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.

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

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

hoodmeister · 5 Mar 2006 at 16:36

varying, but a few 30 * 20 inches.

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).

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?

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!