Enhancing a jpg

On 12/17/2016 1:33 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.

mf has absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever.

As its context was a further clarification of my statement that you
previously misinterpreted, it has everything to do with it. MF referred
to "size" in terms of 300 ppi resolution, which for 780 x 490 pixels is
'...smaller than 2x3"..', and that is approximately the "size" of MF
film. Please let me know when you get it.

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.

Considering that you are the only one positing such nonsense, I'm glad
to see you admit that it's ****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.

Interesting, since that perspective is consistent with my original post.

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.

Okay, so it's a total misrepresentation to bolster your previous straw
man argument.

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.

Based on the level of maturity of your comments, I've likely created
prints from digital images for longer than you've been on the planet,
and have been paid well enough doing so to have had a wonderful life.
If that's untrue, it doesn't speak in your favor, btw.

--
best regards,

Neil

On 12/17/2016 12:45 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2016-12-17 10:55, 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.

Of course it does.


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.

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.

everything has limits and film is no exception.

No ****.

My original sentence is not that complex, and its context is contained
within. So, I don't see how it can be reasonably interpreted in the way
nospam insists on doing.

--
best regards,

Neil

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.

As its context was a further clarification of my statement that you
previously misinterpreted, it has everything to do with it. MF referred
to "size" in terms of 300 ppi resolution, which for 780 x 490 pixels is
'...smaller than 2x3"..', and that is approximately the "size" of MF
film. Please let me know when you get it.

oh i got it long ago. you, however, have not.

you said 10x enlargements are not a problem for film which is false.

film is subject to the same limitations as digital when making
enlargements.

if you have a small original negative or low resolution digital image,
you aren't going to be making poster-size prints.

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.

Considering that you are the only one positing such nonsense, I'm glad
to see you admit that it's ****ed up.

i'm not the one posting nonsense.

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.

Interesting, since that perspective is consistent with my original post.

now you're backpedaling.

let's see your 20x30" prints from minox. that'll be good for a laugh.

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.

Okay, so it's a total misrepresentation to bolster your previous straw
man argument.

no misrepresentation at all.

780x490 is ****-level quality. very simple.

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.

Based on the level of maturity of your comments, I've likely created
prints from digital images for longer than you've been on the planet,
and have been paid well enough doing so to have had a wonderful life.
If that's untrue, it doesn't speak in your favor, btw.

what you've done or haven't done or for how long is not relevant.

and you say what *i'm* saying is strawman??

On 12/17/2016 01:08 PM, 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.

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.

Maybe your's do. But my 35mm images look good up to my usual print size
of 20"x24". I feel certain they could go larger, but my processor is a
20" wide model.

A tripod (or some sort of support) helps a lot.

--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:


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.

Maybe your's do.

everyone's does. the larger the print the softer it'll be. it's physics.

But my 35mm images look good up to my usual print size
of 20"x24". I feel certain they could go larger, but my processor is a
20" wide model.

they might look ok from a distance, which is typically how a 20x24 is
viewed, but mf would be noticeably sharper. again, physics.

it also depends on the type of film. fine grain film will print larger
than grainy film.

A tripod (or some sort of support) helps a lot.

it helps only if camera shake is an issue. if it's not, then a tripod
won't help.

and you're forgetting about mirror lockup, assuming an slr.

On 2016-12-17 13:08, 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.

Of course it does.

it doesn't.

This is your classic in the air refute that makes people guffaw.


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.

Geez - twisting as usual. I'd assume that the digital image he has is
"found as is". Doesn't mean it was originally scanned optimally.


comparing it to 35mm film is disingenuous.

Not at all. It's just inconvenient to you.


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.

And looks sharp when you stand far enough away. Photos aren't made to
be looked at up close.

--
"If war is God's way of teaching Americans geography, then
recession is His way of teaching everyone a little economics."
..Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing.

On 2016-12-17 13:16, PeterN wrote:
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.

Just as your comment to nospam was absolutely useless.

--
"If war is God's way of teaching Americans geography, then
recession is His way of teaching everyone a little economics."
..Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing.

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.

This is your classic in the air refute that makes people guffaw.

nothing in the air about it. you're wrong, as usual.

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.

Geez - twisting as usual. I'd assume that the digital image he has is
"found as is". Doesn't mean it was originally scanned optimally.

there is no twisting.

it doesn't matter what the original was scanned at, assuming it was
even scanned, something you don't know. all he said was he has a low
resolution jpeg. it could be from a digital camera, greatly downsized.
it could even be a thumbnail from a website.

the reality is that a 790x480 pixel image *greatly* limits how large of
a print he can make, which is not very large at all.

comparing it to 35mm film is disingenuous.

Not at all. It's just inconvenient to you.

comparing a vga quality image 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.

And looks sharp when you stand far enough away.

everything looks sharp when you stand far enough away.

the bigger the enlargement the softer the results. simple concept.

Photos aren't made to
be looked at up close.

that's the most hilarious thing i've heard in years.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 18:55:05 +0000, Whiskers wrote:
: 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

Yeah, I clearly don't know my A's very well! :^|

Bob

On 12/17/2016 2:41 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.

mf has absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever.

As its context was a further clarification of my statement that you
previously misinterpreted, it has everything to do with it. MF referred
to "size" in terms of 300 ppi resolution, which for 780 x 490 pixels is
'...smaller than 2x3"..', and that is approximately the "size" of MF
film. Please let me know when you get it.

oh i got it long ago. you, however, have not.

The evidence shows otherwise, as in:

you said 10x enlargements are not a problem for film which is false.

More than one of us have already told you that we have no problems
getting high-quality 10x enlargements from film. It is not at all
unusual to have 24" x 24" prints from MF film, just as it is not at all
unusual to make 10" x 14" prints from 35mm, and both of those are 10x
enlargements. If you can't do that, your shots are the problem, not the
film.

film is subject to the same limitations as digital when making
enlargements.

Wrong.

if you have a small original negative or low resolution digital image,
you aren't going to be making poster-size prints.

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.

Considering that you are the only one positing such nonsense, I'm glad
to see you admit that it's ****ed up.

i'm not the one posting nonsense.

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.

Interesting, since that perspective is consistent with my original post.

now you're backpedaling.

let's see your 20x30" prints from minox. that'll be good for a laugh.

Again, that is your proposition, not mine. I don't even know why you
think that's relevant to anything I've posted.

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.

Okay, so it's a total misrepresentation to bolster your previous straw
man argument.

no misrepresentation at all.

780x490 is ****-level quality. very simple.

That is simply your attempt at diversion. You will find nothing in my
posts that suggests that the resolution of that file is sufficient for
large prints. Just the opposite.

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.

Based on the level of maturity of your comments, I've likely created
prints from digital images for longer than you've been on the planet,
and have been paid well enough doing so to have had a wonderful life.
If that's untrue, it doesn't speak in your favor, btw.

what you've done or haven't done or for how long is not relevant.

and you say what *i'm* saying is strawman??

Yes, I am. So, yet again, it's good bye.

--
best regards,

Neil