Re: [Gimp-user] New User Need Help Enlarging/Enhancing Image

[Matthew Woehlke via gimp-user-list]

On 2018-08-15 15:14, nickib wrote:
> Wow - the revision you created is beautiful!  Honestly I don’t understand most
> of your explanation but the end product would be perfect!  Bottom line - how
> large - realistically- could that be made and still look good?

With my version, *as is*, I wouldn't go crazy, but again, that version
doesn't have any 'art filters' applied yet.

I would recommend heading over to Image → Scale Image, punch in 300 dpi
and then your target size (in inches). Then fiddle with Oilify and/or
Gimpressionist. Applying unsharp mask first with a low radius and
moderately high intensity (I used 3.0 and 0.6) will help enhance the
contrast at edges and may provide more "definition" after the art
filter. Anyway, play around, inspect a few areas on your monitor at 100%
zoom and, if they look good, go for it.

You should probably do a test print at a much smaller size to check that
the color comes out acceptably before committing to a large size. You
could also print a cropped area from your target size to get a feel for
what it looks like.

Oilify is okay, but a little plain. I've mostly fiddled with
Gimpressionist. Some settings that seem to work well are:
- paper: low or zero relief
- brush: low or zero relief, crayon08 or play around
- orientation: 30 vars, start 0, span 360, adaptive
- size: use adaptive, play around with the rest
- placement: evenly distributed, crank density to max
- color: center, low or zero noise
- general: keep original, paint edges, not tilable, no shadow,
   no edge darken

This takes a while time to apply... try experimenting on a small area
and go get lunch or something while it works on your whole image.
Really, I'd just encourage you to play around with it and see what you
like. I was going for a more "accurate" look, but there are all sorts of
things you can do if you're willing to sacrifice detail for a more
abstract look. Keep in mind your target size also when picking a brush
size; larger (100 or more) will look more "realistic" and less like a
painting made by an army of ants (i.e. with really tiny brushes).

Honestly, with this approach, I think the real limiting factor is how
big an image your computer can handle. Crank the brush size up to 200
and you could maybe have something that looks good (at 300dpi) even at
8' (96") wide.

-- 
Matthew
___
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

Re: [Gimp-user] New User Need Help Enlarging/Enhancing Image

[Matthew Woehlke via gimp-user-list]

On 2018-08-13 15:01, nickib wrote:
>> 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".>
> Matthew - and all of you really - I am blown away by all of your knowledge and
> comprehension of this dilemma and possible solutions!  I SO WISH I could
> understand the language and techniques better!  I might as well be staring at
> the GIMP program in Japanese for as much as I am lost!  At the risk of
> sounding like a complete idiot can any of you recommend how I might go about
> figuring out these ideas or where I might go for assistance in doing so?

The more I look at the "lightroom version", the less I like it. For me,
the orange is oversaturated; I preferred the softer, more "pastel" look
of the original. Also, the dock is so dark in the original that trying
to recover any detail there doesn't look particularly good to my eye,
besides that I preferred it being just a silhouette anyway.

I also looked at how I would crop it to 2:1 and... didn't like any of
*those* results either. You either lose a lot of the interesting bits of
the sky, or the interesting detail on the sand in the lower corner, or
both. If you can keep the original aspect ratio, it might be worth doing so.

I decided to play around with it, and came up with this:
JPEG:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16LIjBfkghhJr-A-6eDQCmlqTAe1mhRVv/view?usp=sharing
XCF: https://drive.google.com/open?id=12Kp1HUB1tlQNgk2LzQSSh3vcrQg-3lYM

(I crushed the quality rather severely on the JPEG to get the file size
down. This is meant as a preview only; the XCF is lossless and includes
all of the layers that were used to achieve this composition.)

This reflects how I often process images in order to enhance local
contrast, although I usually throw in one or two mantiuk06 layers as well.

- The "equalize contrast" layer is the original, desaturated (I almost
always use luminosity mode), inverted, and then with a Gaussian blur
applied (which I forget to do this time, but the other layers hammer the
values enough that it doesn't matter in this case). Without the blur,
this will tend to wash out the value range entirely in your image,
leaving you just color. *With* the blur, it will reduce global contrast
while retaining local contrast; basically, it's a sort of "poor man's
HDR" that will bring back details in your shadows and highlights. In
this case, however, it didn't work very well, though it does keep the
light areas in the clouds from washing out quite so badly.

