What size should graphics be to put on cups, pillows, and such for the best outcome? 2 pages: [1] 2
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2018 7:50:41 PM
Does anyone know where you get guidance on the size a picture should be when you up load images? I had my painting photographed and he made me three sizes -thumb nail, medium, and original size. I made a coffee cup and was disappointed with the look of the finished product, (probably used the small size) Perhaps it was the graphic size? Any knowledge to share? Thank you
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:28:37 PM
larger is better... you can always scale down or crop. If your image is too small you will get a warning in the designer to fix the problem before publishing.

I try to use images at least 3200x4400 300dpi these work for most products except for the really large ones like duvet covers, large blankets and shower curtains. For them you can either tile or use larger .jpg .png or vector.

Btw 3200x4400 is the perfect aspect ratio to fit a greeting card edge to edge.

I hope this helps.

There are others who should be along shortly who know more than I do about this subject and I am sure they will also advise you!
Smile
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2018 11:49:24 PM
And that's why it's bout time to add a required pixel size in every product description, as I've suggested several times. Unfortunately no one at Zazzle listens. New products have come and still nothing. Sigh.

To answer the questions:

1. There are 2 approaches for using images on zazzle: 1. make that image as large and possible so it can be used for most products, and 2. create appropriate images either product-specific or for products in similar size and shape.

2. On mugs, there are 2 approaches: designing left and right side or use an all-over design. I've not tested mugs yet, what I can say is, that your design shall be at 300 ppi/dpi resolution for these. What you have to do now is: 1. check the size of the largest mug you want to use in the product description and multiply the inches with 300 (ppi/dpi). This gives you the pixel size for your image. You can make it taller of course, just not smaller.

3. Throw pillows are up to 20" (+bleed). In that case, considering also the fabric as printing surface, you shall use minimum 150 ppi/dpi resolution (absolutely fine for all images without too much fine details) up to 200 ppi/dpi for more detailed sources. In pixels this means 3000x3000 pixel @ 150 ppi/dpi up to 4000x4000 @ 200. Larger images are fine, too, of course. Add 200 pixel on the small 150 dpi/ppi one covering the bleed, that will result in a minimal pixel size of 3200 x 3200 pixel for good results. If you use larger images you don't really have to care about the bleed.

I've written several comments about pixels, sizes, dpi and such, included suggestions for appropriate sizes and approaches. The following one shall answer most questions and gives a pretty good overview on what image sizes to use on what product types and sizes:

https://forum.zazzle.com/create/pixel_dimensions?m=1532134#1532134

Cheers!
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 3:03:05 AM
I'm in agreement with Shelli: Make each image as large as possible without losing resolution. Both squares and rectangles serve, which you use often depending on the shape of the product. Also, if you do mostly PNG's with transparent backgrounds, you rarely have to worry about the edges of a product.

Being concerned about DPI and doing the math isn't really necessary. Just use 300ppi and make the images as large as you can for both squares and rectangles. Sometimes a product works better with squares, sometimes with rectangles, but if the center of interest is kept away from the far edges of the image, you'll have a huge amount of leeway.
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 5:13:46 AM
Colorwash wrote:
Being concerned about DPI and doing the math isn't really necessary. Just use 300ppi and make the images as large as you can...

Well, some basic knowledge is elementary and some calculation has to be done. Knowing, what ppi/dpi resolution is appropriate for what real sizes (in inches) is also fundamental to provide adequate images. If this is not given, two things may happen:

1. People who don't know that dpi/ppi values are related to the real size in inches

They have a 3000 pixel "as large as you can" image, set the dpi/ppi value to 300 and think, they have now a high resolution and top quality image they can print on a large blanket or a king size duvet cover which need three times that pixel amount. And then wonder why they get blurry images or warnings and ask themselves "But why, I did it at 300 dpi/ppi !?!"

