Advice on enlarging a photo

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 JB 22 Jan 2021

I've got a photo taken by my grandfather in 1968. In colour, very small...9cm x 6cm. Pretty high quality ( he had his own darkroom). I don't have the negative. 

I'd like to get it enlarged and framed. Not huge...maybe 6x4 inches or similar. What's the best way of doing this...is it worth it? What would the quality be like...would there be a huge drop off? It's a sharp image right now but I have no idea what would happen if I tried to blow it up. I'm not expecting it to be perfect but any advice gratefully received! 

As an aside it's a photo of Donald Crowhurst setting off on his ill fated attempt to sail round the world...

Thanks!

 Blue Straggler 22 Jan 2021
In reply to JB:

6"*4" is 15cm * 10cm, not much enlargement from 9cm * 6cm. I think you'll be fine! I scanned a similarly small old print from 1977 on a bog standard office all-in-one printer/scanner and had the scan printed at about 9" * 6" and it was fine, within the confines of my expectations. 

 LucaC 22 Jan 2021
In reply to JB:

Your best bet is scanning on a good quality flat bed scanner. Printed photos are usually at 300dpi so scanning at 1200 dpi will allow an enlargement without it looking terrible, depending on how well sharp/well printed/quality of the original print. 

 The Lemming 22 Jan 2021
In reply to JB:

If you don't have access to a scanner then you could get an app for your phone to "scan" the image.

1
 Basemetal 22 Jan 2021
In reply to JB:

Take a picture of it. You might be surprised...

 tallsteve 22 Jan 2021
In reply to JB:

Scan at the highest resolution your scanner will support.  Pop it on a thumb drive.  nipdown to boots and get it printed on a good quality photo paper.  We have done something similar for years with our digital photo.  There's nowt quite like sitting by the fire, rain beating on the roof, a photo album in hand remembering those good ol' days.  Sitting at a PC and TV displays just don't do it for me.

 LucaC 22 Jan 2021
In reply to JB:

Theres not much point of scanning at the absolute highest resolution, for a scan of a photo you'll just be creating data and a huge file size for the sake of it. If you want a good quality print, nothing beats scanning, taking a photo of a photo never actually gives REALLY good results. 

OP JB 22 Jan 2021
In reply to tallsteve:

Thanks all. I kinda of thought this would be more complicated! I have a scanner here so will give that a go and print in town when things are open again. 

Ta...

 FactorXXX 22 Jan 2021
In reply to JB:

> Thanks all. I kinda of thought this would be more complicated! 

Sounds like it might be easier to recreate the photo... 📷

 Blue Straggler 22 Jan 2021
In reply to JB:

If you have a big supermarket (and you are comfortable going in supermarkets, and doing "non essential" stuff there) local to you, you might find that they have photo printing kiosks. My local Tesco Extra has them. You just put the USB stick in, with your photo on, and select a print size and number of prints (NB AFTER selecting number of prints, it then offers you the same number again at half price, so if you want two, select one and then get another half price). It is a bit limited on the cropping adjustments so if your ratio isn't 3:2 or 7:5 you might lose a bit off the edges. Also try to make sure that your USB stick has nothing aside from .jpg files on it, otherwise the kiosks sometimes won't read the stick at all. 

OP JB 22 Jan 2021
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yeah actually we do have a Tesco here.. will see if they have the photo booths. Good idea!!

OP JB 23 Jan 2021
In reply to FactorXXX:

Impossible as alas the subject of the photo is dead, lost at sea 50 odd years ago...

 Solaris 28 Jan 2021
In reply to JB:

> As an aside it's a photo of Donald Crowhurst setting off on his ill fated attempt to sail round the world...

Wow!

 DancingOnRock 28 Jan 2021
In reply to JB:

You can get it professionally scanned at 8000dpi. Photographs from film don’t have resolution as they’re not made up of dots. 

 The New NickB 29 Jan 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Resolution in film photography is a thing, lines or line pairs per millimetre is a common measure.

To the OP: Like others, I find the Crowhurst story fascinating. Do you know the story behind the picture?

 Blue Straggler 29 Jan 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

> Resolution in film photography is a thing, lines or line pairs per millimetre is a common measure.

Effective resolution and “detail detectability” are also “things” in film but given that OP is not actually about film, they are probably quite irrelevant. 

> To the OP: Like others, I find the Crowhurst story fascinating. Do you know the story behind the picture?

”it's a photo of Donald Crowhurst setting off on his ill fated attempt to sail round the world...” seems like quite enough story to me . What more do you want? 

5
 Doug 29 Jan 2021
In reply to Blue Straggler:

There's a good documentary called 'Deep Water' about Donald Crowhurst (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9NS6Uq9-zk&feature=emb_logo if I've got the right one)

OP JB 29 Jan 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Yes my Dad used to live in Shaldon across the river from Teignmouth which is where Crowhurst started his voyage from...