- STRESS (Tools → GEGL Operation) is just fun. Not only will it help
your contrast, it has an uncanny ability to remove color bias. Lower
radius and iterations give more local contrast but are also more prone
to noise and artifacts. I usually like to use one layer with the radius
and iterations as low as possible as a gentle (low opacity) overlay
(i.e. the "overlay" blending mode) to enhance contrast, and another with
the radius cranked up (the recommendation is "longest image dimension"
­— in this case, 4000 — or the max of 5000) and 15+ iterations as an
overall "improvement" layer that I usually blend in heavily or just
outright replace the original image at the bottom of the stack.

- C2G (also GEGL) is basically STRESS without the color. I've started
more recently using this as an additional overlay layer, as dropping the
color often lets me get away with using a lower radius without the
resulting artifacts being as bad. In this instance, I thought it made
the shadows on the waves *too* dark, so I added a layer mask to blend it
out toward the bottom.

- After playing with the blending on the above to get the contrast I
liked, the sky was *too* blue, so I cloned the original and applied it
with "color" blend mode to bring back some, but not all, of the pink.
Per above, I personally think *some* blue gives character to the result,
especially thinking of it as a painting and not something trying to be
perfectly realistic. However, you could play with the opacity on this
layer to bring the colors more back toward the original, or also play
with Colors → Hue-Saturation (or maybe Colors → Curves) if you like a
more saturated look.

I stopped at this point, which basically represents where I felt
satisfied with the overall color and contrast. Per my previous
suggestion, however, what I would do from here is to save this, then
start a new image from 'copy visible', scale it up to your desired
size/DPI, then play around with Oilify, Van Gogh, and/or Gimpressionist
(or really anything under Filters → Artistic). For this piece, I felt
the best results from gimpressionist were obtained setting the stroke
direction and size both to 'adaptive', setting the brush relief to 0,
and 

Re: [Gimp-user] New User Need Help Enlarging/Enhancing Image

[Matthew Woehlke via gimp-user-list]

On 2018-08-13 15:43, Ofnuts wrote:
> On 08/13/18 20:31, Matthew Woehlke via gimp-user-list wrote:
>> Also, make sure you save the result at least as a JPEG with 98% to 100%
>> quality, if not PNG.
>
> I second the idea to hide the defects with some heavy "artistic"
> filtering, but 98% quality? Totally unnecessary. On rathre expensive
> Canon DSLRs, the "fine" JPEG quality is 97%. Going above that add a lot
> to file size without adding much in actual quality. After a heavy
> filter, 90% would be enough.

Maybe I am overly paranoid because I have seen so many images with
really terrible JPEG artifacts. Still, for high resolution print, I
personally would tend toward the paranoid side; disk space is cheap
these days and we're not talking about GB's...

I seem to recall reading somewhere that around 95-98% you basically
cannot tell the difference vs. lossless.

-- 
Matthew
___
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

Re: [Gimp-user] New User Need Help Enlarging/Enhancing Image

[Ken Moffat via gimp-user-list]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 02:31:37PM -0400, Matthew Woehlke via gimp-user-list 
wrote:
> On 2018-08-13 13:09, Partha Bagchi via gimp-user-list wrote:
> > The image is 2048x1536 (3.1 MP). Best you can hope for is an 8 by 10.
> > That's inches. If you are willing to sacrifice quality further you can try
> > printing in 150dpi which would give you 14 by 10.
> 
> 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.
> 
Since I had the 2048 version and opened it again to look at some
details of the g'mic interface when answering a question elsewhere -

If Nick has the g'mic plugin, look at its options - for me, this
image benefits from Details -> Local Contrast Enhancement (default
settings) - that appears to improve resolution in the main parts of
the pier, and makes the water shinier, but maybe manipulates the
colours in ways Nic doesn't like.  I've no idea what the original
colours were, it's a sunset shot.

There are also lots of other filters in g'mic, and for this image I
think the film emulation options might be useful (particularly
slide, but maybe also colour print) - look at the 'preset' option in
each, the results differ greatly (e.g. some of the fuji presets give
bold warm colours here, others seem much colder or less-sunset).

And, of course, the sharpening filters in Details : I'm now getting
used to using the gimp's default settings for the GEGL unsharp mask
(I used to use the old unsharp mask, which is still available), but
g'mic has several more sharpening filters that I occasionally use.
Hint - for *onscreen* display, zoom to 100% and scroll around the
image - some filters look ok when the image is less than
screen-size, but zooming in to 100% may show oddities.

As always with photo manipulation, experiment and keep notes (and
backups, both for the photos and the notes!)

ĸen
-- 
   Entropy not found, thump keyboard to continue

___
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

Re: [Gimp-user] New User Need Help Enlarging/Enhancing Image

[Ofnuts]

On 08/13/18 20:31, Matthew Woehlke via gimp-user-list wrote:

On 2018-08-13 13:09, Partha Bagchi via gimp-user-list wrote:

The image is 2048x1536 (3.1 MP). Best you can hope for is an 8 by 10.
That's inches. If you are willing to sacrifice quality further you can try
printing in 150dpi which would give you 14 by 10.