2. People who know about the dpi/inches relation but are told to use 300 ppi/dpi on everything

These people take now that famous 60x80 blanket, make their calculations (60" x 300 ppi = 18'000 pixel / 80" x 300 ppi = 24'000 pixel) and get a heart attack when they discover that they apparently need to deliver a monstrous 18'000 x 24'000 pixel image. So some may take their 3000 pixel image and blow it up to that huge size, obviously with questionable results, and other may skip the blanket. What's absolute nonsense, because that blanket needs in real only a 100 ppi/dpi resolution at these large sizes. What would result in appropriate and absolutely doable 6'000 x 8'000 pixel (60"x100ppi / 80"x100ppi).

Conclusion:

Most people lack in knowledge, and some have no clue at all how such things work. But most know the pixel size of their photo/image. That's why a product description with added product sizes, minimal resolution requirements AND a recommended image pixel size is key. So people know without any doubt and without a deeper knowledge what they need to get it right.

Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 5:25:30 AM
It really isn't necessary to make a two sided image for mugs.

The beauty of Zazzle's design tool is we can work with layers.

For a two sided mug add your image and/or text and scale it to fit the side you want it on, then snap it to the center using the centering tool (looks like a plus sign surrounded by arrows)

now hit edit>select all>copy

now hit edit>paste

you now have two identical layers stacked on top of each other

now select the top layer only and move it with the arrows to one side counting how many moves it takes to get it in the right position (the grid lines or snap lines can help line it up)

now select the bottom layer and move it to the other side the same number of moves until it is positioned.

you now have a two sided mug.

or you can add an image to one side and text to the other...

adding: or as mentioned above you can use an allover pattern.

At other Pod sites you do have to make multiple images to fit every product but here at Zazzle we have an edge with our awesome designer tool. The other Pods don't even come close to the versatility of this tool.





Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 5:39:21 AM
PetsDreamlands wrote:
Colorwash wrote:
Being concerned about DPI and doing the math isn't really necessary. Just use 300ppi and make the images as large as you can...

Well, some basic knowledge is elementary and some calculation has to be done. Knowing, what ppi/dpi resolution is appropriate for what real sizes (in inches) is also fundamental to provide adequate images. If this is not given, two things may happen:

1. People who don't know that dpi/ppi values are related to the real size in inches

They have a 3000 pixel "as large as you can" image, set the dpi/ppi value to 300 and think, they have now a high resolution and top quality image they can print on a large blanket or a king size duvet cover which need three times that pixel amount. And then wonder why they get blurry images or warnings and ask themselves "But why, I did it at 300 dpi/ppi !?!"

2. People who know about the dpi/inches relation but are told to use 300 ppi/dpi on everything

These people take now that famous 60x80 blanket, make their calculations (60" x 300 ppi = 18'000 pixel / 80" x 300 ppi = 24'000 pixel) and get a heart attack when they discover that they apparently need to deliver a monstrous 18'000 x 24'000 pixel image. So some may take their 3000 pixel image and blow it up to that huge size, obviously with questionable results, and other may skip the blanket. What's absolute nonsense, because that blanket needs in real only a 100 ppi/dpi resolution at these large sizes. What would result in appropriate and absolutely doable 6'000 x 8'000 pixel (60"x100ppi / 80"x100ppi).

Conclusion:

Most people lack in knowledge, and some have no clue at all how such things work. But most know the pixel size of their photo/image. That's why a product description with added product sizes, minimal resolution requirements AND a recommended image pixel size is key. So people know without any doubt and without a deeper knowledge what they need to get it right.



Yes for larger images you do need smaller dpi. and your suggestion would be helpful in those cases. But for most products here one larger image size with 200-300 dpi is all you really need.

One pod I work with auto adjusts your uploaded images to 100 dpi across the board so that they can print them at the largest sizes possible and if you resize the image before uploading it, that degrades the resolution and they won't even print it. They taught me that a 3200x4400 px image at 100 dpi will print a 32"x 44" inch print
and look good but that is the largest it goes before it pixelates. If it has 300 dpi it will only print one third as large before it pixelates.
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 5:46:33 AM
Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
At other Pod sites you do have to make multiple images to fit every product but here at Zazzle we have an edge with our awesome designer tool. The other Pods don't even come close to the versatility of this tool.

