not in the
original image.



Absolutely true.

--
PeterN

On 12/17/2016 12:43 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:


I've a 780 x 490 b/w 100kb jpg photo. I'd like to enhance the image to
print at about A1 size (23"x33").

I'd doubt there's any one way to do this, and it's bound to involve
compromise. And I don't have a great deal of software - Affinity Photo
plus anything that comes free with a Mac. Any suggestions please?

As others have implied, your objective is a more than a bit of a
stretch. The common minimum photo print resolution is 300 pixels per
inch (ppi). So, you're essentially attempting to blow up a smaller than
2x3" image to more than 10 times its size (no problem for film, btw)!

it absolutely is a problem for film.

I believe he meant that if he had the original film it could be scanned
and produce a quite acceptable 23x33" pring.

that's not how i read it but it doesn't change anything.

large prints from small negatives won't work any better than large
prints from low resolution digital images.

everything has limits and film is no exception.

claiming there's 'no problem for film' is simply wrong.

The sentence from which you cherry-picked your disagreement SPECIFICALLY
refers to producing an image 10x the size of the original. It is not in
the least uncommon to produce images 10x the size of 35mm film negatives
or slides.

10x the size of a 35mm negative would be an 8x10", not a 23x33",
assuming you mean linear and not area (which is what it should be).

I meant EXACTLY what I wrote, which makes NO reference to ANYTHING OTHER
than 10x the size of the original. If you doubted that, you could have
referred to my reply, which specifies creating A1 prints from MF, and
realized that your above comment is a straw man divergence from the point.

If the film was the size of the OP's digital file, it would
be medium format,

complete nonsense. 780x490 pixels is worse than even the ****tiest
cellphone camera.

Yet another straw-man argument. The size is "...less than 2x3"..." based
on a typical 300ppi print resolution.

and could easily produce a good quality print at the
A1 size that he wants. If it were a print, one could make a decent A1 by
scanning it at above 1,000 ppi. The only real-world "problem" is your
point of view and desire to argue.

wrong on that too.

You seem to be the only one who thinks so, and given your history, I can
live with that.

--
best regards,

Neil

On 12/17/2016 1:08 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


you can't get water out of stone


Moses would disagree.

moses is fiction.


So is fracking.

--
PeterN

In article , Neil
wrote:

I've a 780 x 490 b/w 100kb jpg photo. I'd like to enhance the image to
print at about A1 size (23"x33").

I'd doubt there's any one way to do this, and it's bound to involve
compromise. And I don't have a great deal of software - Affinity Photo
plus anything that comes free with a Mac. Any suggestions please?

As others have implied, your objective is a more than a bit of a
stretch. The common minimum photo print resolution is 300 pixels per
inch (ppi). So, you're essentially attempting to blow up a smaller than
2x3" image to more than 10 times its size (no problem for film, btw)!

it absolutely is a problem for film.

I believe he meant that if he had the original film it could be scanned
and produce a quite acceptable 23x33" pring.

that's not how i read it but it doesn't change anything.

large prints from small negatives won't work any better than large
prints from low resolution digital images.

everything has limits and film is no exception.

claiming there's 'no problem for film' is simply wrong.

The sentence from which you cherry-picked your disagreement SPECIFICALLY
refers to producing an image 10x the size of the original. It is not in
the least uncommon to produce images 10x the size of 35mm film negatives
or slides.

10x the size of a 35mm negative would be an 8x10", not a 23x33",
assuming you mean linear and not area (which is what it should be).

I meant EXACTLY what I wrote, which makes NO reference to ANYTHING OTHER
than 10x the size of the original. If you doubted that, you could have
referred to my reply, which specifies creating A1 prints from MF, and
realized that your above comment is a straw man divergence from the point.

mf has absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever.

i don't know where the hell you got the idea a 780x490 pixel jpeg is
equivalent to medium format film. that's truly ****ed up.

he has a super-low resolution original and he'd be lucky to get a
reasonable 4x5" out of it. that's about *it*.

it's comparable to subminiature film, such as minox. actually, worse.

If the film was the size of the OP's digital file, it would
be medium format,

complete nonsense. 780x490 pixels is worse than even the ****tiest
cellphone camera.

Yet another straw-man argument. The size is "...less than 2x3"..." based
on a typical 300ppi print resolution.

it's not a straw man.

and could easily produce a good quality print at the
A1 size that he wants. If it were a print, one could make a decent A1 by
scanning it at above 1,000 ppi. The only real-world "problem" is your
point of view and desire to argue.

wrong on that too.

You seem to be the only one who thinks so, and given your history, I can
live with that.

i'm definitely not the only one who thinks that (read *anything* on
digital printing) but that doesn't make a difference one way or the
other. you're wrong and i can live with that.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


you can't get water out of stone and correcting mistakes is not
irrelevant.

Especially not when correcting your mistakes.

i have no problem when people correct my mistakes. everyone learns.

i *do* have a problem when people twist and lie about what i said in
order to claim it's a mistake when it is not, something you do with
regularity.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:37:21 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:
: On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:21:54 -0500, nospam
: wrote:
:
: you can't get water out of stone and correcting mistakes is not
: irrelevant.
:
: Water out of a stone? Not blood?

Blood out of a turnip, water out of a stone.

Bob

On 2016-12-17, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 23:07:00 +1100, Noons wrote:
: On 17/12/2016 8:48 @wiz, RJH wrote:
: I've a 780 x 490 b/w 100kb jpg photo. I'd like to enhance the image to
: print at about A1 size (23"x33").
:
: I'd doubt there's any one way to do this, and it's bound to involve
: compromise. And I don't have a great deal of software - Affinity Photo
: plus anything that comes free with a Mac. Any suggestions please?
:
:
:
:
: A LOT of compromise, with those numbers!
: I'd give the resizing options in Irfanview a go: they have always worked
: reasonably well for me. But don't expect miracles: with those
: dimensions, you're way off anything usable for A1 size!

I think maybe he meant to say centimeters, not inches. Isn't A1 the European
equivalent of a sheet of typing paper?

Bob

Only on a huge typewriter. I suspect you're thinking of A4.
http://www.papersizes.org/a-paper-sizes.htm

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~