My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about half
an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print larger?
Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
pictures.

TIA



--
You know it's time to clean the refrigerator
when something closes the door from the inside.

On 1/28/2016 10:47 AM, KenK wrote:
My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about half
an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print larger?
Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
pictures.

TIA

If you try to make a photo larger, it will usually pixelate/distort
which looks bad. You might be able to increase the saturation, or save
as a .bmp which has more picture detail, and then increase the size a
little bit, but it depends on the original format of the photo.

Old school methods are to make a copy negative of the original photo
using a larger format than the original, then you can print the original
as a larger photo without obvious distortions.

--
Maggie

On 01/28/2016 10:47 AM, KenK wrote:
My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about half
an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print larger?
Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
pictures.

TIA






I have just spent three full months scanning my negatives because at the
age of 66 I have finally been recognized as a photographer and now have
a fine arts dealer to represent me.

In short, all you have to do is resize the photo to 8 x 11


Note: Although any photo software can do that, unless you use a good
program such as Photoshop *which can re-sample the image* you will lose
information when the size is increased and you will have a poor print.


A good simple and easy to use program is iRfanview.

Even though it's free, it's very good and I sent the guy a contribution


Here are instructions

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/foru...ing-irfanview/


Here is where you can get IRfanview


http://www.irfanview.com/



Note: Before you begin, have the person email you a decent sized jpeg if
they have not already done so.


If it's a 75k file for example, there will just plain not be enough info
to work with...you'd want a file size to begin with of at least 1 meg or so

KenK wrote:
My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about half
an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print larger?
Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
pictures.

TIA



You have to use photo shop kind software to do what you want.
It can be done. There are many usable freeware photo editing
software. Usually new digital camera when you bought includes such
stuffs. Final result is also depends on max resolution of your printer.
I use Canon photo printer for pictures. Every thing else is by color
laser multi-function printer.

On 1/28/2016 11:08 AM, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2016 10:47 AM, KenK wrote:
My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about
half
an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print
larger?
Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
pictures.

TIA






I have just spent three full months scanning my negatives because at the
age of 66 I have finally been recognized as a photographer and now have
a fine arts dealer to represent me.

In short, all you have to do is resize the photo to 8 x 11


Note: Although any photo software can do that, unless you use a good
program such as Photoshop *which can re-sample the image* you will lose
information when the size is increased and you will have a poor print.


A good simple and easy to use program is iRfanview.

Even though it's free, it's very good and I sent the guy a contribution


Here are instructions

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/foru...ing-irfanview/



Here is where you can get IRfanview


http://www.irfanview.com/



Note: Before you begin, have the person email you a decent sized jpeg if
they have not already done so.


If it's a 75k file for example, there will just plain not be enough info
to work with...you'd want a file size to begin with of at least 1 meg or so

Making a small image larger will rarely produce a quality image. OTOH,
resizing will work if you have a large image and want to make it smaller.

If you only have a smaller version of an image to print, print that
image, take a photo of it making sure the dimension settings are larger,
and the copy "negative" of the smaller image will usually print larger
photos and maintain the image quality.

--
Maggie

On 28 Jan 2016 16:47:27 GMT, KenK wrote:

My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about half
an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print larger?
Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
pictures.

TIA


Another reply suggested the freeware Irfanview -
http://www.irfanview.com/
I've been happily using it for many years.
With it's plug-ins it can be used for video clip viewing
as well as photo viewing & editing.
Quick & easy to download & install.
Powerful yet easy to use.
John T


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

| My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
| bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about
half
| an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print larger?
| Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
| pictures.

You mean that she emailed a JPG file and
you want to print it on paper? Download
the free IrfanView. Open the image in it.
Go to File - Print. It will provide various
options.

http://www.irfanview.com/main_start_engl.htm

IrfanView is a beautifully made program that';s
very compact. It's like the poor man's Photoshop,
capable of numerous functions like resize, brighten,
contrast, etc.

If you want to resize the digital image
you should convert to BMP file first. IrfanView
can also do that. JPG format is "lossy". Every
time you save it, the image is compressed by
dropping out data. Even if you don't specifically
compress it further, merely saving as JPG will
lose data. To avoid that, work in BMP and only
save as JPG if you need to email the photo or
use it online.

Note that there are limits to what you can do
with an image. And a lot of it depends on the
quality and size of the image as you received it.
Printing is typically 300 dots per inch. If you have
an image 600w x 300h on your computer screen
it's probably less than 100 dpi, so it may display
6-8" wide. But if you print that image it will come
out 2" x 1". (600 x 300 \ 300dpi) If you wanted to
print it, say, 6" x 3" you could do that with
IrfanView, but the quality would be very poor.

