Couldn't find this topic. I have photos transferred to computer from my camera. They show as 72DPI and 640 X 480 pixels. That's just a little over 8 inches by 6 inches (according to properties). They look just fine.

I want the image to be 8 X 6 inches, but if I change the DPI to 200 (as recommended by CF), that of course shrinks the size of the image (to 3X2). I have to change the pixels to 1600 X 1200 to get it back to 8X6. The result is a photo that looks a little out of focus or fuzzy (on my computer anyway).

I'm using cubic interpolation with GIMP.

So, should I leave it at 72DPI and shrink it down slightly to 8 X 6 and maybe it'll print OK (not for clothing, but on posters/prints)?

Several images would appear together on a poster, so I can play with sizes.

Thank you!

They are too small. You won't be able to use them as photographs. To put them on the products at a decent size you need a bigger image. Enlarging them to that bigger size will cause loss of quality. There are three possibilities (1) apply effects to make them look like paintings or art work - that will often mask the bad side effects. (2) use them in montages or multiples (3) obtain advanced software that is intended for enlargements - effectiveness various with the photo.

Read the information here on image size
http://www.tutortanith.com

Helpful as usual Diane; thank you! I even bookmarked your page, so I should have looked there first.

I do have special software called Alien Skin Blow Up 2, but the trial ended and not sure if I want to buy it. I'd have to buy the Adobe PS also.

Thanks again!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Boeinguy,

What I would do is search out tutorials on doing enlargements with the software you have so you can get the best out of it, then print the results at the dpi you intend to use for the poster. That will be the closest guide you have.

Clothing has a lot more play than prints because the fabric surface is rough. I think the expectations for posters is not as high as for prints, but it isn't my area so I'm not sure.

640x480 photos (0.3mp or 300,000 pixels) just do not have enough information to enlarge in any computerized fashion in order to get a nice photo of sufficient size to use as a print.

The only way to use that small a photo is to print it at the 'best' resolution of 600dpi for a photo of a bit over 1in in size. THEN take a 'real' macro photo of that print - and you will still need to do some fancy editing to make a 'photo quality' print. The painterly or soft image is a pretty good idea. Otherwise you really need a 2mp or 3mp image to have enough pixels/photo information for enlarging software to work well.

Thanks for the ideas. I figured since the original image appears as over 8" X 6" to begin with, I'd be able to work with it, but I guess I'll let them go and do something else.

Thanks everyone!

640 x 480 @ 72dpi is the old standard for PC screen resolutions back in the darl ages. As Barry said, it's just not enough info for a clean image. Cheating by resampling can give interesting results, but barely what you want.

Even an inexpensive digital camera will give you much better resolution, so I've got to wonder why you're dealing with such lo-res images.

I don't know why I'm dealing with low res images. I have a video camera that takes photos also, and this is what's on the chip. I have it set for fine photos, which is the highest setting.

I'm also dealing with 35mm negatives and original photos scanned in, so I'm trying to work with different material. I wish I knew 30 years ago I'd be able to use my photographs here.

Anyway, I went ahead and used these images, combining six onto a small poster. I then cut a life size 4 X 6 section and printed it on my printer to see how it make look, and seems fine to me. Here it is: low res image poster And this poster is from 35mm negatives: 35mm negative poster No ones going to buy this stuff anyway, so I'm not worried about returns.