This. Plus adding the great customizing features, the great designer's tools, the huge product assortment and the high quality standards, Zazzle has no real competition. There are some flaws and quirks of course, but overall it's an absolutely great platform and no other comes even close. I wouldn't be here otherwise.

The only real concern is the lack of good looking product pictures with vibrant designs on them. That hurts. In that matter, Zazzle is the only manufacturer/webshop I know that has product pics that look worse than the products themselves. Usually it's vice versa. What's good in terms of customer's happiness (printed product looking better), but bad in terms of purchase incentive (previews not appealing). That's the only thing, Zazzle has really to address.
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 6:08:18 AM
Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
now select the top layer only and move it with the arrows to one side counting how many moves it takes to get it in the right position (the grid lines or snap lines can help line it up)

now select the bottom layer and move it to the other side the same number of moves until it is positioned.

I have a slightly different version of this where I send one of the images to the far left, the other to the far right, and then move each the same number of clicks toward the center. Same concept but fewer clicks. This method was born of my everlasting laziness.
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 6:13:05 AM
PetsDreamlands wrote:
Colorwash wrote:
Being concerned about DPI and doing the math isn't really necessary. Just use 300ppi and make the images as large as you can...

Well, some basic knowledge is elementary and some calculation has to be done.

That may be, but newcomers to Zazzle often have enough to learn and figure out without also diving into pixels. You're putting Book 2 before Book 1 when it comes to instructions.
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 6:13:11 AM
Colorwash wrote:
Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
now select the top layer only and move it with the arrows to one side counting how many moves it takes to get it in the right position (the grid lines or snap lines can help line it up)

now select the bottom layer and move it to the other side the same number of moves until it is positioned.

I have a slightly different version of this where I send one of the images to the far left, the other to the far right, and then move each the same number of clicks toward the center. Same concept but fewer clicks. This method was born of my everlasting laziness.


good tip! Roses

Adding: confession, I sometimes eyeball it...Stick out tongue
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 7:09:45 AM
Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
Yes for larger images you do need smaller dpi. and your suggestion would be helpful in those cases. But for most products here one larger image size with 200-300 dpi is all you really need.

I always state that you can use large images for smaller items, so you can basically create a 4000 pixel one and cover probably 75% of the products (not always at max 300 resolution, but at an appropriate one that may vary).

My point is, that knowing the appropriate resolution and pixel size, you may use smaller images on fitting products. E.g. You may have a lovely photo that is only 2000 pixel. You can't use that photo for creating a 4000 pixel generic image, but you could perfectly use it for a necklace, ornament or jewelry box as example, creating your image at only 1500 or 2000 pixel. For this things it's always good to have some basic knowledge.

Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
One pod I work with auto adjusts your uploaded images to 100 dpi across the board so that they can print them at the largest sizes possible and if you resize the image before uploading it, that degrades the resolution and they won't even print it. They taught me that a 3200x4400 px image at 100 dpi will print a 32"x 44" inch print
and look good but that is the largest it goes before it pixelates. If it has 300 dpi it will only print one third as large before it pixelates.


That's a technical reason for their printing process that bases on the dpi value for calculating the printing size. Not all work that way. Other base on real dimensions in inches/cm. In these cases, embedded images will always print at the real size (inch/cm) they are embedded, but the dpi/ppi resolution value compared to their real size determines how good the output of these embedded images will be. Let's say you have a 300 dpi image that is 2x2". You embed it into a print job, such as a brochure but resize it to 4x4". The image has still the same amount of pixel, but is now displayed larger. This means, the printer will print that image at 4x4" as defined within your document, but the resolution for that image will fall down to 150 dpi, because you have doubled the output size (inches).

What they do in your case: they only change the dpi/ppi value. That doesn't change the pixel amount of the image at all. So if the image is 3000 pixel at 300 dpi, it will remain at 3000 pixel after you change the dpi value to 100. But... a 3000 pixel image at 300 dpi prints at a size of 10 inches (3000/300), while the same 3000 pixel at 100 dpi print at a size of 30" (3000/100). Of course the 10" print will be more crispy, having it 3000 pixel on only 10", compared to the 30" that has the same 3000 pixel distributed on the wider 30".

