Can PS increase the megapixels D300 image?

11/26/2009 07:05:00 PM · #1

A friend on Facebook posed this question to his photog friends there:

"So maybe you camera people out there can help me with this one. I started shooting RAW and when I open with Photoshop, some options allow me to change the resolution. 12.2mp is my cam, ps allows me to increase the raw image to 25.mp. How will this effect the quality of the image? Is it worth it to increase it that much?"

I didn't know that PS has an option to increase mp. Is this even possible? How could it be when the camera is what is capturing pixels? If it helps, he is shooting with a D300.

Can anybody answer these questions? I'll direct him to this thread to see your answers and maybe he will finally realize the value in joining DPChallenge.

Thanks

rob_smith

11/26/2009 07:06:47 PM · #2

It upscales the image, you can upscale in PS quite a bit before you start to lose quality, but you do lose quality. You never gain magic extra pixels.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

11/26/2009 07:12:21 PM · #3

Originally posted by rob_smith:

It upscales the image, you can upscale in PS quite a bit before you start to lose quality, but you do lose quality. You never gain magic extra pixels.

How is this different from "upsizing" by increasing dpi?

cyclist678

Nikon D300s

11/26/2009 07:21:27 PM · #4

I dont know about the expanding of MP's in photoshop, but i recently got the D300s and if he looked at the raw files without using photoshop he will see that they are already at about 19 to 20 MP's already.

11/26/2009 08:14:36 PM · #5

I wonder why that is, but I am still looking for the answers to the original questions too.

11/26/2009 08:54:48 PM · #6

Originally posted by cyclist678:

You are confusing MP and MB.

Your camera does not shoot in more MP in raw then it does in JPEG, those are limited by the sensor that is inside. The Raw file is much larger in MB due to the amount of information contained versus a JPEG capture.

Matt

11/26/2009 09:07:48 PM · #7

Ahhh, now that makes sense. Thanks a lot.

I forwarded this link to my friend, Oscar, and he said that he will check out this thread when he gets home. Maybe he can confirm that he mistook MB for MP.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

11/26/2009 09:11:34 PM · #8

Originally posted by yakatme:

Ahhh, now that makes sense. Thanks a lot.

I forwarded this link to my friend, Oscar, and he said that he will check out this thread when he gets home. Maybe he can confirm that he mistook MB for MP.

He needs to look at the image size in PS and compare a RAW file and a JPEG. They will be the same if he looks at Image size, but the MB of each file will be drastically different. Many people do confuse this and it's easy to do.

Matt

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/26/2009 09:42:26 PM · #9

Also, to clarify, upscaling really is magically adding pixels, through extrapolation of pixel data. That's why programs like Genuine Fractals exist in the first place- they insist their extrapolation is more accurate. I think it's pretty impossible to argue that there is no loss in quality regardless of how upscaling is done, however.

david_c

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/26/2009 10:02:19 PM · #10

He might be referring to the option in the Camera RAW editor that allows you to "upsize" to a megapixel-like scale. Voila:

JeffryZ

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

11/26/2009 10:40:03 PM · #11

I haven't tried printing anything this way, but in Scott Kelby's Photoshop book (this one is on PS2 but should be the same on other photoshop versions) his suggestion for going a lot bigger (poster sized prints) he recommends:
1) Open photo- go to Image Size
2) enter the dimensions you want. If the ratio is not what you want, size it so that you will end up trimming off a bit on one side (say you wanted 24" x 36"- an uncropped image is not in this ratio)
3) He then sets the Resolution to 360 pixels per inch- more than the recommended 300 or even 270.
4) Then he does one more thing a bit different and uses a different "resample" option. Usually when you go larger you want "Bicubic Smoother" according to Adobe. Kelby says instead to use Bicubic Sharper.

He says it works as good as if not better than other plugins like Genuine Fractals. He credits this method to a friend of his named Vincent Versace who was doing 24x 36 prints from a six megapixel camera.
Again- I have not used this for printing anything large (since I have not printed anything larger so far) but worth a try.

osocarras

11/26/2009 11:27:31 PM · #12

Thanks to everyone for their fast reply's. David_c's image is exactly what I'm talking about.
At the moment I am able to print out a 24x36 image without a problem at 4272x2848, but if I increase that to 6144x4096 do you think there will be a loss of image quality for the upsize?

Thanks again for you help,
Oscar

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/26/2009 11:36:28 PM · #13

Originally posted by david_c:

He might be referring to the option in the Camera RAW editor that allows you to "upsize" to a megapixel-like scale. Voila:

What version of PS is this? I don't think I've ever seen that screen.