If you have an image in the range of 2400 x
3300 pixels you can probably print that 8x11",
but even then it will depend on the quality of
the image. Have you noticed that some photos
have tiny rectangles or squares visible in the
image? Those are known as artifacts. It's the
result of excessive compression of the image.
Once that kind of damage is done there's no way
to recapture the image data that was lost.

On 01/28/2016 11:38 AM, Muggles wrote:
X

http://www.irfanview.com/



Note: Before you begin, have the person email you a decent sized jpeg if
they have not already done so.


If it's a 75k file for example, there will just plain not be enough info
to work with...you'd want a file size to begin with of at least 1 meg or so

Making a small image larger will rarely produce a quality image. OTOH,
resizing will work if you have a large image and want to make it smaller.



Photoshop and IRFanview are very good at interpolation. I have gotten
great quality prints by simply re-sampling. There is of course a limit.
That's why I told the OP that if the file size he's working with is 75k
for example...then forget it.

With a 1 meg jpg, there is probably enough information there to re-sample


If you only have a smaller version of an image to print, print that
image, take a photo of it making sure the dimension settings are larger,
and the copy "negative" of the smaller image will usually print larger
photos and maintain the image quality.

That would work but assumes the OP has the equipment and know-how to do so.

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:08:55 -0600, philo wrote:

Here is where you can get IRfanview


http://www.irfanview.com/

Love it. You can make panoramic views, too.

Adding text, etc., grab Paint Net to use in conjunction with
IRFanview.

http://www.getpaint.net/index.html

Sample: (my cast iron)

http://oi33.tinypic.com/rmnwo5.jpg

On 1/28/2016 11:47 AM, KenK wrote:
My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about half
an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print larger?
Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
pictures.

TIA




You can copy and paste the image into something like MS Word or Open
Office and easily enlarge it by clicking it on and dragging the corner
to fit the page. You might want to rotate it to print in landscape mode.

On 01/28/2016 11:50 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
| bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about
half
| an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print larger?
| Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
| pictures.

You mean that she emailed a JPG file and
you want to print it on paper? Download
the free IrfanView. Open the image in it.
Go to File - Print. It will provide various
options.

http://www.irfanview.com/main_start_engl.htm

IrfanView is a beautifully made program that';s
very compact. It's like the poor man's Photoshop,
capable of numerous functions like resize, brighten,
contrast, etc.

If you want to resize the digital image
you should convert to BMP file first. IrfanView
can also do that. JPG format is "lossy". Every
time you save it, the image is compressed by
dropping out data. Even if you don't specifically
compress it further, merely saving as JPG will
lose data. To avoid that, work in BMP and only
save as JPG if you need to email the photo or
use it online.

Note that there are limits to what you can do
with an image. And a lot of it depends on the
quality and size of the image as you received it.
Printing is typically 300 dots per inch. If you have
an image 600w x 300h on your computer screen
it's probably less than 100 dpi, so it may display
6-8" wide. But if you print that image it will come
out 2" x 1". (600 x 300 \ 300dpi) If you wanted to
print it, say, 6" x 3" you could do that with
IrfanView, but the quality would be very poor.

If you have an image in the range of 2400 x
3300 pixels you can probably print that 8x11",
but even then it will depend on the quality of
the image. Have you noticed that some photos
have tiny rectangles or squares visible in the
image? Those are known as artifacts. It's the
result of excessive compression of the image.
Once that kind of damage is done there's no way
to recapture the image data that was lost.






All great advice.

Though there are lossless jpg editors it is a good idea to convert to an
uncompressed format prior to editing. Though there is nothing wrong with
BMP, today's standard is TIFF.

Quoting Edward Ingold:
TIFF files contain tags with additional information, like color space,
resolution and print size, and can have 16-bit/channel depth (BMP's are
limited to 8 bit).

On 1/28/2016 12:17 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2016 11:38 AM, Muggles wrote:
X

http://www.irfanview.com/



Note: Before you begin, have the person email you a decent sized jpeg if
they have not already done so.


If it's a 75k file for example, there will just plain not be enough info
to work with...you'd want a file size to begin with of at least 1 meg
or so

Making a small image larger will rarely produce a quality image. OTOH,
resizing will work if you have a large image and want to make it smaller.



Photoshop and IRFanview are very good at interpolation. I have gotten
great quality prints by simply re-sampling. There is of course a limit.
That's why I told the OP that if the file size he's working with is 75k
for example...then forget it.

With a 1 meg jpg, there is probably enough information there to re-sample

He did say the image was about 4"x 5". It depends on the compression the
image he was sent was saved to - it could be made a little larger.

It depends on how large he wants the final print to be and how much blur
and distortion he's willing to overlook even with a 1mb file.


If you only have a smaller version of an image to print, print that
image, take a photo of it making sure the dimension settings are larger,
and the copy "negative" of the smaller image will usually print larger
photos and maintain the image quality.

That would work but assumes the OP has the equipment and know-how to do so.