 Durbs 29 Jan 2021
In reply to Basemetal:

> Take a picture of it. You might be surprised...

This! We looked at scanning a load of photos, but with a decent camera and flat, reflection-less setting, you can get really good results if you've got a decent camera. A scanner is pretty much doing the same thing but in a more controlled environment - it's just a way of digitising the photo.

Other benefit of taking a photo is you can then take it into Lightroom/Photoshop to recover contrast, de-noise etc.

In reply to Doug:

> There's a good documentary called 'Deep Water' about Donald Crowhurst (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9NS6Uq9-zk&feature=emb_logo if I've got the right one)

That documentary (by Darlow Smithson films, who also made the Touching the Void documentary I think) is superb. One of the most moving non-fiction movies I've ever seen. I remember being quite shattered at the end. I saw it in my local cinema and I remember just sitting there for several minutes after it had finished.

 The New NickB 29 Jan 2021
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Effective resolution and “detail detectability” are also “things” in film but given that OP is not actually about film, they are probably quite irrelevant. 

Its about a photograph taken from a film negative. I responding to the erroneous suggestion that resolution isn’t an issue with film photography.

> ”it's a photo of Donald Crowhurst setting off on his ill fated attempt to sail round the world...” seems like quite enough story to me . What more do you want? 

Why was he there? did he know Crowhurst? Generally anything more to the story.

 DancingOnRock 29 Jan 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

>Its about a photograph taken from a film negative. I responding to the erroneous suggestion that resolution isn’t an issue with film photography.

 

Thats not actually what I wrote though is it?

Photographs from film are not created from pixels or dot printers. The higher the resolution you scan at the bigger you can blow the resulting scan up. Up to a point. 
 

As you say the lines per millimetre may well affect the resolution of the scan and scanning at a ridiculously high density may be a waste of time. 
 

But you can get scanners that will scan at 8000 DPI. 

 The New NickB 29 Jan 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Thats not actually what I wrote though is it?

This is what you wrote:

“Photographs from film don’t have resolution as they’re not made up of dots.”

It is wrong, not particularly relevant to the OP, but wrong.

 DancingOnRock 29 Jan 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Fair enough. How does the photographic process work then? I thought the paper was coated by a photo reactive chemical and exposed to light. Is that wrong? 

 Basemetal 29 Jan 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

In reply to DancingOnRock:

The resolution of print on an analogue photographic medium would be the end result of the resolving power of the lens, the stability of the system during exposure, accuracy of focus and the grain/speed of the photo emulsion. Then the same considerations apply again for the original printing process unless you have a slide or negative.

Resolution can be thought of as the minimum separation at which two points on the image can be distinguished, or the minimum angular separation of two points that can be recorded on the medium. On digital media it's settled by pixel density or printer capability (dpi) and in analogue media it's measured with test cards. 

 The New NickB 29 Jan 2021
In reply to Basemetal:

Thanks, I just opened my computer to try and explain, but I think you have done a better job than I could have.

 DancingOnRock 29 Jan 2021
In reply to Basemetal:

Ok. So it’s not a continuum? I assumed that a photograph would just get blurry the more you magnified it whereas a digital copy would pixelate. 

 Basemetal 29 Jan 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Ok. So it’s not a continuum?

The photo emulsion is effectively a continuum - as far as the distribution of molecules of silver halide in solid solution go -but the image structure isn't perfectly reproduced in the medium because 'point' details blur (through scattering, refraction and photo-chemistry becoming wider regions of affected emulsion). When the blurring means two points appear as one to the observer, resolution is lost.

EDIT: I should add that the film is never going to be the limiting factor in the image resolution - the optics, focus and rigidity of the system producing the image will always result in lower resolution than the film is ultimately capable of recording. And the film will have recorded just that.

Post edited at 16:45
 DancingOnRock 29 Jan 2021
In reply to Basemetal:

So the point I was originally making is that the photo doesn’t have ‘resolution’ in the same way that a digital image has. They may be called the same thing and the concept may be the same. But they’re not the same property and don’t produce the same artefacts. 

1
 Basemetal 29 Jan 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

You mean pixelation? Enlarging a digital image to the point the pixels can be made out?

 The New NickB 29 Jan 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

No, you confused pixelation with resolution. 

 JimR 29 Jan 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

The Mercy is well worth watching.

 Blue Straggler 29 Jan 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

You lot should start a new thread for this willy-waving bickering, then someone who knows about visual acuity, and the relationships between contrast, resolution and noise, and detectability etc. can join in. 

lp/mm in relation to the OP's tiny old print that he wants to enlarge only slightly. Strewth. 

2
 timparkin 29 Jan 2021
In reply to JB:

I run a drum scanning service where we can drum scan to 6000dpi but I wouldn't recommend it for a print. The maximum I'd try with a print is 2000dpi but we can put it on our Fuji Lanovia flatbed and scan at 2000-3000dpi to give you decent enough result to blow up to what you want and maybe bigger. 

