How do I get a higher resolution out of my pics?

[Early]

Ok so my ordering place says it would be best if I could have at least 6 mb for prints. The only problem is that I was wondering how to get the highest possible? Especially when I shot in jpg. Any ideas?

For what it's worth, two yrs. ago, my wife shot some jpegs at over 1mb file size, which pans out to over 17mb uncompressed. The camera was only a 6mp Minolta Z6, so you should have no problem.

 

[RacePhoto]

Ok so my ordering place says it would be best if I could have at least 6 mb for prints. The only problem is that I was wondering how to get the highest possible? Especially when I shot in jpg. Any ideas?

If this is anything like most photo sites the 6 MB refers to the uncompressed file size of the photo not the file size on disk. Yes it's confusing because they are both megabytes.

File size on disk is nothing more than how big it is on the computer or memory card. This can change if you use more or less compression, but doesn't change the Photo's Uncompressed File Size. It's the same as the TIF file size, uncompressed.

My A400 pocket camera that's 3 megapixels produces a 9 megabyte file, so I don't know what you are shooting that's smaller than that? My G6 produces a 20MB file, and the 40D produces a 28.8MB file.

Now did they say that or 6 megapixel image, which is dependent on the camera and you can't change it?

Is your camera set to the largest size it will take and fine? If not you will get smaller size photos, which may be the problem?

Do you have Elements, or Photoshop or Irfanview?

Irfanview is free and when you open a photo is shows in the 4th box in the lower left as [file size/photo file size] for example 2.86MB/28.8MB.

Elements or everything Adobe look at the box in the lower left, just below the photo itself and you'll see a box with some choices, "document sizes" the top one is uncompressed photo file size. Default is Document Dimensions.

If they wanted 6MB file photo file sizes, that's the answer.

 

[AlexColeman]

Buy a better camera.

 

[reg]

Buy a better camera.

Yeah, like a 10 megapixel Coolpix!!!

 

[stsinner]

Still won't come close to the resolution obtainable by starting with a RAW file.

Ken Rockwell shoots in JPEG Normal, and that's good enough for me.. LOL

 

[gsgary]

I upsize using bicubic smoother in Photoshop. I've heard upsizing in 10% steps was better than upsizing in a single step, but in my personal tests I can't see a difference. I do a see a difference in very large prints between upsizing myself or letting the lab do it; I think it looks better when I do it. For one I can adjust sharpening if i need to afte the upsize, although I usually don't do anything after the upsize. I've made a few 20"x30" prints from 8mp, which is more than doubling the original size, and I can hardly believe how good the prints look.

I have heard the opposite lots of people can not pass IQ on Alamy doing it that way

 

[djacobox372]

Buy a large format film camera.

 

[Don Simon]

Oh dear...

You don't need a better camera. I doubt you need one with more megapixels (which btw is not the same thing). Unless I am misreading the OP, he didn't say "I need to make massive prints without any upsampling for the very discerning men from the major international photo agency to inspect up close through a loupe"

You can upsample with good results; especially if the shot was taken in RAW with a good lens. With Genuine Fractals the results will be noticeably better. Either way it can be done. The idea that you can only get acceptable prints with 300dpi and no upsampling is just not true, even if manufacturers would like us to believe it so that we replace our cameras every six months.

 

[Village Idiot]

Still won't come close to the resolution obtainable by starting with a RAW file.

Why? If I shoot with the highest quality jpeg a camera can write or the highest quality raw file, I'll still get the same number of lines regardless of what format I'm shooting.

A 1024x768 image would be that resolution either way.

 

[ksmattfish]

I have heard the opposite lots of people can not pass IQ on Alamy doing it that way

I have no experience with stock, I just sell prints. When I was first advised that it would work, I was skeptical myself, but several years later and hundreds of upsized prints sold. I have to say I think it works pretty well. It's definitely not going to add image quality, but when I start with a good, sharp photo to begin with I am amazed at how well prints look. I can understand why a place that deals in files wouldn't be impressed with up sizing though, they can do it themselves just as easily.

But think about it. If we are going to say that we must have 300ppi original resolution to get decent photo quality then a Canon 5D maxes out at about 10"x15". Yet I, and many others, are making beautiful 20"x30" prints that you can press your eyeballs right up against and the fine details still look sharp.

I think most folks who are experienced (which i assume includes the folks running stock photo sites) know that all megapixels are not created equal, and that they are a lousy way to measure image quality. I think stock photography sites use "not enough resolution" as a catch all response to the millions of poor quality photos that are submitted everyday. Photos from the same camera in the hands of someone with better shooting and processing skills might pass their judgment.

 

[Mike_E]

If the requirements stop you then they don't have to weed out nearly as many photos. Makes their lives easier and so what if they miss that 1 in a million shot?

If it takes a minute per photo and you look at 999,999 of them you will get no sleep.