He said he's not familiar with working with Photoshop, so he could play
with irfanview and learn the tool steps, or ask someone who knows how to
do it to help out, or see if the person who sent it has an original
that's larger. Often times uploaded pics are sized down before upload
because of server limitations on uploads. The photo owner probably has
an original that's already larger.

--
Maggie

On 1/28/2016 12:27 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2016 11:50 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
| bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about
half
| an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print
larger?
| Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
| pictures.

You mean that she emailed a JPG file and
you want to print it on paper? Download
the free IrfanView. Open the image in it.
Go to File - Print. It will provide various
options.

http://www.irfanview.com/main_start_engl.htm

IrfanView is a beautifully made program that';s
very compact. It's like the poor man's Photoshop,
capable of numerous functions like resize, brighten,
contrast, etc.

If you want to resize the digital image
you should convert to BMP file first. IrfanView
can also do that. JPG format is "lossy". Every
time you save it, the image is compressed by
dropping out data. Even if you don't specifically
compress it further, merely saving as JPG will
lose data. To avoid that, work in BMP and only
save as JPG if you need to email the photo or
use it online.

Note that there are limits to what you can do
with an image. And a lot of it depends on the
quality and size of the image as you received it.
Printing is typically 300 dots per inch. If you have
an image 600w x 300h on your computer screen
it's probably less than 100 dpi, so it may display
6-8" wide. But if you print that image it will come
out 2" x 1". (600 x 300 \ 300dpi) If you wanted to
print it, say, 6" x 3" you could do that with
IrfanView, but the quality would be very poor.

If you have an image in the range of 2400 x
3300 pixels you can probably print that 8x11",
but even then it will depend on the quality of
the image. Have you noticed that some photos
have tiny rectangles or squares visible in the
image? Those are known as artifacts. It's the
result of excessive compression of the image.
Once that kind of damage is done there's no way
to recapture the image data that was lost.






All great advice.

Though there are lossless jpg editors it is a good idea to convert to an
uncompressed format prior to editing. Though there is nothing wrong with
BMP, today's standard is TIFF.

Quoting Edward Ingold:
TIFF files contain tags with additional information, like color space,
resolution and print size, and can have 16-bit/channel depth (BMP's are
limited to 8 bit).

Another + for tiff files is you can preserve layers is you're working
with a composite.

--
Maggie

On 1/28/2016 12:18 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:08:55 -0600, philo wrote:

Here is where you can get IRfanview


http://www.irfanview.com/

Love it. You can make panoramic views, too.

Adding text, etc., grab Paint Net to use in conjunction with
IRFanview.

http://www.getpaint.net/index.html

Sample: (my cast iron)

http://oi33.tinypic.com/rmnwo5.jpg


Nice cast iron finish!

--
Maggie

On 01/28/2016 12:31 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 1/28/2016 12:17 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2016 11:38 AM, Muggles wrote:
X

http://www.irfanview.com/



Note: Before you begin, have the person email you a decent sized jpeg if
they have not already done so.


If it's a 75k file for example, there will just plain not be enough info
to work with...you'd want a file size to begin with of at least 1 meg
or so

Making a small image larger will rarely produce a quality image. OTOH,
resizing will work if you have a large image and want to make it smaller.



Photoshop and IRFanview are very good at interpolation. I have gotten
great quality prints by simply re-sampling. There is of course a limit.
That's why I told the OP that if the file size he's working with is 75k
for example...then forget it.

With a 1 meg jpg, there is probably enough information there to re-sample

He did say the image was about 4"x 5". It depends on the compression the
image he was sent was saved to - it could be made a little larger.

It depends on how large he wants the final print to be and how much blur
and distortion he's willing to overlook even with a 1mb file.


If you only have a smaller version of an image to print, print that
image, take a photo of it making sure the dimension settings are larger,
and the copy "negative" of the smaller image will usually print larger
photos and maintain the image quality.

That would work but assumes the OP has the equipment and know-how to do so.

He said he's not familiar with working with Photoshop, so he could play
with irfanview and learn the tool steps, or ask someone who knows how to
do it to help out, or see if the person who sent it has an original
that's larger. Often times uploaded pics are sized down before upload
because of server limitations on uploads. The photo owner probably has
an original that's already larger.



I just tried an experiment with one of the first digital images I ever
took back in 2000 when I had a 1 MP camera

Off the camera the image was 300k 5 x 7" @ 192 dpi

I used Photoshop to re-sample to 8 x 11" @ 300 dpi

It looked very good and I could notice no pixillation, it would have
made a pretty decent print

On 1/28/2016 11:50 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
| bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about
half
| an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print larger?
| Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
| pictures.