I'll also do it as part of a free trial for you so if you want to send to http://drumscanning.co.uk up in the Highlands, we can send you the scan of it back via wetransfer. Just use special delivery, we've never had a letter go missing using this service. We'll let you know the cost for return and send you a Paypal invoice. 

It would be interesting if you post the final scan here too!

Tim Parkin

p.s. If you're interested in the resolution of film here's a fascinating PDF

https://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/film.pdf

Elsehwere I've found colour photographic paper limiting resolution is approx 65 line pairs per mm which is about 3000dpi but you'll have so many losses in enlarging etc that 2000 would probably be the limit and most photographs would achieve substantially less than this

Post edited at 23:18
 timparkin 29 Jan 2021
In reply to Basemetal:

> EDIT: I should add that the film is never going to be the limiting factor in the image resolution - the optics, focus and rigidity of the system producing the image will always result in lower resolution than the film is ultimately capable of recording. And the film will have recorded just that.

Not quite true... Zeiss tested a 25mm lens at 400 line pairs per mm (aerial testing) and most photographic films limit resolution is about 140 line pairs per mm. You can get some photographic film, much like microfilm, that can resolve nearly 300 line pairs per mm so even that doesn't quite record all that a really good lens can output. However in most cases, the user, lens, aperture etc are the limiting factor. 

Just as a really geeky aside, when photographic film is exposed, a certain amount of photos are needed to get a grain of film to flip from unexposed to exposed and there isn't any in between state. Hence film is actually binary - i.e. digital

Digital cameras use transistors to detect the accumulation of photos, measuring an analogue voltage which then gets converted to digital. So digital cameras are essentially analog. 

Tim 

 The New NickB 29 Jan 2021
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> You lot should start a new thread for this willy-waving bickering, then someone who knows about visual acuity, and the relationships between contrast, resolution and noise, and detectability etc. can join in. 

It's not willy-waving. It's a simple misunderstanding of a concept, corrected, but done politely. Grow up!

 The New NickB 30 Jan 2021
In reply to JimR:

> The Mercy is well worth watching.

I haven't seen this, I really should try and find it somewhere!

 Basemetal 30 Jan 2021
In reply to timparkin:

> Not quite true... 

Fascinating! Thanks for the update and the pdf you linked

 Blue Straggler 30 Jan 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

> It's not willy-waving. It's a simple misunderstanding of a concept, corrected, but done politely. Grow up!

Do you do irony? Or politeness? Or growing up? Or industrial NDT to defined imaging standards using IQIs, CNR, and SNR thresholds? 

You are coming across as a bit tragic, pretentious and embarrassing. 

Post edited at 01:43
2
 Blue Straggler 30 Jan 2021
In reply to JB:

Ignoring all the embarrassing infantile “popcorn” bickering amongst typical UKC forum pompous mansplainers below....have you sorted your little enlargement as per the first few suggestions in the thread before it got derailed by all the people who think they are clever but actually aren’t that clever? 😃 Token smiley face there so I can quote it against anyone upset by this post . And another for good measure 😃

2
 The New NickB 30 Jan 2021
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Do you do irony? Or politeness? Or growing up? Or industrial NDT to defined imaging standards using IQIs, CNR, and SNR thresholds? 

> You are coming across as a bit tragic, pretentious and embarrassing. 

You weren't the target of my self awareness thread, but it seems that you should have been. It's a shame, because you have the capacity to be generous and kind spirited; but more regularly choose to be a dick instead.

Apologies to the OP, I've managed to partially detail your thread through trying to correct a simple missunderstanding about pixelation and resolution. It seems some people even want to call in to question my interest in the subject matter of your photograph.

 DancingOnRock 30 Jan 2021
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I’m used to it now. There are a few posters who will pick apart every word I write in an effort to somehow prove me wrong. No idea why. I’m getting better at ignoring it. 
 

It would help if people tried to understand what is being written rather than jumping over individual words in a sentence but don’t see that changing any time soon. 
 

Two lines written on a forum? Amazing. And that’s why I don’t post in The Pub and Off Belay anymore. But they seem to follow me wherever I go.

 The New NickB 30 Jan 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I’m used to it now. There are a few posters who will pick apart every word I write in an effort to somehow prove me wrong. No idea why. I’m getting better at ignoring it. 

I'm not sure about that. One thing that I know for sure, is that I don't. No poster gets a free pass, which you seem to be expecting. We all get pulled up on things, not always fairly, but that is the nature of forums.

Post edited at 11:39
 DancingOnRock 31 Jan 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Well I’m glad that UKC is in the capable hands of the self appointed guardians of the truth. Thanks. 
 

I guess if less people feel comfortable posting in Off Belay and The Pub that’s less work for you guys. 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...