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.

I second the idea to hide the defects with some heavy "artistic" 
filtering, but 98% quality? Totally unnecessary. On rathre expensive 
Canon DSLRs, the "fine" JPEG quality is 97%. Going above that add a lot 
to file size without adding much in actual quality. After a heavy 
filter, 90% would be enough.



___
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

Re: [Gimp-user] New User Need Help Enlarging/Enhancing Image

[Ken Moffat via gimp-user-list]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 06:39:15PM +0100, Ken Moffat via gimp-user-list wrote:
> 
> As to Nick's question - the "things" in the middle of the pier
> (bump-stops?) are probably the limiting factor, together with how
> close you are when you view it.

I forgot to say that I was looking at an upscaled version (but
zoomed in on a monitor which has around 100 dpi, so no real idea how
big a print would relate to what I was looking at) and therefore no
idea whether upscaling would actually be useful.

ĸen
-- 
   Entropy not found, thump keyboard to continue

___
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

Re: [Gimp-user] New User Need Help Enlarging/Enhancing Image

[Ken Moffat via gimp-user-list]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 01:00:53PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 12 August 2018 18:21:33 nickib wrote:
> 
> > >I had a friend play with both the iPhone images and the camera images
> > >using Lightroom. Would it be ok if I uploaded both the RAW (KDC)
> > >images and the ones she edited to get a better idea of what
> > >enlargement IS possible?  I’m at the point where even if I cannot use
> > >it for the 48x24 size it’s too beautiful to not do something with it!
> > >I appreciate any help!  Thanks.
> >
> > Here is one that was taken from my camera and edited in Lightroom.  I
> > have no idea how large this would be able to be printed.  Do you?  Is
> > there anywhere online I can submit several pictures to see how large
> > they can be made without losing quality?  I really want to use this
> > picture somehow!  Thanks again.
> >
> > Attachments:
> > *
> > http://www.gimpusers.com/system/attachments/991/original/Nicki_Sunset_
> >Picture_1_(Favorite).jpg
> 
> 404, you cannot use a parenthesis in the url.
> 

It works in firefox for viewing it, in wget escape both parenthesis
with \ i.e. _\(F ... e\).jpg

As to Nick's question - the "things" in the middle of the pier
(bump-stops?) are probably the limiting factor, together with how
close you are when you view it.  2048 pix wide is quite a small size
for a modern raw image (I've put some of my own online as png at that
size, fine for traditional PC monitors but not suitable for making
large prints).

If your friend can provide a larger version of this image, from
lightroom, in png format then you can probably make bigger prints.

The real questions are:

What formats/sizes does the printing company take, and what are
*your* views on image quality ?  In my own case I get really screwed
up by angular distortions (camera not pointing straight ahead) but I
tend to be fairly permissive about other things.

I say "printing company" because you clearly don't have a big
printer of your own.  The physical limit is probably specified by
what they can accept (format, colourspace, perhaps ppi, perhaps file
size).  And I have no idea what size _you_ would find acceptable,
nor how much you would have to pay - if the cost is not excessive,
maybe print a not-enormous version to see what you think of the
results.

Also see the thread "How to export jpeg without loss of quality?"
which might have some relevant suggestions.

ĸen
-- 
   Entropy not found, thump keyboard to continue

___
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

Re: [Gimp-user] New User Need Help Enlarging/Enhancing Image

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 12 August 2018 18:21:33 nickib wrote:

> >I had a friend play with both the iPhone images and the camera images
> >using Lightroom. Would it be ok if I uploaded both the RAW (KDC)
> >images and the ones she edited to get a better idea of what
> >enlargement IS possible?  I’m at the point where even if I cannot use
> >it for the 48x24 size it’s too beautiful to not do something with it!
> >I appreciate any help!  Thanks.
>
> Here is one that was taken from my camera and edited in Lightroom.  I
> have no idea how large this would be able to be printed.  Do you?  Is
> there anywhere online I can submit several pictures to see how large
> they can be made without losing quality?  I really want to use this
> picture somehow!  Thanks again.
>
> Attachments:
> *
> http://www.gimpusers.com/system/attachments/991/original/Nicki_Sunset_
>Picture_1_(Favorite).jpg

404, you cannot use a parenthesis in the url.