You mean that she emailed a JPG file and
you want to print it on paper? Download
the free IrfanView. Open the image in it.
Go to File - Print. It will provide various
options.

http://www.irfanview.com/main_start_engl.htm

IrfanView is a beautifully made program that';s
very compact. It's like the poor man's Photoshop,
capable of numerous functions like resize, brighten,
contrast, etc.

If you want to resize the digital image
you should convert to BMP file first. IrfanView
can also do that. JPG format is "lossy". Every
time you save it, the image is compressed by
dropping out data. Even if you don't specifically
compress it further, merely saving as JPG will
lose data. To avoid that, work in BMP and only
save as JPG if you need to email the photo or
use it online.

Note that there are limits to what you can do
with an image. And a lot of it depends on the
quality and size of the image as you received it.
Printing is typically 300 dots per inch. If you have
an image 600w x 300h on your computer screen
it's probably less than 100 dpi, so it may display
6-8" wide. But if you print that image it will come
out 2" x 1". (600 x 300 \ 300dpi) If you wanted to
print it, say, 6" x 3" you could do that with
IrfanView, but the quality would be very poor.

If you have an image in the range of 2400 x
3300 pixels you can probably print that 8x11",
but even then it will depend on the quality of
the image. Have you noticed that some photos
have tiny rectangles or squares visible in the
image? Those are known as artifacts. It's the
result of excessive compression of the image.
Once that kind of damage is done there's no way
to recapture the image data that was lost.



It is possible to repair or restore pixels in an image by blowing it up
and cloning individual pixels that resemble the area and coloration. It
doesn't recapture the original image data, but it works to make an image
more usable.

--
Maggie

Muggles wrote:
On 1/28/2016 11:50 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
| bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about
half
| an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print larger?
| Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
| pictures.

You mean that she emailed a JPG file and
you want to print it on paper? Download
the free IrfanView. Open the image in it.
Go to File - Print. It will provide various
options.

http://www.irfanview.com/main_start_engl.htm

IrfanView is a beautifully made program that';s
very compact. It's like the poor man's Photoshop,
capable of numerous functions like resize, brighten,
contrast, etc.

If you want to resize the digital image
you should convert to BMP file first. IrfanView
can also do that. JPG format is "lossy". Every
time you save it, the image is compressed by
dropping out data. Even if you don't specifically
compress it further, merely saving as JPG will
lose data. To avoid that, work in BMP and only
save as JPG if you need to email the photo or
use it online.

Note that there are limits to what you can do
with an image. And a lot of it depends on the
quality and size of the image as you received it.
Printing is typically 300 dots per inch. If you have
an image 600w x 300h on your computer screen
it's probably less than 100 dpi, so it may display
6-8" wide. But if you print that image it will come
out 2" x 1". (600 x 300 \ 300dpi) If you wanted to
print it, say, 6" x 3" you could do that with
IrfanView, but the quality would be very poor.

If you have an image in the range of 2400 x
3300 pixels you can probably print that 8x11",
but even then it will depend on the quality of
the image. Have you noticed that some photos
have tiny rectangles or squares visible in the
image? Those are known as artifacts. It's the
result of excessive compression of the image.
Once that kind of damage is done there's no way
to recapture the image data that was lost.



It is possible to repair or restore pixels in an image by blowing it up
and cloning individual pixels that resemble the area and coloration. It
doesn't recapture the original image data, but it works to make an image
more usable.

By now OP is totally confused.

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:08:55 -0600, philo wrote in


Note: Although any photo software can do that, unless you use a good
program such as Photoshop *which can re-sample the image* you will lose
information when the size is increased and you will have a poor print.


A good simple and easy to use program is iRfanview.

Even though it's free, it's very good and I sent the guy a contribution

+1 on that.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 1/28/2016 12:42 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2016 12:31 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 1/28/2016 12:17 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2016 11:38 AM, Muggles wrote:
X

http://www.irfanview.com/



Note: Before you begin, have the person email you a decent sized
jpeg if
they have not already done so.


If it's a 75k file for example, there will just plain not be enough
info
to work with...you'd want a file size to begin with of at least 1 meg
or so

Making a small image larger will rarely produce a quality image. OTOH,
resizing will work if you have a large image and want to make it
smaller.



Photoshop and IRFanview are very good at interpolation. I have gotten
great quality prints by simply re-sampling. There is of course a limit.
That's why I told the OP that if the file size he's working with is 75k
for example...then forget it.

With a 1 meg jpg, there is probably enough information there to
re-sample

He did say the image was about 4"x 5". It depends on the compression the
image he was sent was saved to - it could be made a little larger.

It depends on how large he wants the final print to be and how much blur
and distortion he's willing to overlook even with a 1mb file.


If you only have a smaller version of an image to print, print that
image, take a photo of it making sure the dimension settings are
larger,
and the copy "negative" of the smaller image will usually print larger
photos and maintain the image quality.

That would work but assumes the OP has the equipment and know-how to
do so.

