Welcome Sign out
Shopping Cart My Account Order History Sign in Not yet a member? Help

BookSmart

large format photo resolution

Hope someone can help… I’ve only completed one, smaller format book. Now I’m starting two of the larger, landscape books and have immediately run into a problem.  I’d like to use a number of photographs full-bleed but I get that yellow warning sign. The photos were imported from a Nikon SLR, set on Fine and for Large photos, for one book. The others were from a professional camera, also Nikon. Neither is quite high enough for BookSmart. They just fall short of being the right resolution. Is there anything else I can do? Is there a different way of transferring the photos from photo card to computer? Any insight is greatly appreciated.

Replytopic_b_normal
Posted by
spruce63
Jul 15, 2008 1:15pm PDT
Permalink
spruce63
 

I’m surprised that the Nikon cameras are not producing files of the appropriate resolution.

To help I think a bit more information is needed.

Are yopu doing any processing of the files from when you take them off the camera and before you import them into BookSmart? If so what are you doing? What software are you using?

What are the pixel sizes of the photos you download from your cameras?

......Tony

Posted by
tfrankland
Jul 15, 2008 1:28pm PDT
Permalink
tfrankland
 

Hi Tony,
The Nikon software is Picture Perfect and I thought that there were more options, but I’m having a hard time getting any useful information. I’m only taking them from the card to the computer with this program. The pixels of one photo, for example, that I’d like to use for a full-bleed is 3008×2000, 300dpi. This is probably ok for the 11×8, but wanted to do 13×11. There are a large quantity of photos from my Dad’s camera (who’s semi-professional), but even these don’t seem like they’ll work. Is there another way of importing them? Or do you think it’s more about the way they were originally shot? Thanks, Sue

Posted by
spruce63
Jul 15, 2008 2:28pm PDT
Permalink
spruce63
 

One more question…...do you have any photo editing software such as Photoshop? Or do you have a friend with it? I think we can find a way around this problem if you have.

.........Tony

Posted by
tfrankland
Jul 15, 2008 2:35pm PDT
Permalink
tfrankland
 

I do have Photoshop (CS2), am a graphic designer, so I feel very comfortable with “fiddling” within a program I know. Thanks for the prompt responses. -Sue

Posted by
spruce63
Jul 15, 2008 2:42pm PDT
Permalink
spruce63
 

The full bleed page for the 13" x 11" book ideally requires a photo of 3788×3263 so your 3008×2000 photo should print just fine. Although Blurb recommend 300dpi BookSmart is fairly forgiving and people say they have had good results at 150dpi.  So letting Blurb stretch your photo to fit would only be an increase in size of 25% so well within those bounds.

But, if you need to, you can use Photoshop to increase the pixel size of the photos via the Image…..Image Size dialogue.

Check Resample Image and choose the Bicubic Smoother option. I have doubled the size of photos for a Blurb book with those settings and still had a good print. The Bicubic Smoother is specifically aimed at increasing image size, the Bicubic is a general algorithm that copes with increase and decrease.

.......Tony

Posted by
tfrankland
Jul 15, 2008 11:52pm PDT
Permalink
tfrankland
 

Hi Tony,
Hmm. I always thought that once the image is in the program there wasn’t much you could do in terms of enlarging while retaining high quality. I’ll definitely try this. I guess I should do my vacation book and see what happens before I send in my dad’s work. Thanks for the suggestion! -Sue

Posted by
spruce63
Jul 16, 2008 10:01am PDT
Permalink
spruce63
 

Howdy all,

I am not trying to undermine nor contradict Tony here, but simply wish to tag this thread with a disclaimer: I have yet to see up-sampling done well. Adding pixels doesn’t necessarily add quality pixels. Tony may be clever enough to up-sample effectively with Photoshop, but the program is still making an educated guess as to what the invented pixels would look like had they been a part of the original image. It looks in all directions and uses an algorithm to make that educated guess.

So, as my predecessor Ben would say, "Your mileage may vary." 

Please note I’m not the ultimate authority on image editing. I’m also known to oppose basic sharpening on the potentially arguable grounds that I don’t think it can make an inadequate photo usable. So my opinion is offered here more as a disclaimer than as a contradiction of Tony’s remarks.

Cheers, all :-)
Jeremy

 

Posted by
jbates
Jul 16, 2008 5:02pm PDT
Permalink Staff
jbates
 

Good input Jeremy.

I agree that upsizing can ruin a photo. But done with care, and using the right algoritms and software, it is possible to get an acceptable result. Possibly not for a fine-art photobook, but definately OK for a family photo album.

I totally agree that sharpening will not improve an out-of-focus photograph (but see note below) or one with blur but there is still a place for sharpening. I like Bruce Fraser’s approach to sharpening and his discussions as to why you would want to, he summarises it here http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-of-gamut-thoughts-on-a-sharpening-workflow

I’d love to get into a debate with you but (lucky me) I’m off on holiday to the UK’s Northumberland coast, so won’t be back to access the forums for a few weeks. Maybe when I get back?

But to re-enforce your message if you’re not sure what you are doing with upsizing and sharpening don’t practice on a critical book with a critical delivery date. If in doubt try a print of (say) the first 20 pages to test out your approach. Also doing a print (either on your home inkjet or a photolab) is a good way to test if the upsizing has worked, if that looks fine in should be fine in your book, if that looks pixelated it will look that way in the book as well.

........Tony

There is a UK company that does some really interesting products. If you have an out-of-focus photo that retains all the EXIF data including camera and lens data their  software has details of all the main DSLRs and lenses and will build a mathematical model of the photo, matching that to the mathematical model they have of the camera/lens combination they claim to be able to fix (to an extent) that out-of-focus photo. The softeware is called FocusFixer. The company is Fixerlabs (http://www.fixerlabs.com/).

They also have a product (SizeFixer) that creates a mathemeatical model of the photo that can then be upsized then converted back to a digital photo. I have had good results with this when I’ve had to significantly crop wildlife photos where my lens was just not long enough to fil the frame. I use the SizeFixer XL

Posted by
tfrankland
Jul 17, 2008 12:09am PDT
Permalink
tfrankland
 

Fascinating stuff, Tony.

I’m sharing your message with the team, as it helps show how the conversation on photo editing has evolved.

Thanks and cheers!
Jeremy 

Posted by
jbates
Jul 17, 2008 9:53am PDT
Permalink Staff
jbates
 

As Tony said: "The full bleed page for the 13" x 11" book ideally requires a photo of 3788×3263 so your 3008×2000 photo should print just fine. Although Blurb recommend 300dpi BookSmart is fairly forgiving and people say they have had good results at 150dpi."

 If the pictures are the size you say then you should not be getting the yellow warning triangle, as that only appears if the resolution falls below (I believe) 150dpi. So you must be inadvertently resizing your images when you edit them.

Posted by
robkingston
Jul 18, 2008 4:38am PDT
Permalink
robkingston