Now, what they do, you can do, too, within a decent image software. And same rules apply. If you change only the dpi value from 300 to 100, your real image size will be the same. So a 3000 pixel image at 300 dpi is the exact same as a 3000 pixel image at 100 dpi when it comes to real image size. The pixel are the key. If you upload that 3000 pixel image twice, once at 300 and then at 100, it won't make any differences and you will get the same results.

BUT... if you RESIZE the image from 300dpi to 100dpi not just changing the dpi value and maintaining the pixel size but in fact RESIZING also the pixel size at the same time, you will get an image that is only 1000 pixel instead of 3000 (300dpi/3 -> 3000px/3). So the result in that case is 1000 pixel at 100 dpi vs the result in their case of 3000 pixel at 100 dpi (bacause they only changed the dpi value but maintained the size). That's why the image gets then too small. Not because oif the dpi but because of the pixel.

100 dpi for a 32x44" (3200x4400pixel) print are pretty low but still OK on some materials. Going less gets critical. At this size you usually use still 150 dpi for perfect results (standard poster resolution), so 4800x6600 pixel. I use 150 dpi at 30/40" sizes. For larger sizes, such as 40x50 or 60x80" blankets, 100 dpi are perfect. Zazzle requires 100 dpi also for extra large tapestries and king size bedding stuff, but other POD already lower their dpi to around 75 for such sizes. You may have also smaller throw blankets at some places that even accept/print only at 75 dpi.

The dpi values are relative. What really counts is the effective image size in pixel. And the maximal resolution printers use on their machines for the various products and materials and techniques.

You may upload a 60x80" 300 dpi blanket image, but if the printer prints that blanket only at 100 dpi, your efforts were in vain and you may get even worse results because of the double resizing (first you to get that image that big, then the printer to get it smaller again). So, at the end, appropriate sizes and resolutions are the way to go, if you want to really make it right.
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 7:34:18 AM
Colorwash wrote:
That may be, but newcomers to Zazzle often have enough to learn and figure out without also diving into pixels. You're putting Book 2 before Book 1 when it comes to instructions.

You don't have to dive for pixels, you have to dive for ppis. Anyone knows what 3000 x 4500 pixel are, because anything related to digital images works in pixel, photo cameras included. But dpi? ppi? And the whole technical stuff behind all these terms? Why not add also lpi to make it complete?

Tell people they have to upload a 3000x4500 pixel image and all will be fine. Now try to tell them they have to upload an image at 300 dpi/ppi on a product that is 10x15" tall and you get the first headaches and in some cases heart attacks. All these questions and discussions were unnecessary if Zazzle would provide pixel sizes for every product. As it should be and as others do.

That said, I know, I often go into technical details. My apologies for that. I always try to be as comprehensive as I can, that's also why the comments get longer, but it's not always easy. For some it may be too much, but others will surely find helpful information they can use.
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 7:42:08 AM
PetsDreamlands wrote:
That said, I know, I often go into technical details. My apologies for that. I always try to be as comprehensive as I can, that's also why the comments get longer, but it's not always easy. For some it may be too much, but others will surely find helpful information they can use.

At least try to pare down your information. People have trouble reading huge amounts of text on the internet, and when it's technical, the problem is multiplied.
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 7:58:07 AM
Colorwash wrote:
At least try to pare down your information. People have trouble reading huge amounts of text on the internet, and when it's technical, the problem is multiplied.

I'll do my best. Promised Grin
p.s. yes, I know
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 9:35:51 AM
PetsDreamlands wrote:
Colorwash wrote:
At least try to pare down your information. People have trouble reading huge amounts of text on the internet, and when it's technical, the problem is multiplied.