He said he's not familiar with working with Photoshop, so he could play
with irfanview and learn the tool steps, or ask someone who knows how to
do it to help out, or see if the person who sent it has an original
that's larger. Often times uploaded pics are sized down before upload
because of server limitations on uploads. The photo owner probably has
an original that's already larger.



I just tried an experiment with one of the first digital images I ever
took back in 2000 when I had a 1 MP camera

Off the camera the image was 300k 5 x 7" @ 192 dpi

I used Photoshop to re-sample to 8 x 11" @ 300 dpi

It looked very good and I could notice no pixillation, it would have
made a pretty decent print

I could get similar results with many of my photos, but they were larger
files, so had to hunt for a smaller one that was compressed
down to 30kb (5"x6")and tried to resample to 8 x 11" and it was pretty
bad out of focus and pixelated.
--
Maggie

On 01/28/2016 12:52 PM, Muggles wrote:
X
snip


I just tried an experiment with one of the first digital images I ever
took back in 2000 when I had a 1 MP camera

Off the camera the image was 300k 5 x 7" @ 192 dpi

I used Photoshop to re-sample to 8 x 11" @ 300 dpi

It looked very good and I could notice no pixillation, it would have
made a pretty decent print

I could get similar results with many of my photos, but they were larger
files, so had to hunt for a smaller one that was compressed
down to 30kb (5"x6")and tried to resample to 8 x 11" and it was pretty
bad out of focus and pixelated.




yep , that's why I said not to even bother with anything under 75k


The 300k jpg off my 1 mp camera is probably near the lower limit of
usability

On 1/28/2016 12:46 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/28/2016 11:50 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
| bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about
half
| an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print
larger?
| Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
| pictures.

You mean that she emailed a JPG file and
you want to print it on paper? Download
the free IrfanView. Open the image in it.
Go to File - Print. It will provide various
options.

http://www.irfanview.com/main_start_engl.htm

IrfanView is a beautifully made program that';s
very compact. It's like the poor man's Photoshop,
capable of numerous functions like resize, brighten,
contrast, etc.

If you want to resize the digital image
you should convert to BMP file first. IrfanView
can also do that. JPG format is "lossy". Every
time you save it, the image is compressed by
dropping out data. Even if you don't specifically
compress it further, merely saving as JPG will
lose data. To avoid that, work in BMP and only
save as JPG if you need to email the photo or
use it online.

Note that there are limits to what you can do
with an image. And a lot of it depends on the
quality and size of the image as you received it.
Printing is typically 300 dots per inch. If you have
an image 600w x 300h on your computer screen
it's probably less than 100 dpi, so it may display
6-8" wide. But if you print that image it will come
out 2" x 1". (600 x 300 \ 300dpi) If you wanted to
print it, say, 6" x 3" you could do that with
IrfanView, but the quality would be very poor.

If you have an image in the range of 2400 x
3300 pixels you can probably print that 8x11",
but even then it will depend on the quality of
the image. Have you noticed that some photos
have tiny rectangles or squares visible in the
image? Those are known as artifacts. It's the
result of excessive compression of the image.
Once that kind of damage is done there's no way
to recapture the image data that was lost.



It is possible to repair or restore pixels in an image by blowing it up
and cloning individual pixels that resemble the area and coloration. It
doesn't recapture the original image data, but it works to make an image
more usable.

By now OP is totally confused.

yeah, or downloading irfanview and trying to make the image larger via
the instructions link someone posted.

If I were him I'd ask the image own if they had a larger file of the
image he could print out.

--
Maggie

On 1/28/2016 12:56 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2016 12:52 PM, Muggles wrote:
X
snip


I just tried an experiment with one of the first digital images I ever
took back in 2000 when I had a 1 MP camera

Off the camera the image was 300k 5 x 7" @ 192 dpi

I used Photoshop to re-sample to 8 x 11" @ 300 dpi

It looked very good and I could notice no pixillation, it would have
made a pretty decent print

I could get similar results with many of my photos, but they were larger
files, so had to hunt for a smaller one that was compressed
down to 30kb (5"x6")and tried to resample to 8 x 11" and it was pretty
bad out of focus and pixelated.




yep , that's why I said not to even bother with anything under 75k


The 300k jpg off my 1 mp camera is probably near the lower limit of
usability

I agree.

--
Maggie

"KenK" wrote in message ...
My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about half
an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print larger?
Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
pictures.

TIA

Email or take it to the local copy shop. Around here, it's less than $1 for 8.5x11 on good paper. $3-5 for 11x17. Well worth the cost to me.

On 1/28/2016 12:17 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2016 11:38 AM, Muggles wrote:
X

http://www.irfanview.com/



Note: Before you begin, have the person email you a decent sized jpeg if
they have not already done so.


