Printing houses use a thing called a RIP (Raster Image Processor) to print fine art prints. Fuzzify it with interpolation and it likely would work less effectively.Ĭlick to expand.By that you mean as in a panoramic stitch? Since noise is random the process can cancel it out to some degree. I base my conclusions on the fact Astrophotographers use this stacking technique all the time to reduce noise. Have you tried the process without manipulating the image pixel count? Making them less distinct isn't likely to help the process along. In reality the alignment algorithm depends on the edges to do its job properly. It appears that what is being attempted is to "fuzzify" the image edges so the stacking algorithm will "merge" them better. If you leave resample checked then yes, you are interpolating the image - making up new pixels.
#2 of course will do nothing except change the perceived print size. from 240 dpi to 480 dpi without changing the pixel count. " There's two ways to read this:ġ - double the pixel count - straightforward image size interpolation.Ģ - double the resolution - i.e. If you use LR, you will have to uprez in PS.
The part that perhaps I'm reading wrong is " In ACR, set resolution at least double the initial file size. Been a photographer in film and digital even longer. Stack first then blow up if you feel the need, bearing in mind any algorithm to expand pixels is more or less making them up based on an original pixel + surrounding pixels.Ĭlick to expand.I've been using Photoshop and Lightroom for a long long time. I guess if that's what thrills ya.Īnyway - stacking should actually work better without the resizing since it artificially inflates the noise and "fuzzes" the edges making them appear less sharp (acutance). Not so good eh? There are what we call "pixel peepers" that like to give a print close scrutiny and ooh ah over the leaf counts in trees. Next time you're in a store look at the razor sharp ad posters - then walk up close. I have printed 12 mp shots from my Canon 5D at 36x24 that look great with no size manipulation aside from printer rendering. The current iteration of this product is called ON1 Resize by On1 software. Most algorithms degrade the image - there's only one (commercial) way to expand image size with minimal degradation - fractal compression.
It's always a bit of a learning curve (I'm still still learning on the video side of things myself), but keep at it, play with settings, and use the forum and youtube videos to learn all you can.Ĭurious as to why you're "uprezzing" the photos. I suggest playing with the different styles to figure out what will work best in different situation. But if you plan to shoot straight from the camera and upload form an iPad, then you could try changing the style to another option as you can get really nice colours with some of the styles. But I use lightroom to bring back that which I have lost. I personally shoot in RAW with D-Log because it is a flatter image, making shadows show up more, but at the cost of some of the Pop. Took me a little playing around to get what I wanted. Much better than the first few images I took with mine. Shadows are a bit dark, but that isn't easy to get with that particular shot. I like the sunset, you managed to really get some good colour on it. Since you uploaded from the Ipad, I wondering if you are giving the "straight from camera" image, or if there is any processing?