SCIART-L Archives

SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration-


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Linda Feltner <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration- <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 2 Feb 2011 11:22:17 -0700
text/plain (3574 bytes) , text/html (8 kB)
I get 300MB to 500MB digital captures of artwork that is 20x24" (watercolor, graphite or Pen and Ink). That gives lots of pixels to enlarge with. There is a fabulous company in Tucson and those are the standard two file sizes.
I've not up-sampled many files, once they are scanned. I try to get as large a scan or capture in the beginning. I can always scale it down.

Linda M. Feltner Artist, LLC
P.O. Box 325
Hereford, AZ 85615
(520) 803-0538

On Feb 2, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Lynette Cook wrote:

> Companies like Zazzle, which do print-on-demand posters and prints, can print huge posters with just 100 ppi and still get amazing results (I'd always been told print should be 300 ppi). So I agree with Linda to find out what the process will be, as this helps determine what you can do.
> Related to this topic, I'm about to do a test for more info along these lines as well. FYI, I have previously upsampled files at around 30 MB to twice that very successfully, though I too learned in Photoshop and Scanning classes that one is not supposed to upsample pixel-based art very much. At the time I was told that if you do, to do it in increments of 10%. I did an experiment with upsampling a file by 10% about 4 times and compared it with a file I upsampled only once to achieve the same file size. The file with the single upsample, when sharpened, looked far better than the one with the steps.
> A professional who photographed my art as digital files recently, each file around 30 MB, was telling me that it's okay to take the files and upsample to over 100 MB with no obvious loss of quality. He'd been told this by an Academy of Art student. What he had on the computer of someone else's work looked fabulous. Still, it's not what I learned, and I'd been feeling that I should get 4 x 5 film to scan myself for 100+ MB files. But maybe I don't need to spend the time and money. I'm going to take one of my 4 x 5s, scan it to about 120 MB, then take the 30 MB file and upsample it to the same size, and have the same section of both files printed out by Zazzle or Fine Art America to see the comparison. I'll be happy to report my findings.
> Lynette
> --
> Ms. Lynette R. Cook, Artist/Illustrator
> [log in to unmask]
> Main Web Site:
> 371 Willits Street, Daly City, CA 94014 USA
> 650-991-7106 Tel * 415-699-6937 Cell
> On Feb 2, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Linda Feltner wrote:
>> Hi Kathryn:
>> I have often enlarged artwork for visitor centers, etc.
>> You need to have a really high resolution digital capture. It's a bit different in production than a "scan", but boils down to the same thing, creating a digital file. Unless they have a really large scanner, where the artwork does not have to be spliced.
>> What kind of end product will it be? The method of production may drive some of your decisions. I'd ask the manufacturer what their process was, and what kind of digital image needs to meet the requirements. That will help you decide, too. You may ask them for samples of such an enlargement, or do an 8x10" test panel.
>> Best,
>> Linda
>> _____________________
>> Linda M. Feltner Artist, LLC
>> P.O. Box 325
>> Hereford, AZ 85615
>> (520) 803-0538
>> w
> Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at

Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at