-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 
___
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

Re: [Gimp-user] New User Need Help Enlarging/Enhancing Image

[Partha Bagchi via gimp-user-list]

The image is 2048x1536 (3.1 MP). Best you can hope for is an 8 by 10.
That's inches. If you are willing to sacrifice quality further you can try
printing in 150dpi which would give you 14 by 10.

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:42 PM nickib  wrote:

> >I had a friend play with both the iPhone images and the camera images
> >using Lightroom. Would it be ok if I uploaded both the RAW (KDC)
> >images and the ones she edited to get a better idea of what
> >enlargement IS possible?  I’m at the point where even if I cannot use
> >it for the 48x24 size it’s too beautiful to not do something with it!
> >I appreciate any help!  Thanks.
>
> Here is one that was taken from my camera and edited in Lightroom.  I have
> no
> idea how large this would be able to be printed.  Do you?  Is there
> anywhere
> online I can submit several pictures to see how large they can be made
> without
> losing quality?  I really want to use this picture somehow!  Thanks again.
>
> Attachments:
> *
> http://www.gimpusers.com/system/attachments/991/original/Nicki_Sunset_Picture_1_(Favorite).jpg
>
> --
> nickib (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
___
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

Re: [Gimp-user] New User Need Help Enlarging/Enhancing Image

[Ofnuts]

On 08/09/18 03:17, nickib wrote:

Sorry but no, or you have a very shitty camera.

- Halos on the edges of the pillars and the bottom of the roofs of the
pagodas, likely some kind of sharpening.

- The roof slopes seem to be made of lace.

- Railings and antennas are blurry (motion blur? the pic was shot at
1/50s but the way people hold their phones this may not be fast
enough).

* Plenty of noise on the white boat to the left

Can look good on a screen, but at 48"? All the problems will jump in
your face. Making that look really good is a lot of work, maybe the
photographer made a very honest offer, or quoted in way to make you go
elsewhere.

Well, I don't think I have a shitty camera, although it is not an $800 one.
It's a Kodak Easyshare.  Before you groan, for as much as I use it, and
understand it, it was at the right pricepoint.  I also have images from that
camera that are in the RAW (extension of KDC) format that I have no way of doing
anything with.  Plus, I don't like the ones from the camera as well as the one
from the iPhone.

Thank you for your input - you clearly have a great eye for detail!

Your camera likely does better pictures, but its default settings may be 
more neutral than those of your smartphone.


Typically smartphones aim for flashy pictures, and their software will 
go to great lengths to achieve this. But this also makes further editing 
of the picture very difficult. By contrast what comes out of a camera is 
more neutral but is easier to edit.


There are utilities to process RAW files, your camera likely came with 
such an app, or you can download it from the manufacturer's website. 
There are otherwise several good free ones.




___
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

Re: [Gimp-user] New User Need Help Enlarging/Enhancing Image

[Rick Strong]

It is a great sunrise and kudos for being there and catching it.
Ofnuts has pointed out some problems and one of the main ones I see is that 
it is not sharp at any resolution. Putting it on canvas will make it even 
less sharp.


However, try a print on paper at 240 dpi for a 16 x 20 inch print. See if 
you like it. I assume at your photo shop paper prints are cheaper than 
prints on canvas.


You can scale the image yourself using GIMP. Go Image > Scale image and type 
in 240 dpi. Or type "16" in the width dialogue. Or, try 150 dpi  26x20, your 
call. Save it as a PNG file to avoid more compression artefacts.


Rick S.

P.S. Public libraries, school boards and senior's centres often have good 
beginners courses in how to use your camera. The public institutions are 
more like to have courses geared to the very beginner. Just a thought.


-Original Message- 
From: nickib

Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 11:02 PM
To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Cc: notificati...@gimpusers.com
Subject: [Gimp-user] New User Need Help Enlarging/Enhancing Image
...
If 48x24 is not an option, I at least need to know realistically the largest 
I

can go and keep the integrity of the photo.
...
nickib (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

Re: [Gimp-user] New User Need Help Enlarging/Enhancing Image

[Ofnuts]

On 08/08/18 05:02, nickib wrote:

only the picture on my iPhone is
better than what I got on my camera


Sorry but no, or you have a very shitty camera.

- Halos on the edges  of the pillars and the bottom of the roofs of the  
pagodas, likely some kind of sharpening.


- The roof slopes seem to be made of lace.

- Railings and antennas are blurry (motion blur? the pic was shot at 
1/50s but the way people hold their phones this may not be fast enough).


* Plenty of noise on the white boat to the left

Can look good on a screen, but at 48"? All the problems will jump in 
your face. Making that look really good is a lot of work, maybe the 
photographer made a very honest offer, or quoted in way to make you go 
elsewhere.



___
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