If it's a 75k file for example, there will just plain not be enough info
to work with...you'd want a file size to begin with of at least 1 meg
or so

Making a small image larger will rarely produce a quality image. OTOH,
resizing will work if you have a large image and want to make it smaller.



Photoshop and IRFanview are very good at interpolation. I have gotten
great quality prints by simply re-sampling. There is of course a limit.
That's why I told the OP that if the file size he's working with is 75k
for example...then forget it.

With a 1 meg jpg, there is probably enough information there to re-sample

You are correct I believe. You can make a photo larger, but you cannot
make a bad photo any good. I often prefer to work, initially with Raw
images.

On 01/28/2016 04:26 PM, SeaNymph wrote:
On 1/28/2016 12:17 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2016 11:38 AM, Muggles wrote:
X

http://www.irfanview.com/



Note: Before you begin, have the person email you a decent sized
jpeg if
they have not already done so.


If it's a 75k file for example, there will just plain not be enough
info
to work with...you'd want a file size to begin with of at least 1 meg
or so

Making a small image larger will rarely produce a quality image. OTOH,
resizing will work if you have a large image and want to make it
smaller.



Photoshop and IRFanview are very good at interpolation. I have gotten
great quality prints by simply re-sampling. There is of course a limit.
That's why I told the OP that if the file size he's working with is 75k
for example...then forget it.

With a 1 meg jpg, there is probably enough information there to re-sample

You are correct I believe. You can make a photo larger, but you cannot
make a bad photo any good. I often prefer to work, initially with Raw
images.



As far as making a bad photo good, it's just a matter of showing it to
the right person. I've seen some horrible junk that other people
loved...so who knows?

I only used RAW for a short period of time...I'm mostly into B&W and
that was just not necessary.

On 1/28/2016 4:35 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2016 04:26 PM, SeaNymph wrote:
On 1/28/2016 12:17 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2016 11:38 AM, Muggles wrote:
X

http://www.irfanview.com/



Note: Before you begin, have the person email you a decent sized
jpeg if
they have not already done so.


If it's a 75k file for example, there will just plain not be enough
info
to work with...you'd want a file size to begin with of at least 1 meg
or so

Making a small image larger will rarely produce a quality image. OTOH,
resizing will work if you have a large image and want to make it
smaller.



Photoshop and IRFanview are very good at interpolation. I have gotten
great quality prints by simply re-sampling. There is of course a limit.
That's why I told the OP that if the file size he's working with is 75k
for example...then forget it.

With a 1 meg jpg, there is probably enough information there to
re-sample

You are correct I believe. You can make a photo larger, but you cannot
make a bad photo any good. I often prefer to work, initially with Raw
images.



As far as making a bad photo good, it's just a matter of showing it to
the right person. I've seen some horrible junk that other people
loved...so who knows?

I only used RAW for a short period of time...I'm mostly into B&W and
that was just not necessary.



I love black and white. To me, it forces a bit of creativity, since
there's no color to distract the eye. When I lived in Bermuda I learned
how to develop my own film. I would love to do that again.

On 01/28/2016 05:19 PM, SeaNymph wrote:


snip



I love black and white. To me, it forces a bit of creativity, since
there's no color to distract the eye. When I lived in Bermuda I learned
how to develop my own film. I would love to do that again.



I love B&W but after a while darkroom work, to me just became tedious.


I first started with digital in 2000 and by 2005 fully made the
transition. Since my darkroom had not been used once in ten years I gave
everything away last year.


Now that I have a fine arts dealer representing me, I've learned that
his clients will be wanting silver-gelatin prints.


Since I was not particularly good in the darkroom anyway I do not regret
getting rid of my stuff. I now have sent some stuff off to two different
labs and I'll see which one does the best job

On 1/28/2016 5:24 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2016 05:19 PM, SeaNymph wrote:


snip



I love black and white. To me, it forces a bit of creativity, since
there's no color to distract the eye. When I lived in Bermuda I learned
how to develop my own film. I would love to do that again.



I love B&W but after a while darkroom work, to me just became tedious.


I first started with digital in 2000 and by 2005 fully made the
transition. Since my darkroom had not been used once in ten years I gave
everything away last year.


Now that I have a fine arts dealer representing me, I've learned that
his clients will be wanting silver-gelatin prints.


Since I was not particularly good in the darkroom anyway I do not regret
getting rid of my stuff. I now have sent some stuff off to two different
labs and I'll see which one does the best job

I learned B&W darkroom developing and printing back in the mid to late
'80's. When digital came along I found my niche and love to manipulate
images, or otherwise edit them. Composites are my ultimate favorite.

--
Maggie

On 01/28/2016 05:37 PM, Muggles wrote:


snip

Since I was not particularly good in the darkroom anyway I do not regret
getting rid of my stuff. I now have sent some stuff off to two different
labs and I'll see which one does the best job

I learned B&W darkroom developing and printing back in the mid to late
'80's. When digital came along I found my niche and love to manipulate
images, or otherwise edit them. Composites are my ultimate favorite.