I'll do my best. Promised Grin
p.s. yes, I know

I just arrived back here because I thought I should delete my post in case you might take it the wrong way. Thank goodness, you didn't. Roses
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 9:53:36 AM
Colorwash wrote:
I just arrived back here because I thought I should delete my post in case you might take it the wrong way. Thank goodness, you didn't. Roses

Why should I? I know well, you're right and I appreciate honest replies and constructive criticism. I can be pretty teasing, too, sometimes, so some payback doesn't hurt from time to time ;-)
And just for the record: you've all my respect.
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 3:00:15 PM
PetsDreamlands wrote:
Colorwash wrote:
I just arrived back here because I thought I should delete my post in case you might take it the wrong way. Thank goodness, you didn't. Roses

Why should I? I know well, you're right and I appreciate honest replies and constructive criticism. I can be pretty teasing, too, sometimes, so some payback doesn't hurt from time to time ;-)
And just for the record: you've all my respect.


likewise! and being a geek I don't mind the tech talk...
in fact I wanted your opinion on resampling.

I found a way to do it in Gimp and kind of cheat with resizing some super small image crops I had and then converting them to digital impressionist style paintings I hate hijacking this thread though... but real quick let me explain.

I scale an image with no interpolation to 300 resolution which adds extra pixels then I scale it again with cubic interpolation to the size in inches I want to print it.

This renders a decent resize with very little fuzziness most of the time unless I got too zealous with the size increase.

Adding a painterly look covers any fuzziness and I get to offer them for sale as larger things than a greeting card. (at another pod)

Problem is I haven't seen how they actually look when printed. Someday I would like to buy one just to see.

Also is this basically the same thing you are talking about above and can I do it in reverse as well? meaning instead of 300 resolution choosing 100?


Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2018 3:26:17 AM
I assume the long-used Photoshop method for increasing size is still viable: Resize by 10% increments until you have the size you want. For reasons I've long since forgotten, it results in fewer artifacts than if you were to jump directly up to the desired size.
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2018 4:31:24 AM
Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:

I scale an image with no interpolation to 300 resolution which adds extra pixels then I scale it again with cubic interpolation to the size in inches I want to print it.

This renders a decent resize with very little fuzziness most of the time unless I got too zealous with the size increase.

This is a wrong approach. You will lose quality twice, resampling/enlarging them twice. You always shall resize only once directly to the needed size and afterwards cleaning your image up and sharpen it. Unless you want to add these fancy artistic-like effects on it, to cover all the fuzziness and noise and whatever else.

Here's how to do it right:

1. Clean up and enhance your source image at its original size

Open first your source image file you want to use. Do NOT make any size changes. Clean up the image from noise, dust and other imperfections and make your basic enhancements, such as color corrections, erasing some unwanted stuff etc. Don't make huge changes, only needed adjustments. We want to save a clean, but still "original" image that we can also use for other designs. Also do NOT sharpen it, the image may be resized later on in your works.

Save now that image under a new name, e.g. "redrose_clean", possibly in your software's own file format that hopefully supports also layers (in that case make your enhancements on layers).

If you want to crop a specific part or object off that image, do it now and save the cropped object in another file possibly on a layer in your software's format, or, if not possible, as transparent PNG. name it e.g. "redrose_cropped". So you have now also a nice object you can use on several works.

Important: don't resize the sources and don't sharpen them. These are jobs that have to be done case by case within the "real" designs/images.

1. Create a new image file at the desired size and resolution.

If you want a print-ready image, create it in inches at a specific dpi resolution. Let's say 10x10" at 300 ppi/dpi, what gives you an image file of 3000x3000 pixel.

If you want to create it directly in pixel (which define the real size of an image), the best choice for Zazzle's designer, you can do it without caring of the dpi/ppi resolution value. In our case set it to 3000x3000 pixel. The dpi can be set to whatever value you want to (to make you happy, set it to 300 dpi, but it will not make any difference if it is set to 300, to 10 or 10000).

If your source image is much smaller, create a smaller image file and use it only on smaller products. Let's say 2200x2200 pixel to cover all smaller stuff up to phone cases, 5x7 greeting cards and gift boxes at best resolution (again, the dpi is irrelevant, only the pixel matter).

Save that file in your software's proprietary format, e.g. redrose_3000x3000.psd in Photoshop.

3. Import the sources into your design file and create your work

Now it's time to import your saved and cleaned up source file (redrose_clean or our redrose_cropped object) into your work design file. Resize it as needed/wanted. If it's a composite work, import the other content and assemble your work.