Matt

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/26/2009 11:45:36 PM · #14

Originally posted by MattO:

What version of PS is this? I don't think I've ever seen that screen.

Matt

Found in the helpfile of CS4:

You can specify workflow options settings by clicking the underlined text at the bottom of the Camera Raw dialog box.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/26/2009 11:51:56 PM · #15

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by MattO:

What version of PS is this? I don't think I've ever seen that screen.

Matt

Found in the helpfile of CS4:

You can specify workflow options settings by clicking the underlined text at the bottom of the Camera Raw dialog box.

AAHH I'm still using CS3, perhaps that is why I had not seen it.

Matt

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/27/2009 12:04:12 AM · #16

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by MattO:

What version of PS is this? I don't think I've ever seen that screen.

Matt

Found in the helpfile of CS4:

You can specify workflow options settings by clicking the underlined text at the bottom of the Camera Raw dialog box.

AAHH I'm still using CS3, perhaps that is why I had not seen it.

Matt

Actually you should have that as well. What version of ACR are you running? On my system (CS3/ACR 4.2) I get those options. It's a blue link at the bottom of the ACR main window.

Message edited by author 2009-11-27 00:05:28.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/27/2009 12:08:39 AM · #17

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by MattO:

What version of PS is this? I don't think I've ever seen that screen.

Matt

Found in the helpfile of CS4:

You can specify workflow options settings by clicking the underlined text at the bottom of the Camera Raw dialog box.

AAHH I'm still using CS3, perhaps that is why I had not seen it.

Matt

Actually you should have that as well. What version of ACR are you running? On my system (CS3/ACR 4.2) I get those options. It's a blue link at the bottom of the ACR main window.

I'm running 4.6, and I've never seen that........Matt learned something today! Thanks

Matt

ETA I don't use PS for Raw conversions only LR. I tried one image and I'm not impressed it made the file go from tack sharp straight out of the camera to very soft with any sort of up sizing.

Message edited by author 2009-11-27 00:13:07.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/27/2009 12:15:28 AM · #18

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by MattO:

What version of PS is this? I don't think I've ever seen that screen.

Matt

Found in the helpfile of CS4:

You can specify workflow options settings by clicking the underlined text at the bottom of the Camera Raw dialog box.

AAHH I'm still using CS3, perhaps that is why I had not seen it.

Matt

Actually you should have that as well. What version of ACR are you running? On my system (CS3/ACR 4.2) I get those options. It's a blue link at the bottom of the ACR main window.

I'm running 4.6, and I've never seen that........Matt learned something today! Thanks

Matt

ETA I don't use PS for Raw conversions only LR. I tried one image and I'm not impressed it made the file go from tack sharp straight out of the camera to very soft with any sort of up sizing.

It would be located where the red circle is:

Yeah, I use LR for RAW conversions nowadays too but I believe those ACR options have been there for a while now.

david_c

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/27/2009 07:25:54 AM · #19

Originally posted by osocarras:

At the moment I am able to print out a 24x36 image without a problem at 4272x2848, but if I increase that to 6144x4096 do you think there will be a loss of image quality for the upsize?

Yes, Oscar, you will probably lose a little bit of detail if you upsize, since PS compensates by adding extra pixels based on what it thinks they should look like.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/27/2009 12:06:31 PM · #20

I have CS2, and was able to increase the size of the file a little in the RAW converter, but then took this image to 72"x132" in PS @300 DPI.

This is just the left 72"x44" panel of the three panels it takes for the full image....

You can see just from the picture of it that it's darn clean......and that image was shot with my 6.1 MP D70s......8>)

PGerst

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/27/2009 12:11:56 PM · #21

I could be mistaken, but I thought I recalled that upscaling with ACR was slightly more accurate than in PS, even though they are similar softwares. I thought it had to do with the fact that upscaling was performed before RAW conversion.

I read a book on ACR once, and that is what I recall. It was a library book so I can't verify. Does anyone know if that statement is true?

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/27/2009 12:37:19 PM · #22

I might try one more time to get something accepted by a stock agency. I'm not sure I did anything right with the first batch (other than submit very safe, boring photographs.) Anyway, for those of you who are using LR for conversion, how do you end up with a jpeg? (I'm not all that skilled with LR, obviously!)

osocarras

11/27/2009 12:50:14 PM · #23

Thanks for all of your help. I have noticed a slight softness to upsizing. I will keep playing with the settings a bit and get LR again. Or see what Nikon capture can do, (I have it installed but not used yet)

For LR conversion I usually export images and save as jpeg. I don't know the steps off hand at the moment. Sorry can't help much on that.

-
Oscar

rob_smith