>I'm not sure I'd go even that big. The original was twice that >resolution and had a lot less JPEG artifacting. > >Actually... you might be going about this all wrong. If you really >want >to use this to produce a very large physical print, I would consider >embracing that the original image is smudgy by upsampling it (maybe to >7200x3600 if not 14400x7200 after cropping it to 2:1) and then >applying >some of gimp's artistic filters to achieve a look that is more >"painting" than "photograph". This will make some of the lack of >quality in the original irrelevant. At least give it a try digitally; >if >you don't like the result, all you've lost is some time. > >Also, make sure you save the result at least as a JPEG with 98% to >100% >quality, if not PNG.
nickib -- I HEARTILY endorse Matthew's suggestion. Make it painting printed on canvas using GIMP's extension artistic filters (and don't forget G'MIC's set of filters as well). The issues with the original image quality (or lack thereof) would be offset by the process of applying the filter depending on the filter you select. An excellent idea IMO. -- gstalnaker (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) _______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