Make an additional layer (if possible) and flatten all your objects. Clean up the remaining imperfections, make your adjustments and add your effects and when you are done, sharpen your image. There are several sharpening methods and all work a bit differently giving different results. They also vary from software to software. Too much to handle this here, I suggest you to head to YT and to search for tutorials (search for sharpen image in gimp/photoshop/whatever), there are plenty.

Tip: put a copy of your work on an additional layer, set the blend mode to soft light and play with the transparency, until you get a nice, vivid result with a good contrast.

Save and upload it into Zazzle's designer.

Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
Adding a painterly look covers any fuzziness and I get to offer them for sale as larger things than a greeting card. (at another pod)


The good old trick to cover fuzziness by making it even more fuzzy, but that time officially (hey, it looks "painted"), hehehe.

I hate it when some digital "artists" offer people wannabe "digital paintings" of their pets/photos, and all they do is carelessly enlarging the photo, slapping such a filter on it and taking 10 or 20 bucks for these 10 minutes of crappy "work". What ruins the reputation and a fair contribution of the real digital artists who spend even days on one single work until it looks perfect.

Not talking about turning a photo carefully into a great looking watercolor-paint as example, what requires a lot of time and also knowledge and a good artistic eye. There are great YT tutorials for this, too.

Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
Problem is I haven't seen how they actually look when printed. Someday I would like to buy one just to see.


If you want to check the quality of your work - if there is visible noise, fuzziness, etc at the real size, there is a trick. You have to find out the zoom factor on your software and screen that shows the image at real size. It's NOT 100% - just sayin'. Here's the trick:

Create a 5x7" image file at 300 dpi. Display it first at 100%. Take a printed 5x7 greeting card and hold it on your screen. Zoom the image until the image size fits perfectly the shape of your greeting card. Note the zoom amount. Now open your real work, zoom it to that amount and you will see how it works in real. Scroll around to check all areas for errors. If you have to check deeper, zoom to 100 till 200%, but that's only for safety. All what matters is how it looks at real size.

Important: this technique is dpi and screen dependent. If your work is set to 150 dpi, create that 5x7" test image file at 150 dpi and check out the zoom factor. The screen resolution plays also a factor. So you have to test it out yourself. In my case, 150 dpi images show real at 60% (Corel Photopaint and 1680x1050" screen on Win 10). Note also that not every software is able to show the image 100% clean when zoomed in. Photopaint does a great job, you see what you have at all zoom sizes.

In regards to colors, saturation, brightness and such, it depends on several factors, the print technique used, the quality of the print, the material on what it's printed, etc... even if you test one product, your work may look different on other items. In these cases only experience counts, but even then it's not always granted.

Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
Also is this basically the same thing you are talking about above and can I do it in reverse as well? meaning instead of 300 resolution choosing 100?


What you are doing here is not just changing the dpi value but resizing the image at the same time.

Most software change the image pixel size automatically when you change the dpi value. So if you have a 3000 pixel image at 300 dpi and you change the value to 150 dpi, the software automatically maintains the inch size (in our case 10" - 10" at 300 dpi = 3000 pixel) but reduces the pixel amount to 1500, so these fit the new resolution of 150 dpi at the same 10" (10" at 150 dpi = 1500 pixel). So you get a smaller image.

Some software allow you to optionally maintain the image size (the pixel) while changing the dpi. In this case our 10"/300 dpi/3000 pixel image turns into a 20"/150 dpi/3000 pixel image after you change from 300 to 150 dpi. The image size is the same (3000 pixel), the resolution is now at half the size (150 dpi), what results in a double print size (3000 pixel : 150 dpi = 20").

This all works both ways. For the Zazzle designer it isn't relevant. All what counts there is the effective image size in pixel, that must meet the minimal requirements for that specific product to print well or at all. Example: The 60x80" blanket's required minimal resolution is 100 ppi/dpi. That means your image must be min. 6000x8000 pixel tall ("-size x 100dpi). The attached dpi value is completely irrelevant. It can be 100, 200, 300 or even 1000 dpi, this changes nothing on the real size, that is in that case 6000x8000 pixel.