Even though I'm a computer geek who spends a lot of time building and
repairing computers I am not terribly Photoshop proficient.

I shoot everything in color but a huge portion of it I convert to B&W
and do little more than adjust the brightness and contrast. I do a lot
of low light shooting and many of my digital images have the look of Tri-X.

That said I do some color as well and always have my wife do the final
editing as she has essentially perfect color vision.

We took a color-vision test and her acuity was deemed exceptional while
mine was just average. I think in general women are better with colors
then men.

My wardrobe consists mainly of black t-shirts.

On 1/28/2016 5:47 PM, philo wrote:
On 01/28/2016 05:37 PM, Muggles wrote:


snip

Since I was not particularly good in the darkroom anyway I do not regret
getting rid of my stuff. I now have sent some stuff off to two different
labs and I'll see which one does the best job

I learned B&W darkroom developing and printing back in the mid to late
'80's. When digital came along I found my niche and love to manipulate
images, or otherwise edit them. Composites are my ultimate favorite.




Even though I'm a computer geek who spends a lot of time building and
repairing computers I am not terribly Photoshop proficient.

I shoot everything in color but a huge portion of it I convert to B&W
and do little more than adjust the brightness and contrast. I do a lot
of low light shooting and many of my digital images have the look of
Tri-X.

That said I do some color as well and always have my wife do the final
editing as she has essentially perfect color vision.

We took a color-vision test and her acuity was deemed exceptional while
mine was just average. I think in general women are better with colors
then men.

My wardrobe consists mainly of black t-shirts.



I do enjoy working with B&W but with a twist by editing for selective
color. That's kind of fun.

--
Maggie

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:35:16 -0600, philo wrote:


As far as making a bad photo good, it's just a matter of showing it to
the right person. I've seen some horrible junk that other people
loved...so who knows?

I only used RAW for a short period of time...I'm mostly into B&W and
that was just not necessary.

I'm not sure what you mean by RAW, but if I do any image manipulation,
th first thing I do is save it in a no-loss format. JPG is lossy, so
save it as a BMP. (PCX also works). Do ALL your editing and keep saving
as BMP or PCX. When you are done, print from the BMP or PCX. But if you
want a screen image like for a website, then convert it back to JPG.
Otherwise you have a very large file.

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:47:06 -0500, wrote:

Another reply suggested the freeware Irfanview -
http://www.irfanview.com/
I've been happily using it for many years.


Paint Shop Pro is not bad either. The early versions from around 1995
were free. I still use that old version because it's easy to use, but I
also have a newer (paid) version installed. Both will coexist on the
same computer. That older free one is still around on the web. Try
oldversion.com or something like that.

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 02:47:03 -0600, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:35:16 -0600, philo wrote:


As far as making a bad photo good, it's just a matter of showing it to
the right person. I've seen some horrible junk that other people
loved...so who knows?

I only used RAW for a short period of time...I'm mostly into B&W and
that was just not necessary.

I'm not sure what you mean by RAW, but if I do any image manipulation,
th first thing I do is save it in a no-loss format. JPG is lossy, so
save it as a BMP. (PCX also works). Do ALL your editing and keep saving
as BMP or PCX. When you are done, print from the BMP or PCX. But if you
want a screen image like for a website, then convert it back to JPG.
Otherwise you have a very large file.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

| I'm not sure what you mean by RAW,

RAW is the best way to take photos. For
posting to Facebook, a JPG taken with a phone
is fine, but for people who are serious about
cameras, a camera that offers RAW format is
the sensible option. RAW is actually not just
one format. It depends on the camera. But in
general it's a format that contains a lot of the
exposure data. It's the data from the camera's
sensor. There are also editors specifically
for RAW editing. Once the image has been worked
on it can then be reduced to a 24-bit bitmap for
digital processing or printing. But a bitmap is
a reduction.

Example: When I was first trying out RAW options
I took a photo of a cyclamen in a dimly lit room. The
image was so dark it was mostly gray tones. As
a RAW image I was able to brighten it to bring out
the pink flowers, like turning on lights in the photo.
If that image had been saved as JPG then brightening
would have only lightened the gray pixels, because
a JPG is just a compressed bitmap. There's no extra
data to get out of it. The image points are already
set as 24-bit-color-value pixels, so there just isn't any
pink/red in that dark photo.

Storing it as BMP (or TIF, which is usually just
a compressed BMP) is good once optimizing has
been done in RAW, but if you don't start with RAW
it's like starting with no camera settings options.

