To interpolate, or not to interpolate?

hoodmeister · 5 Mar 2006 at 12:42

I've been selling quite a few prints recently (\o/)
But I've been selling them at sizes larger than the "natural" resolution of my camera. Now, for the moment at least, there's no way I can afford something like a D200 for a measly 20% horizontal increase, so no suggestions to that effect, please

So what I've been doing at the moment, is interpolating the images up to the size at which they are to be printed. This has the advantage of making my signature look nice and crisp, and any other title that may be in the picture - but it has occured to me, am I doing this completely wrong?
Will my customers get better results if I get images printed at source resolution?

Cheers for any advice on the matter.

cyKey · 5 Mar 2006 at 12:50

I hear the D200 is good

Or get Genuine Fractals for photoshop to increase your images. Its recommended by Alamy Stock photography.

hoodmeister · 5 Mar 2006 at 12:54

ah, I've heard of that... Will look into it

If I keep selling prints I will get a D200... But that's unlikely

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 5 Mar 2006 at 13:01

Dont think so negative. Your works posted here are of at the quality that Im sure many people would purchase.

hoodmeister · 5 Mar 2006 at 13:43

Hrrrmmm, Genuine Fractals does seem very good, here's some 100% crops from an image scaled from 6MP to a massive 54MP. Left = bicubic, Right = fractals

$fractals3kc.jpg$

But is it worth the money? Hrrrmmm. Think I'll abuse the 20 free uses (wasted 3!

) on my currently most popular prints, then re-evaluate the situation in a while

glitch · 5 Mar 2006 at 15:08

What sort of resolution/sizes are you having to print out at?

hoodmeister · 5 Mar 2006 at 16:36

varying, but a few 30 * 20 inches.

SDK^ · 5 Mar 2006 at 16:49

hoodmeister said:
varying, but a few 30 * 20 inches.

You don't need a 54MP image to get good 30"x20" photos.

I've had a few 30"x20" prints done straight from my 8MP camera and even up close they look good, move away to a couple of feet viewing distance and the quality is amazing.

hoodmeister · 5 Mar 2006 at 16:55

I'm not suggesting you do - what I'm asking is that am I going to be better off leaving the images at their source resolution, or interpolating them to 30*20 inches (54MP).

divine` · 5 Mar 2006 at 18:07

It's only 54MP at 300dpi - most sizes above A4 you can print just fine at 154dpi.

hoodmeister · 5 Mar 2006 at 18:11

ok ok, I should never have mentioned 54MP, all I want to know is am I going to get better results from interpolating my images, leaving them as they are, or will the difference be negligible?

glitch · 5 Mar 2006 at 18:23

From what I've experienced, people won't even know. Most of the people I've sold prints to care more about whether they like the shot rather than the print quality.

If they like the shot they like the shot.

hoodmeister · 5 Mar 2006 at 19:03

Cool - I'll just stick to interpolating bicubic in PS. No point spending £80 on something people won't notice!