Hope you can find the one or other helpful tip/info in that huge text, have fun reading it Laughing

p.s. Will write an essay on how the designer works another time, or I get lost today, LOL.
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2018 4:44:02 AM
Colorwash wrote:
I assume the long-used Photoshop method for increasing size is still viable: Resize by 10% increments until you have the size you want. For reasons I've long since forgotten, it results in fewer artifacts than if you were to jump directly up to the desired size.

That's interesting. Makes not much sense, inventing new pixels based on already invented new pixels, this 10 times in a row. On the other hand, you have to invent less on a 10% enlargement. Hmmh... You will probably get less artifacts and noise because the image gets more blurry every time you resize. So basically you blurry out these imperfections more and more. Unfortunately that doesn't effect only the imperfections. Have to test it out, really curious now. On Photopaint though, but still, in theory it should work similarly.
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2018 5:34:12 AM
I'm freshly back from hunting for the reasoning behind 10% increments, and though I found the recommendation, I lost interest before finding an in-depth explanation. One thing I did find was that the newest versions of Photoshop have a "Preserve Details" selection for upsizing that purportedly works just as well as software dedicated to the process. I'm not about to pay Adobe's rental fee, however.
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2018 7:03:04 AM
Colorwash wrote:
I assume the long-used Photoshop method for increasing size is still viable: Resize by 10% increments until you have the size you want. For reasons I've long since forgotten, it results in fewer artifacts than if you were to jump directly up to the desired size.

Tested it. On 3 different images.

Where I tested: Corel Photopaint X3

How I tested:

Created a 500x500 pixel image file, copied it twice, resized the one 10 times in 10% steps what ended in final 1299x1299px, resized the second in one step to 1299x1299px, finally I copy and pasted the second one into the first one on a second layer and carefully compared both by hiding and unhiding the upper layer.

What I tested:

1. a snippet copied from an original 3000x4000 digital photo with bad noise and a fuzzy bird pic;
2. 2 character letters, one at small, the other at large font size, a 2px and a 10px circle outline and some 2-20 px lines in different angles - all 100% sharp;
3. a snippet from a crispy 6000x6000 px dog artwork I created (the one in my roses and dog collection), showing the lower jaw area with fine hairs and details.

The results:

Image 1: the noise on the plain background color was still bad in the 10%-step version, while it practically disappeared in the one-step enlargement; the fuzziness on the bird seemed a (very) tad less but was more blurry on the 10%-step (the blurriness took away some fuzziness); overall result: one-step wins - significantly better in terms of noise reduction, no much difference on the bird.

Image 2: all objects were significantly sharper on the one-step enlargement, minimal blurriness and clean colors vs a significant blurriness and some artifacts on the object edges colors on the 10% approach; the 2px circle outline and some 2px angled lines looked a bit fuzzy on the one-step version, though, due to the less antialiasing/blurriness involved; overall result: definitely 2:0 for the one-step approach, way more crispy and sharp than the 10%-step version.

Image 3: the result was pretty similar (and not that shabby) on both approaches, with the 10%-step version being darker and losing some sharpness on the fine hairs, especially the ones on dark background; overall result: another win for the one-step enlargement - the image seems more vivid and true to the original and there are less details lost.

Conclusion

The one-step enlargement does definitely the way better job than the 10%-step-by-step approach. As supposed. I fear you have to classify that Photoshop "trick" under myths. Unless Photoshop does the job differently than Corel's Photopaint. What I can't imagine, cuz it simply doesn't make sense getting a better result enlarging an image 10 times in small steps, taking the previous, resampled version as base, instead of doing it once directly to the final size, while basing on the original source.
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2018 7:20:14 AM
Colorwash wrote:
I'm freshly back from hunting for the reasoning behind 10% increments, and though I found the recommendation, I lost interest before finding an in-depth explanation. One thing I did find was that the newest versions of Photoshop have a "Preserve Details" selection for upsizing that purportedly works just as well as software dedicated to the process. I'm not about to pay Adobe's rental fee, however.

No need to check it out. At least in Photopaint the 10% increments do a way worse job. Just tested (see previous reply).