On 1/29/2016 8:53 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean by RAW,

RAW is the best way to take photos. For
posting to Facebook, a JPG taken with a phone
is fine, but for people who are serious about
cameras, a camera that offers RAW format is
the sensible option. RAW is actually not just
one format. It depends on the camera. But in
general it's a format that contains a lot of the
exposure data. It's the data from the camera's
sensor. There are also editors specifically
for RAW editing. Once the image has been worked
on it can then be reduced to a 24-bit bitmap for
digital processing or printing. But a bitmap is
a reduction.

Example: When I was first trying out RAW options
I took a photo of a cyclamen in a dimly lit room. The
image was so dark it was mostly gray tones. As
a RAW image I was able to brighten it to bring out
the pink flowers, like turning on lights in the photo.
If that image had been saved as JPG then brightening
would have only lightened the gray pixels, because
a JPG is just a compressed bitmap. There's no extra
data to get out of it. The image points are already
set as 24-bit-color-value pixels, so there just isn't any
pink/red in that dark photo.

Storing it as BMP (or TIF, which is usually just
a compressed BMP) is good once optimizing has
been done in RAW, but if you don't start with RAW
it's like starting with no camera settings options.


Well said, thanks. While I use RAW, and like it, I'm not sure I
could've explained it that well.

After serious thinking philo wrote :
On 01/28/2016 10:47 AM, KenK wrote:
My sister emailed me (Gmail) ancient family photo. I'd like to make it
bigger - my printout clicking on the DLed photo yields a picture about half
an 8 x 11 printer page. Anyone know a simple way to make the print larger?
Hints? Suggestions? I'm unfamiliar with working with (photoshopping)
pictures.

TIA






I have just spent three full months scanning my negatives because at the age
of 66 I have finally been recognized as a photographer and now have a fine
arts dealer to represent me.

In short, all you have to do is resize the photo to 8 x 11


Note: Although any photo software can do that, unless you use a good program
such as Photoshop *which can re-sample the image* you will lose information
when the size is increased and you will have a poor print.


A good simple and easy to use program is iRfanview.

Even though it's free, it's very good and I sent the guy a contribution


Here are instructions

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/foru...ing-irfanview/


Here is where you can get IRfanview


http://www.irfanview.com/



Note: Before you begin, have the person email you a decent sized jpeg if they
have not already done so.


If it's a 75k file for example, there will just plain not be enough info to
work with...you'd want a file size to begin with of at least 1 meg or so

Thanks for the link to irfanview Philo.
I'm using it and like it very much.

| Well said, thanks. While I use RAW, and like it, I'm not sure I
| could've explained it that well.
|

Thanks. It's intriguing technology to me. My
ladyfriend is an experienced photographer who
used to develop and print her own B/W. Now she's
transitioning to digital. I'm not as handy with a
camera, but I have experience on the software
end and have an eye for graphics and color. So
we work together, to some extent. It's been
interesting for me to see the power and options
provided by RAW.

On 01/29/2016 04:09 PM, Eagle wrote:
Af
Here are instructions

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/foru...ing-irfanview/



Here is where you can get IRfanview


http://www.irfanview.com/



Note: Before you begin, have the person email you a decent sized jpeg
if they have not already done so.


If it's a 75k file for example, there will just plain not be enough
info to work with...you'd want a file size to begin with of at least 1
meg or so

Thanks for the link to irfanview Philo.
I'm using it and like it very much.


You are welcome...it's freeware so good that I sent Irfan a contribution


also as far as freeware goes I am sure just about everyone knows about
VLC for videos. I had a corrupted AVI the other day and after trying
all kinds of software to fix it...it was pointed out to me how VLC can
be used to repair a video by allowing it to re-index, then convert and
save. I decided to give them a contribution too.

On 1/29/2016 4:37 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| Well said, thanks. While I use RAW, and like it, I'm not sure I
| could've explained it that well.
|

Thanks. It's intriguing technology to me. My
ladyfriend is an experienced photographer who
used to develop and print her own B/W. Now she's
transitioning to digital. I'm not as handy with a
camera, but I have experience on the software
end and have an eye for graphics and color. So
we work together, to some extent. It's been
interesting for me to see the power and options
provided by RAW.


I'm no professional, I just enjoy photography. I printed my own B&W
when I lived in Bermuda and I really enjoyed that.

For me, the thing to do is show every day things in a different way. I
don't alter the photos, but I do employ some creative cropping. I think
people like the photos or don't, because sometimes you can't really tell
what you're looking at. I've sold a few, but mostly its a hobby for me.
Luckily, I have a lot of interesting equipment to make it even more
interesting.

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:26:40 -0600, philo wrote:

VLC for videos. I had a corrupted AVI the other day and after trying
all kinds of software to fix it...it was pointed out to me how VLC can
be used to repair a video by allowing it to re-index, then convert and
save. I decided to give them a contribution too.

A poster here pointed me to VLC (credit). Converted Youtube videos to
audio files. Burn to CD music for the car system.