Favorite high-res images
March 8, 2008 8:06 AM Subscribe
A local print shop is having a sale on 36"x24" custom prints. What are some of your favorite high-resolution digital images that would work well as framed prints?
I have lots of photos but not very many at the resolution they recommend (3500x2500 or greater). They need to be legal images--creative commons or public domain or otherwise ok to reproduce.
I'm open to other sots of images besides photos--high res scanned art, computer generated art, etc.
I have lots of photos but not very many at the resolution they recommend (3500x2500 or greater). They need to be legal images--creative commons or public domain or otherwise ok to reproduce.
I'm open to other sots of images besides photos--high res scanned art, computer generated art, etc.
At that print size you can get away with not having a full res file, I wouldn't worry about it unless you're way under. I have made bigger prints than that at 150dpi and they look indistinguishable from 300dpi prints of the same file unless you pull out a loupe or put your nose right up to it.
If you know someone with Genuine Fractals (a Photoshop plugin for upsizing) they can make as big a file as you need with whatever you've got. That program works miracles.
posted by bradbane at 9:08 AM on March 8, 2008 [3 favorites]
If you know someone with Genuine Fractals (a Photoshop plugin for upsizing) they can make as big a file as you need with whatever you've got. That program works miracles.
posted by bradbane at 9:08 AM on March 8, 2008 [3 favorites]
A good sharp image from a 6 megapixel DSLR or even a low ISO point and shoot camera photo, especially one without lots of important fine detail, should hold up well as a wall print at that size if properly prepared.
As bradbane suggested, up-rezing the image via Genuine Fractals is a good idea if you can do it or have it done for you.
My preference for up-rezing files these days is to just use Photoshop, but to make sure that "Bicubic Smoother" is the method used (which is set in the "Image Size" dialog box).
I can't advise you as to subject matter, but I wouldn't dwell on finding something at 3500x2500 or greater if you can resize a somewhat smaller image file with GF or PS.
posted by imjustsaying at 10:39 AM on March 8, 2008
As bradbane suggested, up-rezing the image via Genuine Fractals is a good idea if you can do it or have it done for you.
My preference for up-rezing files these days is to just use Photoshop, but to make sure that "Bicubic Smoother" is the method used (which is set in the "Image Size" dialog box).
I can't advise you as to subject matter, but I wouldn't dwell on finding something at 3500x2500 or greater if you can resize a somewhat smaller image file with GF or PS.
posted by imjustsaying at 10:39 AM on March 8, 2008
I have wanted to get this framed for some time now. If it doesnt suit your needs maybe look at some of the other pictures here.
posted by DJWeezy at 11:27 AM on March 8, 2008
posted by DJWeezy at 11:27 AM on March 8, 2008
Remember that "3500x2500" isn't the resolution. That's merely the physical dimensions of the print in pixels. That works out to an actual resolution of under 100ppi. Pretty low-rez, actually.
For comparison, if you were to submit a full-sized 36x24 image at 300ppi (recommended offset press resolution) that would work-out to a 10,800x7,200 image.
As Bradbane says, you could easily get away with a 150ppi image, as long as it was natively sized accordingly. That is, even at 150ppi, the actual physical size of the image needs to be close to the final print size in order to maintain image quality. If, for instance, your 150ppi image is the size of a postcard, once you enlarge it enough to fit 36x24, you'd end up with a blocky, pixelated mess. Genuine Fractals can certainly work wonders. YMMV, though.
You definitely need images sized like those Hubble pictures if you want awesome quality prints.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:02 PM on March 8, 2008
For comparison, if you were to submit a full-sized 36x24 image at 300ppi (recommended offset press resolution) that would work-out to a 10,800x7,200 image.
As Bradbane says, you could easily get away with a 150ppi image, as long as it was natively sized accordingly. That is, even at 150ppi, the actual physical size of the image needs to be close to the final print size in order to maintain image quality. If, for instance, your 150ppi image is the size of a postcard, once you enlarge it enough to fit 36x24, you'd end up with a blocky, pixelated mess. Genuine Fractals can certainly work wonders. YMMV, though.
You definitely need images sized like those Hubble pictures if you want awesome quality prints.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:02 PM on March 8, 2008
I dig shorpy, especially this image. also cool: gas masks.
posted by krautland at 7:11 PM on March 8, 2008
posted by krautland at 7:11 PM on March 8, 2008
High-res photos, free for use, in public domain, at pdphoto. Oh, and taken by a mefi member.
posted by radioamy at 8:14 PM on March 8, 2008
posted by radioamy at 8:14 PM on March 8, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Fins at 8:50 AM on March 8, 2008 [1 favorite]