Read about Photoshop's new resizing algorithm. Read also about 2 software dedicated to just that. Thought to buy one, but pretty expensive for that one function and didn't get overwhelming reviews. Found also out that with the high pass sharpening technique I can get the pretty same, crispy results.

No Adobe friend here. Don't like their greedy policies and their arrogance. Corel did always at least the same good job for me, if not better in some things, this at a fraction of Adobe's prices.
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2018 7:28:08 AM
Long ago, a professor friend ordered Photoshop for me with his school discount. After that, I upgraded every other version for about $120. I stopped with CS3 because succeeding versions didn't impress me, and then when Adobe decided to abandon all people with no more than moderate incomes, I, in turn, abandoned them, sticking with my earlier version.
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2018 7:42:59 AM
Colorwash wrote:
Long ago, a professor friend ordered Photoshop for me with his school discount. After that, I upgraded every other version for about $120. I stopped with CS3 because succeeding versions didn't impress me, and then when Adobe decided to abandon all people with no more than moderate incomes, I, in turn, abandoned them, sticking with my earlier version.

I did that with Corel Draw, starting with version 3 and ending at 13/X3 what I still use. Got version 3 full, then bought every other upgrade. Will buy the newest suite as soon as I've got me a new - gaming - PC. Adobe were always extremely expensive and focused to professionals and elitists. In the 90s you had to buy Photoshop and Illustrator separately, while Corel offered the same power combined at not even 1/3 the price. A bit like Apple and PC (and now Samsung, on phones).
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2018 8:40:54 AM
PetsDreamlands wrote:
Colorwash wrote:
Long ago, a professor friend ordered Photoshop for me with his school discount. After that, I upgraded every other version for about $120. I stopped with CS3 because succeeding versions didn't impress me, and then when Adobe decided to abandon all people with no more than moderate incomes, I, in turn, abandoned them, sticking with my earlier version.

I did that with Corel Draw, starting with version 3 and ending at 13/X3 what I still use. Got version 3 full, then bought every other upgrade. Will buy the newest suite as soon as I've got me a new - gaming - PC. Adobe were always extremely expensive and focused to professionals and elitists. In the 90s you had to buy Photoshop and Illustrator separately, while Corel offered the same power combined at not even 1/3 the price. A bit like Apple and PC (and now Samsung, on phones).

I was neither a professional nor whatever an elitist is. In the late 90's, there simply was no better image editor. Once a person learns all the ins and outs of complicated software, it doesn't make sense to switch to something else, which is what happened to you as well as to me.
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2018 9:23:23 AM
Colorwash wrote:
I was neither a professional nor whatever an elitist is. In the late 90's, there simply was no better image editor. Once a person learns all the ins and outs of complicated software, it doesn't make sense to switch to something else, which is what happened to you as well as to me.

Corel Photopaint was always (and still is) on a par with Adobe Photoshop, and Corel Draw was even better than Illustrator, starting from the mid-late 90s. The problem with Corel and the advantage of Adobe were that at that time (early-mid 90s), the creative industry used Macs. So Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator became standard. Corel ran only on Windows PC and couldn't address the professional designer business, until Windows and PC became more suited for creative jobs. Then things changed, with many creatives using PCs, too, and print and pre-print companies starting supporting also Draw files. Unfortunately for Corel, Photoshop was too well established as standard, with thousands of plugins, full support in print industry and many designer not changing. The battle was lost from the start. That said, of course I wouldn't change. Why should I. I get the same power at way less costs. If PS and AI were that much better, I would have already switched.
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2018 10:09:18 AM
I prefer Photoshop, you prefer Corel products. Nothing more.
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2018 10:38:30 AM
Colorwash wrote:
I prefer Photoshop, you prefer Corel products. Nothing more.

Sure. Only stated that they are effectively on a par. Either one with their pros and cons. No reason to switch either way. The software used plays only a second role anyway, if the essential functionality is given. In that business, creativity and an artistic eye are key. The best image software doesn't help much, if you don't know how to properly compose a scenery to make it look like a well done artwork rather than a messy patchwork.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
Print this topic
RSS Feed
Normal
Threaded