I want this photo to be blown to an 11x14

How can I do that without major distortion?

KTHXU

12/19/2007 5:02:44 PM

what if you scan the pix and put like 2000X2000 dots per inch...then it will scan in a huge resolution and you can size down the pic

12/19/2007 5:03:59 PM

you cannot create pixels.


you will lose quality going to 11x14.

12/19/2007 5:04:04 PM

oh ill blow something up alright

12/19/2007 5:04:10 PM

dammit, how bad will it look?

12/19/2007 5:04:42 PM

that is an awful picture

you can't even see the fucking people

[Edited on December 19, 2007 at 5:05 PM. Reason : /]

12/19/2007 5:04:55 PM

you're an awful picture

12/19/2007 5:07:05 PM

It's going to look about this bad, here's a 2x2 sample after it's blown up to 10.5x14 with a 300 DPI resolution.

12/19/2007 5:09:29 PM

are you supposed to not be able to see the people?

12/19/2007 5:10:13 PM

Quote :

"that is an awful picture you can't even see the fucking people"

while i agree you can't really see the people, the background is fucking NOT AWFUL

12/19/2007 5:11:29 PM

ha dammit that's awful

Well no its like a uh black and white mysterious photo

12/19/2007 5:11:29 PM

^^so why ruin it with some people's silhouettes

12/19/2007 5:15:28 PM

I can see the people. There are two of them towards the left in the foreground.

12/19/2007 5:23:13 PM

you need to take the pictures at something like 4-6megs or so to be able to use it 11x14
thats a really picture

12/19/2007 5:26:13 PM

awesome photo. where are you guys? i'm positive you got bwned after that photo too. dead the guy though. he looks snubby, which makes you look chubby. if you were with a leaner guy you'd profit.

[Edited on December 19, 2007 at 5:29 PM. Reason : profit$]

12/19/2007 5:28:25 PM

^^^yes, we can all see their outlines against the bright background, at that's about it. smartass

[Edited on December 19, 2007 at 5:28 PM. Reason : ,]

12/19/2007 5:28:47 PM

it can be done

12/19/2007 5:33:13 PM

12/19/2007 5:37:17 PM

i was waiting for that.


well played.

12/19/2007 5:39:59 PM

^^ i admit, i lol'd

12/19/2007 5:40:24 PM

haha it was in Costa Rica. He was in the wedding and his family ordered the clothes, sizes and all. None of them fit properly but he's about as lean as one can get.

Awesome bombing picture prufy! That'd look perfect as the centerpiece on my wall!

My stepdad just sent me this;



[Edited on December 19, 2007 at 5:57 PM. Reason : gfhfg]

12/19/2007 5:53:16 PM

take the negative to kinkos or to someone with a good negative/photo scanner, then scan it in a high DPI, then print on quality paper with a quality printer.

done

slides themselves are the most robust of all visual formats, they can last damn near forever

[Edited on December 19, 2007 at 5:59 PM. Reason : d]

12/19/2007 5:58:35 PM

What if it was all digital?

12/19/2007 6:00:01 PM

what needs to happen is -selective dodging over the faces and a slight brightening of the background - the pic your step dad sent is a little washed out.
you can tell based on the clouds - i'd darken the sky a bit, and brighten the beach/water.

[Edited on December 19, 2007 at 6:03 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2007 6:02:21 PM

that is like a 1/2MP photo - unless you bought your digital camera in 1995, you need to change some settings to allow full use of the camera you purchased

12/19/2007 6:30:31 PM

Prufock wins ahahahaha.

12/19/2007 6:53:18 PM

If it means that much to you, use genuine fractals. Its expensive, but it is the tool for what you want to do.

http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=2

12/19/2007 7:07:28 PM

12/19/2007 7:26:27 PM

LOL^

12/19/2007 7:34:09 PM

The camera is way old.

However my new camera is 7.0 megapixels and they look worse than his, very grainy. what the shit?

12/19/2007 10:24:09 PM

^check the image quality/compression settings

[Edited on December 19, 2007 at 10:31 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2007 10:30:54 PM

I dont have that setting but the megapixels are at 7.0mpeg

12/19/2007 10:42:15 PM

onOne.Genuine.Fractals.PrintPro.v.5.0.3.for.Adobe.Photoshop-SCOTCH

12/19/2007 10:43:21 PM

then the camera you bought is a piece of shit. buy a camera that does uncompressed (RAW) images, or find one (by trying them out in a store) that allows you to decrease image compression.

They look grainy because they are overcompressed.

12/19/2007 10:43:52 PM

Prufrock wins

12/20/2007 12:25:12 AM

definitely dead the guy


as for the pic, you should definitely work with RAW format. im not sure if thats nikon or not. all i know is that i can download pics from the d50 and email them to the photolab in town and get 16x20 and 20x24 and maybe higher. i think it takes pictures natively in 3000x2048 or something crazy like that.. i never planned to have a camera that insane, but now i think its pretty necessary if you want to "print" digital photos in big sizes and have them look great. the coolpix series works really well for old school 5x7 and 6x9 or whatever prints, and thats what i use for like parties or trips. if im going out to take pictures then i bring the big gun. then again i never intended to have such a cool camera in the first place. but i think you need one to make huge photo prints

12/20/2007 12:49:48 AM

12/20/2007 1:33:05 AM

^^ I always thought we had to get software to decode the RAW image data. That is really sweet, you don't have to invest in anything that way.

But then again if you want to edit the image, you've gotta get the software.

/cheapo

12/20/2007 10:31:00 AM

Quote :

"I dont have that setting but the megapixels are at 7.0mpeg"

I doubt that it's your camera that doesn't allow you to control that, but that you don't have a fucking clue how to use your damn camera.

12/20/2007 10:34:11 AM

12/20/2007 10:58:17 AM